Influence of Language Final

1
Chapter I
THE PROBLEM AND ITS SCOPE
Introduction
Language, a system of conventional spoken, manual, or written symbols by means
of which human beings, as members of a social group and participants in its culture,
express themselves. The functions of language include communication, the expression of
identity, play imaginative expression, and emotional release.
The influence of the language of instruction on students’ academic performance
in the role of language in Mathematics education has occupied the minds of most
Mathematics educators in recent years. Studies have shown that there is a significant
relationship between language used and Mathematics learning. Many problems that
learners of Mathematics encounter are partly due to inability to cope with the demands of
the language of instruction, which is partly due to the overall language policy in
education. The language policy in education has been an issue for a long time, not only in
the Philippines but also in many developing countries. The concern has been with the
dilemma between use of mother tongue and colonial language and little choice among
local languages. One unique feature of the Philippine educational system is the use of
foreign tongue as a medium of instruction. Bilingualism is one’s ability to speak
separately two languages or the constant oral use of two languages. In Philippine
education, bilingual education is defined operationally as the separate use of Filipino and
English. Comparing bilingual to English-only programs, many advantages have been
found for the former. Student achievement was higher in math and reading, and because
2
of their exposure to two languages, they also have better understanding to the role of
language in communication. Skaalvic and Rankin(1995) found out that both math and
verbal self-perception were strongly related to corresponding achievement. According to
Lin (1993) student’s achievement is an important indicator of teaching and learning
effectiveness. Findings revealed that the common learning style of these students was
auditory and the prevalent teacher’s teaching style as perceived by the students was
tactile. Many schools used the second language as a medium of instruction in a classroom
with emphasis on strengthening the community in maintaining the close link of it and the
individual.
Bilingualism should support the maintenance, development and full flowering of
the ethnic language. In the country, English language is used in teaching Mathematics,
which is quite a problem to some classroom teachers. Complaints are heard among
classroom Mathematics teachers that students could hardly understand simple pure
English as a medium of instruction in Mathematics lessons. This may be one of the
reasons for the poor performances of students in Mathematics, for they do not fully
understand the lesson with English as a medium of instruction. Thus, they need languages
that are not new to them, language that they frequently use and they specialize with.
Cebuano or locally known as Bisaya is the mother tongue of the people in Buug. When
we say mother tongue, this refers to the language that a person has grown up speaking
with from early childhood. According to Nordquist, R. (2017),mother tongue is a
traditional term for a person's native language—that is, a language learned from birth.
Also called a“first language”, dominant language, home language, and native
tongue (although these terms are not necessarily synonymous).

3
This study, The Influence of Language of Instruction on the Mathematics
Performance of the Grade VIII Quezon Students in Mindanao State University-Buug
Laboratory High School will determine if language does affect the Mathematics
performance of the students so it could provide awareness not just to the students and
community but the teachers as well of the significant effect of language as a medium of
instruction. In line with these objectives, the researchers conducted two math classes one
with the use of English only and the other one is a class using mother tongue and English
as mediums of instruction, to see if there is a difference between the two classes and its
corresponding effect in the students’ Mathematics performance.
Theoretical Background
This study is guided with the following theories and concepts. The Mc Gill
University psychologists Lambert and Peal (1962) have suggested that where there is a
good literacy development in both languages (mother tongue and English), bilinguals on
average score higher than monolinguals in verbal and non-verbal tests of intelligence.
Levine (1990) believed that some students with weak language skills get into
difficulty especially with word problems. They have trouble in understanding just what is
being asked and might be the cause of having low performance.
Kavale (2001) stated that for some students, a Math disability is driven by
problems with language. These students may also experience difficulty in reading,
writing and speaking. In Math, however their language problem is confounded by the
inherently difficult terminology, some of which they hear nowhere outside of the Math
4
classroom. These students have difficulty understanding written or verbal directions or
explanations.
Toukomaa and Skutnabb-kangas (1997) “The ‘Threshold’ Theory” suggested that
the development of two or more languages in a balanced bilingual person moves upward
through three identifiable levels, crossing two distinct thresholds in between levels.
According to this theory, positive cognitive advantages are only to be achieved when the
first and second thresholds have been crossed.
Cummins (1980) “Common Underlying Proficiency Theory”, stated that the two
languages used by an individual, though on the surface apparently separate, functions
through the same central cognitive system. “When a person owns two or more languages,
there is one integrated source of thought.”
In other presentation of Cummins (2000),“Conceptual knowledge developed in
one language helps to make input in other language comprehensible.” If a child already
understands the concept of “justice” or “honesty” in her own language, all she has to do
is acquire the label for these terms in English. He has a far more difficult task, however,
if she has to acquire both the label and the concept in her second language. However,
when students’ abilities in both languages are relatively well developed, but not
necessarily equal then there is evidence that bilingual education can enhance intellectual
functioning.
5
Conceptual Framework
As shown in the figure, the study employed quasi-experimental inquiry in
assessing the influence of language of instruction to the Mathematics performance of the
Grade VIII-Quezon students of Mindanao State University-Buug Laboratory High
School.
The researchers have conducted two distinct classes, one of which used English
only as a medium of instruction, and the other one used bilingualism (mother tongue and
English). Both classes were given same questionnaire to find out whether there was
difference on the two groups’of Mathematics performance.
Conceptual Paradigm
Language of Instruction
Bilingualism were English

Pre-Test
used as mediums language only is
of instruction used as a
(mother tongue Post-Test medium of
and English) instruction
Math Performance
High
Low
The figure above represents the influence of language of instruction to the
Mathematics performance of the Grade VIII-Quezon students of Mindanao State
University-Buug Laboratory High School.

6
Statement of the Problem
The main purpose of this study is to determine the influence of language of
instruction to the Mathematics performance of the Grade VIII Quezon students of
Mindanao State University-Buug Laboratory High School.
Specifically, this study endeavored to answer the following questions:
1. What is the level of Mathematics performance in the pre-test result of the:
1.1.students under the class using bilingualism (mother tongue and English) as a
language of instruction?
1.2.students under the class using English only as a language of instruction?
2. What is the level of Mathematics performance in the post test result of the:
2.1.students under the class using bilingualism (mother tongue and English) as
language of instruction?
2.2.students under the class using English only as languages of instruction?
3. Is there a significant increase in the Mathematics performance of the students
under the class usingbilingualism (mother tongue and English) as alanguage of
instruction in their pre-test and posttest results?
4. Is there a significant increase in the Mathematics performance of the students
under the classusing English only as a language of instruction based on their pre-
test and posttest results?
5. Is there a significant difference in the Mathematics performance of the students
under the class using bilingualism (mother tongue and English) as a language of
instruction and the class using English only as language of instruction?

7
Hypotheses
Ho1: There is no significant increase in Mathematics performance of students under
the class using bilingualism (mother tongue and English) as a language of
instruction based on their pre-test and posttest results.
Ho2: There is no significant increase in the Mathematics performance of the students
under the class using English only as a language of instruction based on their
pre-test and post test results.
Ho3: There is no significant difference in the Mathematics performance of the
studentsunder the class using bilingualism (mother tongue and English) as a
language of instruction and the class using English onlyas a languages of
instruction.
Significance of the Study
This study aimed to determine the influence of language of instruction to the
Mathematics performance of the Grade VIII Quezon students of Mindanao State
University-Buug Laboratory High School.
It will be a great help not only to the researchers but also to the following:
To the school administrators, this study will let them adopt some measures that
will correct the weakness of the school’s curriculumthat will help improve the student’s
performance.
To the teachers, the outcome of this study would serve as basis for them to utilize
their teaching strategies and techniques to improve their teaching approach and improve
8
students’ Mathematics performance. Also, this let the teachers make teaching learning
process more effective.
To the future teachers, this will help them obtain information relating to their
preparation in teaching their students. It will also help them identify and understand the
needs of the learners.
To the students, the result of this study will pave the way for the lesson to be
easier to understand.
To the future researchers, this study will serve as one of their references or
sources for their related studies.
Scope and Limitation
The participants of this study werelimited only to the Grade VIII Quezon students
of Mindanao State University-Buug Laboratory High School.
This study focused on the influence of language of instruction to the Mathematics
performance of the Grade VIII Quezon students of Mindanao State University-Buug
Laboratory High School.
Operational Definition of Terms
To have an easy understanding of the terms used in this study, the following
words are hereby defined operationally:
Bilingualism refers to one’s ability to speak separately two languages or the
constant oral use of two languages.

9
Bilingual Educationis defined operationally as a separate use of Filipino and
English.
Language of instruction refers to the language used as a medium of instruction in
teaching Mathematics.
Performancerefers to the degree or capacity of the students’ knowledge which is
assessed by a test.
High Performancerefers to the mean scores or simply scores of 15 and above.
LowPerformancerefers to the mean scores or simply scores of 14 and below.
Chapter II
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES

10
This chapter presents the review of related literature and studies which give
similar bearing to the present investigation that are relevant to the present study in order
to shed light to the current investigation, and deals with the works of researchers who had
already taken studies about bilingual education.
Related Literature
In the 1987 Philippine Constitution, Article XIV, Section 6 to 7 recognizes
Filipino as the national language of the Philippines. Section 7 states that “For official
communication and instruction, Filipino shall be used”. As such Filipino is recognized to
be an effective language in teaching and it is being used as a medium of instruction and
in studying various academic disciplines at different levels of education. Its objectives are
to facilitate learning among students, improve the literacy level of the people and develop
scientific and nationalist consciousness. So, these clearly indicate that although the
government of the Philippines are no longer officially adapting in bilingual policy in
education, it has not completely abandoned the use of the English language. Therefore
unofficially we are still bilingual.
The 1987 Policy on Bilingual Education (DECS Order No. 52, 5.1987) states that
the policy on bilingual education aims to make every Filipino use English to the national
level. The bilingual policy is presumably in line with what DECS considers, “The
aspiration of the Filipino nation, to have its citizen possess skills in Filipino and in
English to meet the needs of the country in the community of all nations”. Also,
according to the Department Order No. 9, S. 1973, the aim of the bilingual policy is to
produce bilingual Filipinos who can communicate both English and Filipino, this means
11
that a Filipino must learn how to speak with either language as medium of instruction.
But, as we observed, not all students are that exposed to Filipino and even find it hard to
understand some Filipino terms that may also hinder in understanding their lessons even
if it is already translated in Filipino that is why bilingual education has become a huge
controversy in the public school systems.
According to Baker (2000) the bilingual education programs have been geared to
ensure students a good education in their natives’ languages, so that they do not fall
behind academically. However, this has become controversial because some critics feel
that the bilingual education program is not effective, while others feel it is an effective
program. The advantages of bilingual education programs are to provide limited English
students with both the knowledge and literacy to help the students’ transition into English
languages in order to help them keep up academically and work on their English
proficiency. Students heed to fully understand the concepts taught in their native
language in order to stay on task. Bilingualism also helps a students’ self-esteem and the
ability not to hinder their feelings about his/her culture.
According to Thomas and Collier (2002), compared to other bilingual programs,
dual language models are the only programs which result in maintaining high levels of
achievement in all subjects among students after five to six years of schooling. In an
effective bilingual program students become bilingual, or communicatively competent, in
the L2 as well as the L1, and bilaterate, or able to read, write and learn in both languages.
Since these skills take some time to develop, what is noticeable in the early years is the
ease at which children learn beginning literacy and content through the mother tongue;
this is a common observation among teachers.

12
Consequently, based on these readings, bilingual education helps a lot, not only
for the individual but also for the society. It provides broader cognitive ability and the
learners can benefit intellectually and linguistically. Students learn more effectively if
they learn English through the use of their native language, which provides contextual
basis for learning and allows them to keep that pace with their peer group while acquiring
the language they needed to learn in order to interact effectively in today’s society.
In today’s world, “bilingualism is more the norm than the exception,” (Lessow-
Hurley, 2000). Governments around the world are now developing bilingual/multilingual
educational policies, not only as a response to their nations’ innate linguistic
heterogeneity, but also as a means of coping with a world whose borders are increasingly
disappearing. The Philippines is no different from the rest of the world: the average
Filipino speaks two or more languages.
Related Studies
The study of Balasabas, Eugenio E, et. al (2016) entitled “Bilingual Education: Its
Relationship to the Mathematical Performance of the Grade VII students of Del Monte
National High School” showed that there was a highly significant relationship on the use
of bilingual education to the mathematical performance of the Grade VII students of Del
Monte National High School, S.Y 2015-2016.
The study of Bagolboc, Junessa D. (2013) entitled “The Effect of the English
Performance to the Mathematics Performance of the Second Year High School students
of Gaulan National High School year 2012-2013” showed that there was no significant
13
effect in the English performance to the Mathematics performance of the second year
high school students.
The study of Malagum, Jessie M, et. al (2014) entitled “Bilingual Instruction: Its
Relationship to the Academic Performance of the Second Year students of MSU-Buug
Laboratory High School” showed that there was a significant relationship on the use of
bilingual instruction to the academic performance of the second year students of MSU-
Buug Laboratory High School S.Y 2014-2015.
The result of the study conducted by Benito (2006) entitled “Bilingualism: Its
Effect on the Mathematics Performance of the Second Year students of Kumalarang
National High School”, showed that the use of bilingual had a significant relationship to
the academic performance of the second year students. It further revealed that there is an
improvement of the scores of the students taught with bilingual teaching Mathematics.
Chapter III
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
14
This chapter shows the methods and procedures that were used by the researchers.
It also discusses the research design, locale of the study, participants of the study,
research instrument, data gathering procedures and statistical tools used in this study.
Research Design
In this study, the researchers used the Quasi-Experimental Method; Pre-test-
PostTest Design. This Quasi-Experimental Method; Pre-test-PostTest Design, the
dependent variable is measured once before the treatment is implemented and once after
it is implemented.
The study was designed to gather information to determine if there is an influence
of language of instruction to the Mathematics performance of the Grade VIII Quezon
students of Mindanao State University-Buug Laboratory High School.
Locale of the Study
This study was conducted in Mindanao State University-Buug Laboratory High
School, DatuPanas, Buug, ZamboangaSibugay. It is one of the prestigious schools in the
entire Sibugay that offers a high quality of education.
Sampling Procedure
The researchers used the purposive sampling technique (also known as judgment,
selective or subjective sampling). Specially, the researchers used the heterogeneous or
maximum variation sampling, wherein, the researchers relied on their own judgment in
choosing the participants.

15
The Participants of the Study
The participants of this study werethe Grade VIII Quezon students of Mindanao
State University- Buug Laboratory High School who are officially enrolled for the S.Y.
2018-2019. It is composed of 36 students. The researchers choose the Grade VIII-Quezon
as the participants for the reason that this is the first section and is expected to be
competitive. The class isdivided into two groups, one of which was exposed to a class
which uses English only as a medium of instruction, and the other one was exposed to a
class which uses the mother tongue and English as a medium of instruction. Each group
consists of 18 members which were equally paired based on their Mathematics grade in
the previous grading period.
Table 1.The Frequency Distribution of the Research Participants.
Group Number of Students Percent (%)
Class that used bilingualism(mother

tongue and English) as a language 18 50%
of instruction
Class that used English only as a

18 50%
language of instruction
Total 36 100%
Table 1 shows the frequency distribution of the research participants. There were
18 participants in the class which used bilingualism (mother tongue and English) as a
language of instruction which is 50% of the sample and also, 18 participants which
constituted the other 50% of the sample who participated with the class which used
English only as a language of instruction, which gives a total of 100%.
Research Instrument
16
The instruments used in this study were the following:
 lesson plan, which served as the blue print of the class conducted;
 instructional materials for a more effective instruction;
 script, to ensure that bilingualism (mother tongue and English) are fairly
used and to ensure that a class using English only as a language of
instruction is achieved; and
 pre-test and posttest questionnaires, to determine the influence of
language as a language of instruction to the Mathematics performance of
the students.
Data Gathering Procedure
In gathering the data, the researchers gave a letter asking permission from the
principal of Mindanao State University-Buug Laboratory High School for the conduct of
the study. Upon the positive response of the principal, another letter was given to the
adviser and the subject teacher to inform them about the study to be conducted.
Afterwards, the students who were the subject of the study were informed and were asked
for their participation and since all of them were underage, they were given aletter for
parent’s consent which wassigned by the parents allowing their children to participate the
said study. Then, the researchers asked for the grades of the students which were used as
basis in dividing the students equally and fairly. A pilot testing was done in the Grade
VIII-Roxasto ensure the reliability and validity of the test given. The researchers made
use of the spilt-half method then performed the item analysis.

17
Finally, one of the researchers conducted two separate classes, one of which used
English only as a language of instruction and the other one is a class which used
bilingualism (mother tongue and English) as language of instruction. Then the data
gathering, tabulation and analysis followed.
Statistical Tools Used
After the data were collected and tabulated, the researchers usedt-test to determine
the significant increase in the Mathematics performance of the students under the class
using English only as a language of instruction and the class using bilingualism (mother
tongue and English) as language of instruction. The following are the statistical tools that
were used in the study.
To determine the mean of the pre-test and posttest results of the students, the
formula below were used:
a. Mean
∑𝑛𝑖=1 𝑓𝑖 𝑑𝑖
𝑥̅ = 𝐴𝑀 + [ ]𝐼
𝑛
where:
𝑥̅ =mean
I = interval
𝑛 = number of cases
18
𝐴𝑀 = assumed mean
∑𝑛𝑖=1 𝑓𝑖 𝑑𝑖 = summation of the product of frequency and deviation
b. Standard deviation
2
∑𝑛𝑖=1 𝑓𝑖 𝑑 2 𝑖 ∑𝑛𝑖=1 𝑓𝑖 𝑑𝑖
𝑠 = 𝐼√ −( )
𝑛 𝑛
where:
𝑠 = standard deviation
𝐼 = interval
∑𝑛𝑖=1 𝑓𝑖 𝑑2 𝑖 = summation on the product of frequency and deviation

squared
∑𝑛𝑖=1 𝑓𝑖 𝑑𝑖 = summation on the product of frequency and deviation
To determine the significant increase in the Mathematicsperformance of the
students under the class using bilingualism (mother tongue and English) as language of
instruction and the class using English only as a language of instruction, the t-test was
used with the formula below.
𝑑̅ − 𝑑𝑜
𝑡= 𝑠
√𝑛
where:
19
𝑑̅ = mean difference
𝑑𝑜 = mean difference/assumed zero
𝑠 = standard deviation
To determine the significant difference in the Mathematics performance of the
students under the class using English only as language of instruction and the class using
bilingualism (mother tongue and English) as languages of instruction, t-test was used
with the formula below,
𝑥
̅̅̅2 − ̅̅̅
𝑥1
𝑡=
𝑠 2 𝑠1 2
√ 𝑛2 +
2 𝑛1
where:
𝑥1 = mean of theposttest result of the students under the class using

̅̅̅
bilingualism (mother tongue and English) as a language of instruction
̅̅̅2 = mean of the posttest results of the students under the class using
𝑥
English only as a languageof instruction
𝑠1 = standard deviation result of the students under the class using

bilingualism (mother tongue and English) as a language of instruction
𝑠2 = standard deviation result of the students under the class using

English only as a languageof instruction
𝑛1 = total number of students under the class using bilingualism (mother

tongue and English) as alanguage of instruction
𝑛2 = total number of students under the class usingEnglish only as a

language of instruction
20
Chapter IV
21
PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA
This chapter presents the analysis and interpretation of the data gathered. There
were only thirty-six (36) students in the Grade VIII- Quezon of Mindanao State
University-Laboratory High School who were chosen as the participants of this study.
Table 2. Frequency Distribution of the Mathematics Performance of the Students under

the Class with Bilingualism (Mother Tongue and English) as a Language of
Instruction based on the Pre-test Result.
Score Range Number of Students Performance

16-20 3 High Performance
6-10 1 Low Performance
Below 6 0
Mean:13.55 High performance
Table 2 shows the frequency distribution of the Mathematics performance of the
students under the class using bilingualism (mother tongue and English) as a language of
instruction based on the pre- test result. Out of the 18 students, three students got the
score from 16 to 20, 14 students got the score from 11 to 15; one student got the score
from six to ten while none got a score below six. Data revealed that the students’ mean
under the class using bilingualism (mother tongue and English) as a language of
instruction was 13.55 which show a high performance.

the Class with English only as a Language of Instruction based on the Pre-test
22
Result.

Below 6 0
Mean:13.83 Low Performance
students under the class using English only as a language of instruction based on the pre-
test result. Out of the 18 students, five students got the score from 16 to 20, 11 students
got the score from 11 to 15; two students got the score from six to ten while none got a
score below six. Data revealed that the students’ mean under the class using English only
as a language of instruction was 13.83 which show a high performance.

the Class with Bilingualism (Mother Tongue and English) as a Language of
Instruction based on the Post Test Result.

Below 6 0
instruction based on the post test result. Out of the 18 students, ten students got the score
from 16 to 20, eight students got the score from 11 to 15;and none got a score below ten.
Data revealed that the students’ mean under the class using bilingualism (mother tongue
and English) as a language of instruction was 15.8 which show a high performance.
23

the Class with English only as a Language of Instruction based on the Post Test
Result.

Below 6 0
students under the class using English only as a language of instruction based on the post
test result. Out of the 18 students, ten students got the score from 16 to 20, seven students
got the score from 11 to 15; one student got the score from six to ten while none got a
score below six. Data revealed that the students’ mean under the class using English only
as a language of instruction was 15.5which show a high performance.
Table 6. Significant Increase in the Mathematics Performance of the Students under the
Class using Bilingualism (Mother Tongue and English) as a Language of
Instruction based on the Pre-test and Post Test Results.
n 𝑑̅ S df t critical t computed Result

0.05 0.01 highly
18 3.33 2.83 17 4.97 significant
1.740 2.567 increase
Table 6 presents the significant increase in the Mathematics performance of the
instruction based on the pre-test and post test results. The mean difference was three and
thirty-three hundredths with a standard deviation of two and eighty-three hundredths. The
data revealed that the computed t value for the significant increase for the Mathematics
performance of the students under the class using bilingualism (mother tongue and
24
English) as a language of instruction based on the pre-test and post test results were four
and ninety-seven hundredths which was greater than the t critical values of one and seven
hundred forty thousandths and two and five hundred sixty-seven thousandths at five
percent and one percent levels of significance respectively with 17 degrees of freedom.
This gives a sufficient statistical evidence to reject the null hypothesis and accept the
alternative hypothesis. Therefore, there is a highly significant increase in the
Mathematics performance of the students under the class using bilingualism (mother
tongue and English) as a language of instruction based on the pre-test and post test
results. This supports the study of Balasabas, Eugenio E, et. al (2016) entitled “Bilingual
Education: Its Relationship to the Mathematical Performance of the Grade VII students of
Del Monte National High School”,Malagum, Jessie M, et. al (2014) entitled “Bilingual
Instruction: Its Relationship to the Academic Performance of the Second Year students of
MSU-Buug Laboratory High School” and the study conducted by Benito (2006) entitled
“Bilingualism: Its Effect on the Mathematics Performance of the Second Year students of
Kumalarang National High School”.
Table 7. Significant Increase in the Mathematics Performance of the Students under

the Class using English Only as a Language of Instruction based on the Pre-test
and Post Test Results.
n 𝑑̅ S df t critical t computed Result

0.05 0.01 highly
18 2.11 2.27 17 3.91 significant
1.740 2.567 increase
Table 7 shows the significant increase in the Mathematics performance of the
students under the class using English only as a language of instruction based on the pre-
test and post test results. The mean difference was two and eleven hundredths with a
standard deviation of two and twenty-seven hundredths. The data revealed that the
25
computed t value for the significant increase for the Mathematics performance of the
students under the class that uses English only as a language of instruction based on the
pre-test and post test result was three and ninety-one hundredths which was greater than
the t critical values of one and seven hundred forty thousandths and two and five hundred
sixty-seven thousandths at five percent and one percent levels of significance respectively
with 17 degrees of freedom. This gives an adequate statistical evidence to reject the null
hypothesis and accept the alternative hypothesis. Hence, there is a highly significant
increase in the Mathematics performance of the students under the class using English
only as a language of instruction based on the pre-test and post test results.
Table 8. Significance Difference in the Mathematics Performance of the Students under

the Class using Bilingualism (Mother Tongue and English) as a Language of
Instruction and the Class using English only as a Language of Instruction.
t critical t
n 𝑥̅ s df Result
0.05 0.01 computed
Post-test
18 15.8 2.5 No
(B)
34 1.645 2.326 0.326 significant
Post-test
18 15.5 3 difference
(E)
Table 8 shows the significance difference in the Mathematics performance of the
instruction and the class using English only as a language of instruction. For the post test
result of the class under bilingualism (mother tongue and English) as a language of
instruction, the mean was 15.8 with a standard deviation of two and five tenths.For the
post test result of the class under English only as a language of instruction, the mean was
15.5 with a standard deviation of three.

26
Data revealed that the computed t value was three hundred four thousandthslesser
than the t critical values of one and six hundred forty-five thousandths and two and three
hundred twenty-six thousandths at five percent and one percent levels of significance
respectively with 34 degrees of freedom. This gives enough evidence to accept the null
hypothesis and reject the alternative hypothesis. So, there is no significant difference in
the Mathematics performance of the students under the class using bilingualism (mother
tongue and English) as a language of instruction and students under the class using
English only as a language of instruction. This supports the study of Bagolboc, Junessa
D.(2013) entitled “The Effect of the English Performance to the Mathematics
Performance of the Second Year High School students of Gaulan National High School
Year 2012-2013”.
Chapter V
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION

27
This chapter presents the summary, conclusions and the recommendations of the
study.
Summary
The main purpose of this study is to determine the Influence of the Language of
Instruction to the Mathematics Performance of the Grade VIII-Quezon students of
Mindanao State University- Buug Laboratory High School, specifically, this study
endeavors to answer the questions raised in chapter 1.
The data gathered were tallied, tabulated, analyzed and interpreted using the
qualitative and quantitative methods. The qualitative method was used to describe the
level of Mathematics performance in the class using bilingualism (mother tongue and
English) as a language of instruction and the class using English only as a language of
instruction. Moreover, the quantitative method was utilized to determine the significant
increase and significant difference in the Mathematics performance of the students under
the class using bilingualism (mother tongue and English) as a language of instruction and
the class using English only as a language of instruction. This study was a quasi-
experimental employed both qualitative and quantitative methodologies.
In testing the significant increase in the Mathematics performance of students
under the class using bilingualism (mother tongue and English) as language of instruction
based on their pretest and posttest results, the significant increase in the Mathematics
performance of the students under the class using English only as language of instruction
based on their pre-test and post test results and the significant difference in the
Mathematics performance of the students under the class using bilingualism (mother
28
tongue and English) as a language of instruction and the class using English only as a
language of instruction, the hypotheses of the study were subjected to statistical testing
using t-test.
Findings
The following were the findings of this study:
1.1 The Mathematics performance of the students under the class using bilingualism
(mother tongue and English) as a language of instruction in pre-test has a mean of
13.55 which show a “high performance”.
1.2 The Mathematics performance of the students under the class using English only as a
language of instruction in pre-test has a mean of 13.83 which show a “high
performance”.
2.1 The Mathematics performance of the students under the class using bilingualism
(mother tongue and English) as a language of instruction in post test has a mean of
15.8 which show a “high performance”.
2.2 The Mathematics performance of the students under the class which used English
only as a language of instruction in post-test has a mean of 15.5 which shows a “high
performance”.
3. The computed t value for the significant increase in the Mathematics performance of
the students under the class using bilingualism (mother tongue and English) as a
language of instruction in their pre-test and post test results was four and ninety-seven
hundredths which was greater than the t critical values of one and seven hundred forty
thousandths and two and five hundred sixty-seven thousandths at five percent and one
29
percent levels of significance respectively with 17 degrees of freedom. This gives a
sufficient statistical evidence to reject the null hypothesis and accept the alternative
hypothesis. Therefore, there is a highly significant increase in the Mathematic
performance of the students under the class using bilingualism (mother tongue and
English) as a language of instruction.
4. The data revealed that the computed t value for the significant increase in the
Mathematics performance of the students under the class using English only as a
language of instruction in their pre-test and post-test result was three and ninety-one
hundredths which was greater than the t critical values of one and seven hundred forty
thousandths and two and five hundred sixty-seven thousandths at five percent and one
percent levels of significance respectively with 17 degrees of freedom. This gives an
adequate statistical evidence to reject the null hypothesis and accept the alternative
hypothesis. Hence, there is a highly significant increase in the Mathematics
performance of the students under the class using English only as a language of
instruction based on the pre-test and post test results.
5. The data revealed that the computed t value for determining the significant difference
was three hundred twenty-six thousandths which is lesser than the t critical values of
one and seven hundred forty thousandths and two and five hundred sixty-seven
thousands at five percent and one percent levels of significance respectively with
thirty-four 34 degrees of freedom. This gives enough evidence to accept the null
hypothesis and reject the alternative hypothesis. So, there is no significant difference
in the Mathematic performance of the students under the class using bilingualism
30
(mother tongue) as a language of instruction and the class using English only as a
language of instruction.
Conclusions
Based on the data gathered and the computations obtained from the statistical
treatments, the following conclusions are.
1.1. The Mathematics performance of the students under the class using bilingualism
(mother tongue and English) as a language of instruction in their pre-test result
showed “high performance”.
1.2. The Mathematics performance of the students under the class using English only
as a language of instruction in their pre-test result, showed “high performance”.
2.1. The Mathematics performance of the students under the class using bilingualism
(mother tongue and English) as a languageof instruction in their post test result
showed a “high performance”.
2.2. The Mathematics performance of the students under the class using English only
as a language of instruction in their post-test result showed a “high performance”.
3. There is a highly significant increase in the Mathematics performance of the
students under the class using bilingualism (mother tongue and English) as a
language of instruction in their pre-test and post test results.
4. There is highly significant increase in the Mathematics performance of the
students under the class using English only as a language of instruction in their
pre-test and post test results.

31
5. There is no significant difference on the Mathematics performance of the
students under the class using bilingualism (mother tongue and English) as a
language of instruction and the class using English only as a language of
instruction.
Recommendation
Based on the results, the following recommendations and suggestions are formulated.
1. Teachers in both private and public schools can use any languages,
bilingualism (mother tongue and English) and English only as a languageof
instruction, when felt needed in order to improve instruction.
2. Teachers could shift from one language to the other, (mother tongue and
English) depending on the learning style and learning capabilities of the
learners.
3. To validate the major findings of this study, it is recommended to conduct
further study considering all sections on the same year level and more time
allotted to determine the significant difference between bilingualism (mother
tongue and English) and English only as a language of instruction.

32
References
1987 Policy on Bilingual Education Department Order No.52,s.1987.
DepEdOrder No. 9 S. 1973.Language Policies in the Philippines.
Bagolboc, Junessa D. (2013). “The Effect of the English Performance to the Mathematics
Performance of the School Year High School Students of Gaulan National High
School”. Unpublished Undergraduate Thesis, Mindanao State University-Buug
Campus.
Baker, Collin (2000). “A Parents and Teacher Guide to Bilingualism”.Multilingual

Matters, 2nd Edition.
Balasabas, Eugenio E. et.al (2016). “Bilingual Education: It’s Relationship to the

Mathematical Performance of the Grade VII Students of Del Monte National
High School”. Unpublished Undergraduate Thesis, Mindanao State University-
Buug Campus.
Benito, Leonalyn C. (2006). “Bilingualism: It’s Effect on the Academic Performance of

The Second Year Students OfKumalarang National High School”. Unpublished
Undergraduate Thesis, Mindanao State University-Buug Campus.
Cummins, J. (1980). “The Entry and Exit Fallacy in Bilingual Education”.NABE Journal
4,25-60.
Cummins, J. (2000). “Language, Power and Pedagogy”. Bilingual Children in the

Crossfire.Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Kavale (2001). “NASET LD Report #3 Characteristics of Children with Learning

Disabilities”.Retrieved from
https://www.naset.org/fileadmin/user_upload/LD_Report/Issue_3_LD_Report_Ch
aracteristics_of_LD.pdf.
Lambert, W.E. and E. Peal. 1962. “The Relation of Bilingualism to Intelligence”.

Psychological Monographs 76.
Lessow-Hurley,J.(2000). “The Foundations of Dual Language Instruction”. New York:

Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.
Levine, J. 1990. “Bilingual Learners and the Mainstream Curriculum”. New York:
Taylor and Francis.
Malagum, Jessie M, et.al (2014). “Bilingual Education: It’s relationship to the Academic
Performance Of the Second Year Students of Mindanao State University-Buug
Campus”. Unpublished Undergraduate Thesis, Mindanao State University-Buug
33
Campus.
Nordquist, Richard (2017). “The Meaning of the Term “Mother Tongue”. Retrieved from
https://www.Thoughtco.com/mother-tongue-language-1691408.
Lin, D.Y. (1993). “Checking the Cox Model with Cumulative Sums of Martingalo-Based
Residuals.Biometric 80, 557-572.
Skaalvik E. and Rankin R. (1995). “Dimensions of Math Verbal Self-Concept and the
Internal/External Frame of Reference Model”.Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/226649612_Dimensions_of_Math_and_
Verbal_Self-Concept_and_the_InternalExternal_Frame_of_Reference_Model.
Thomas, W. P. and Collier, V. P. (2002). “A National Study of School Effectiveness for

Language Minority Students’ Long Term Academic Achievement”.Barkeley;
University of California Center For Research on Education, Diversity and
Excellence”. Retrieved from www.crede.ucsc.edu/research/llaa/l.lfinal.html.
Toukomaa and Skutnabb-Kangas (1977).“The Threshold Theory”.Third Edition.

Multilingual Matters
34
APPENDIX A
Republic of the Philippines

MINDANAO STATE UNIVERSITY
Buug, ZamboangaSibugay
COLLEGE OF EDUCATION
March 1, 2019
ROGAYAH M. PANGOMPIG, MAEd

Principal
Mindanao State University Buug Laboratory High School
DatuPanas, Buug, ZamboangaSibugay
Ma’am:
We, Arian Rea L. Basog, Honey Grace S. Caballes, Christian S. Manlang, and
Vanessa Joyce S. Namoco, senior college students taking up BSEd Mathematics from the
College of Education of Mindanao State University- Buug Campus and currently
undertaking our undergraduate thesis entitled “THE INFLUENCE OF LANGUAGE OF
INSTRUCTION ON THE MATHEMATICS PERFORMANCE OF THE GRADE VIII-
QUEZON STUDENTS” as a part of the requirements of the course and of the subject
EdSci199N Research in Science Education.
In view of the above purpose, we would like to request your good office to grant
us permission to distribute the questionnaire to the high school students of this unit.
We hope that this request will be granted. Thank you.
Respectfully yours,
Sgd. Arian Rea L. Basog
Sgd. Honey Grace S. Caballes
Sgd. Christian S. Manlang
Sgd. Vanessa Joyce S. Namoco
Noted by:
Sgd. Prof. Gina D. Torred

Thesis Adviser
Approved by:
Sgd. Rogayah M. Pangompig, MAEd

Principal
35

March 4, 2019
NORONISA M. SALIC
Grade VIII-Roxas Adviser
Ma’am:
College of Education of Mindanao State University- Buug Campus are currently
INSTRUCTION ON THE MATHEMATICS PERFORMANCE OF THE GRADE VII-
STUDENTS” as a part of the requirements of the course and of the subject EdSci199N
Research in Science Education.
In view of the above purpose, we would like to ask permission to conduct a pilot
testing to the Grade VIII- Roxasstudents of this unit.
Respectfully yours,

Noted by:

Thesis Adviser
Approved by:
Sgd. Noronisa M. Salic

Grade VIII-Roxas Adviser
36

March 4, 2019
LIZA N. BORDIOS, M.O.M

Grade VIII-RoxasMath Teacher
DatuPanas, Buug,ZamboangaSibugay
Ma’am:
College of Education of Mindanao State University- Buug Campus and currently
In view of the above purpose, we would like to ask permission to conduct a pilot
testing to the Grade VIII- Roxasstudents of this unit.
Respectfully yours,

Noted by:

Thesis Adviser
Approved by:
Sgd. Liza N. Bordios, M.O.M

Grade VIII-RoxasMath Teacher
37

March 4, 2019
LIZA N. BORDIOS, M.O.M

Grade VIII-Quezon Adviser and Math Teacher
DatuPanas, Buug,ZamboangaSibugay
Ma’am:
College of Education of Mindanao State University- Buug Campus and are currently
In view of the above purpose, we would like to ask permission to have a copy of
second grading grades and to conduct our study to the Grade VIII- Quezon students of
this unit.
Respectfully yours,

Noted by:

Thesis Adviser
Approved by:
Sgd. Liza N. Bordios, M.O.M

Grade VIII-Quezon Adviser and Math Teacher
38
CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE IN A RESEARCH STUDY
Your permission is being asked to allow your child/ward to participate in a research study about
the “THE INFLUENCE OF LANGUAGE OF INSTRUCTION ON THE MATHEMATICS
PERFORMANCE OF THE GRADE VIII QUEZON STUDENTS”.Please read the letter below
together with your child/ward, and please do not hesitate to ask any question about the study.
The study is conducted by Arian Rea L. Basog, Honey Grace S. Caballes, Christian S. Manlang,
and Vanessa Joyce S.Namoco, studentsin Bachelor in Secondary Education major in
Mathematics, Mindanao State University- Buug Campus.
March 6, 2019
Dear Parent/Guardian,
Greetings!
We, Arian Rea L. Basog, Honey Grace S. Caballes, Christian S. Manlang and Vanessa Joyce S.
Namoco, senior college students taking up BSEd Mathematics from the College of Education of
Mindanao State University- Buug Campus are currently undertaking our undergraduate thesis
entitled “THE INFLUENCE OF LANGUAGE OF INSTRUCTION ON THE MATHEMATICS
PERFORMANCE OF THE GRADE VIII STUDENTS” which will be conducted this third
quarter. The Grade VIII Quezon students are chosen by the researchers to be the participants of
this study. The researcher will conduct two separate classes, one with the use of English only as a
medium of instruction and the other one is a class using bilingualism (mother tongue and English)
as a medium of instruction. The results of the study would provide useful baseline in determining
the effects of language to the Mathematics performance of the students.
It is in this regard that your permission is asked to allow your child/ward to participate in the
study. Rest assured that any information that is obtained in connection with this study and that
can be identified to be those of your child/ward will remain confidential and will be used only for
research purposes. Should you decide not to allow your child to participate in the study, the data
or scores of your child will not be counted in the analysis of data.
Please sign on the reply slip below to signify that you agree to allow your child/ward to
participate in the study. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact the undersigned at
gracecaballes643@gmail.com or visit the school from 10AM to 12NN (Mon-Fri) for your
concerns to be addressed. In anticipation for a favorable response, thank you very much!
Sincerely,

Researchers
39
Noted by:
Sgd. Rogayah M. Pangompig

Principal
Mindanao State University-Buug Laboratory High School
______________________________________________________________________________
RETURN SLIP
PARENT’S CONSENT FORM
Name of child/ward: _______________________________ Section: _________________
Yes, I allow my child/ward to participate in the study.
No, I do not allow my child/ward to participate in the study.
______________________________________ __________________
Name of Parent/Guardian and Signature Date
STUDENT ASSENT FORM
Yes, I am willing to participate in the study.
No, I am not willing to participate in the study.
______________________________________ __________________
Name of Student and Signature Date

40
APPENDIX B
Questionnaire Subject for Reliability and Validity Test
Directions: Write the correct answer in the space provided.
1. The number or variable under the radical sign is called?
a. Index b. Radicand
c. Radical d. Variable
𝑛
2. √𝑎what does n stands for?
1
3. Is √𝑥 equal to 𝑥 2 ?
a. Yes b. No
c. Maybe d. None of these
3
4. If you simplify √16𝑥 4 𝑦 3 it will be equal to,
a. 2xy√2𝑥 b. 4xy√𝑥
c. 2xy√𝑥 d. 3xy√𝑥
5. If you add the radicals, √2𝑥 + 5√2𝑥 =?
a. 7 b. 6
c. 6√2𝑥 d. 5√2𝑥
6. When can you add or subtract radicals?
a. When they are like radicals
b. When they have the same index and radicand
c. When they are both radicals
d. Both a and b
41
7. What do you call radicals that have the same index and same radicand?
a. Very same radicals’ b. Like/similar radicals
c. Very radical d. Just radicals
8. An indicated root of any number or algebraic expressions and is denoted

𝑛
by the symbol, √𝑎 is called?
a. Integer b. Radicand
c. Radicals d. Fraction
4
9. Is √64 is 4?
a. Yes b. No
10. Radicals with different indices or radicands are called?
a. Similar radicals’ b. Like radicals
c. Dissimilar radicals d. None of these
11. What is the square root of 64 𝑥 2 𝑦 2 ?
a. 8𝑥𝑦 b. 8𝑥 √𝑦
c. 8𝑦√𝑥 d. 8𝑥𝑦 2
𝑛
12. The expression √𝑎 can be read as
a. the nth root of a b. these nth roots of a
c. the nth root of a2 d. these nth root of a
13. Radicals maybe simplified by the following except ONE.
a. Removing all factors which are perfect powers from under the radicals
sign
b. Multiply both numerator and denominator both factor of the two

42
c. Reducing the index of the radical
d. Rationalizing the denominator
14. What is the 5th root of -32?
a. 2 b. -2
c. 3 d. -3
15. What is the 4th root of 81?
a. 2 b. 3
c. 4 d. 5
3
16. √125 = 5
a. true b. false
c. maybe d. none of these

4
17. √256 = 7
a. true b. false
18. √121 = 21
a. true b. false
8 2 2
19. √27 = 3 √3
a. true b. false
20. √16𝑥 = 4𝑥
a. true b. false

43
3 3
21. √8𝑎3 𝑏 2 = 2𝑎 √𝑏 2
a. true b. false
22. √8𝑥 = 2√2𝑥
a. true b. false
23. 5 √3 + 2√3 − √3 = 7√3
a. true b. false
24. 4√7 − 3√7 + √7 = 2√7
a. true b. false

𝑛
√𝑥 𝑛 𝑥
25. If we simplify 𝑛 𝑦 = √𝑦
√
a. true b. false
26. √144 = 12
a. true b. false

5
27. √32 = 1
a. true b. false
3 27
28. √ 8 = 12
44
a. true b. false
29. √(𝑣𝑎𝑛𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑎)2 = 𝑗𝑜𝑦𝑐𝑒
a. true b. false
3 3
30. √(𝑉𝐴𝐶𝐻)4 = 𝑉𝐴𝐶𝐻 √𝑉𝐴𝐶𝐻
a. true b. false
31-50. Simplify the following.

3 3
31. 2√24 + √81
3
a.7√3 b. −7√3
3
c.7 √3 d. −7√3
32. √2 − √8
a. √2 b. −√2
c. 4√2 d. −4√2
3 3
33. √8𝑎4 𝑏 5 -√27𝑎4 𝑏 5
3 3
a. ab √𝑎𝑏 2 b.b√𝑎𝑏 2
3
c. −𝑎𝑏 √𝑎𝑏 2 d. ab√𝑎𝑏
34. √12 – 7√27
a. 19√3 b. 23√3
c. −19√3 d. −23√3
35. 2√𝑥 + 5√𝑥

45
a. 7√𝑥 b. 7√𝑥 2
c. 3√𝑥 d. 3x
36. √20 − √45
a. √5 b.−√5
c. −5√5 d. 5√5
3 3
37. √𝑥 2 + 5√𝑥 2
3 3
a. 4 √𝑥 2 b. 6√𝑥 2
3 3
c. −6√𝑥 2 d. −4√𝑥 2
38. 2√𝑥 − 5√𝑥
a. 7√𝑥 b. 5√𝑥 2
c. 3√𝑥 d. −3√𝑥
39. √𝑎𝑏-√𝑎𝑏
a. 0 b. 2√𝑎𝑏
c. 1 d. -2 √𝑎𝑏
40. 2√𝑎𝑏-√𝑎𝑏
a. √𝑎𝑏 b. √𝑎2 𝑏 2
c. 3√𝑎𝑏 d. −2√𝑎𝑏
41. √4 + √9
a. 5 b. 4
c. 3 d. 2
3 3
42. √54 + √2
3 3
a. 2 √2 b. 4√2
46
c. 4√2 d. 2√2
43. −√3 + √48
a.√3 b. 3√3
c. 5√3 d. −5√3
44. √𝑎3 𝑏 3 + √9𝑎3 𝑏 3
a. 4𝑎𝑏√𝑎𝑏 b. −4𝑎𝑏√𝑎𝑏
c. 2𝑎𝑏√𝑎𝑏 d.−2𝑎𝑏√𝑎𝑏
45. 1 + √4
a. 4 b. 3
c. 2 d. 1
46. √16𝑎2 + √𝑎2
a. 5a b. 4a
c. 3a d. 2a
47. 8 + √100
a. 18 b. 2
c. 17 d. 3
3
48. √𝑐 2 + √8𝑐 3
a. 3c b. c
c. 2c d. c2
4
49. √4𝑎2 + √16𝑎4
a. 4a b. -4a
c. 0 d. 1
47
50 .9√2 − √18
a.6√2 b. 12√2
c. 3√2 d. 5√2
48
Pre-test Questionnaire
b. Index b. Radicand
b. 7 b. 6
c. 6√2𝑥 d. 5√2𝑥
4
3. Is √64 is 4?
b. No b. Yes
b. Similar radicals’ b. Like radicals
sign

4
6. √256 = 7
a. true b. false

49
3 3
7. √8𝑎3 𝑏 2 = 2𝑎 √𝑏 2
a. true b. false

𝑛
√𝑥 𝑛 𝑥
√
a. False b. Maybe
c. True d. none of these
a. true b. false
3 3
a. true b. false

3 3
11. √8𝑎4 𝑏 5 -√27𝑎4 𝑏 5
3 3
3
12. √12 – 7√27
a. 19√3 b. 23√3
c. −19√3 d. −23√3
3 3
13. √𝑥 2 + 5√𝑥 2
3 3
a. 4 √𝑥 2 b. 6√𝑥 2
3 3
c. −6√𝑥 2 d. −4√𝑥 2
50
14. 2√𝑥 − 5√𝑥
a. 7√𝑥 b. 5√𝑥 2
c. 3√𝑥 d. −3√𝑥
15. √𝑎𝑏-√𝑎𝑏
a. 0 b. 2√𝑎𝑏
c. 1 d. -2 √𝑎𝑏
16. √4 + √9
a. 5 b. 4
c. 3 d. 2
3 3
17. √54 + √2
3 3
a. 2 √2 b. 4√2
c. 4√2 d. 2√2
18. 8 + √100
a. 3 b. 2
c. 17 d. 18
3
19. √8𝑐 3 + √𝑐 2
a. 3c b. c
c. 2c d. c2
4
20. √4𝑎2 + √16𝑎4
a. -4a b. 4a
c. 0 d. 1
51
Post Test Questionnaire

4
1. Is √64 is 4?
a. No b. Yes

4
2. √256 = 7
a. true b. false
sign

3 3
5. √8𝑎3 𝑏 2 = 2𝑎 √𝑏 2
a. true b. false
a. true b. false

52
3 3
a. true b. false
a. Similar radicals’ b. Like radicals

𝑛
√𝑥 𝑛 𝑥
√
a. False b. Maybe
c. True d. none of these
a. 7 b. 6
c. 6√2𝑥 d. 5√2𝑥

3
11. √8𝑐 3 + √𝑐 2
a. 3c b. c
c. 2c d. c2
3 3
12. √54 + √2
3 3
a. 2 √2 b. 4√2
c. 4√2 d. 2√2
3 3
13. . √8𝑎4 𝑏 5 -√27𝑎4 𝑏 5
3 3
3
53
14. √𝑎𝑏-√𝑎𝑏
a. 0 b. 2√𝑎𝑏
c. 1 d. -2 √𝑎𝑏
15. 8 + √100
a. 3 b. 2
c. 17 d. 18
16. √12 – 7√27
a. 19√3 b. 23√3
c. −19√3 d. −23√3
17. √4 + √9
a. 5 b. 4
c. 3 d. 2
4
18. √4𝑎2 + √16𝑎4
a. -4a b. 4a
c. 0 d. 1
3 3
19. .√𝑥 2 + 5√𝑥 2
3 3
a. 4 √𝑥 2 b. 6√𝑥 2
3 3
c. −6√𝑥 2 d. −4√𝑥 2
20. 2√𝑥 − 5√𝑥
a. 7√𝑥 b. 5√𝑥 2
c. 3√𝑥 d. −3√𝑥
54
APPENDIX C
Answer Key for the Questionnaire Subject for Reliability and Validity Test
1. B 11. A 21.A 31.A 41. A
2. A 12. A 22.A 32.B 42. B
3. A 13. B 23.B 33.C 43. B
4. A 14. B 24.A 34.C 44. A
5. C 15. B 25.A 35.A 45. B
6. D 16. A 26.A 36.B 46. A
7. B 17. B 27.B 37.B 47. A
8. C 18. B 28.B 38.D 48. A
9. B 19. A 29.B 39.A 49. A
10. C 20. B 30.A 40.A 50.A

55
Answer Key for the Pre-test Questionnaire
1. B
2. C
3. A
4. C
5. B
6. B
7. A
8. C
9. B
10. A
11. C
12. C
13. B
14. D
15. A
16. A
17. B
18. D
19. A
20. B
56
Answer Key for the Post Test Questionnaire
1. A
2. B
3. B
4. B
5. A
6. B
7. A
8. C
9. C
10. C
11. A
12. B
13. C
14. A
15. D
16. C
17. A
18. B
19. B
20. D
57
APPENDIX D
A Semi-Detailed Lesson Plan in Mathematics VIII

Using bilingualism (mother tongue and English) as a Language of Instruction
Prepared by: Basog, Arian Rea L.
Caballes, Honey Grace S.,
Manlang, Christian S.
Namoco, Vanessa Joyce S.
I. Objectives
Within 60-minute lesson, the Grade VIII students are expected to do the following
with at least 75% level of accuracy:
a. add and subtract radicals,
b. simplify radicals, and
c. show active participation in class and group discussion.
II. Subject Matter
Topic: Adding and Subtracting Radicals
Reference: Elementary and Intermediate Algebra, pp. 570-571, Mark Digopulski
III. Materials: Instructional materials, chalk and eraser
IV. Procedures
A. Preparation
 Greetings
 Prayer
 Checking of attendance
 Review
 Drill
58
The teacher will ask the students to arrange the jumbled letters and
use the pictures as their hint.
 Pre-test
B. Motivation
 The teacher will call five students to answer the following.
a+a=? answer: 2a
3a + 4a = ? answer: 7a
5b – 3b = ? answer: 2b
6c – 6c = ? answer: 0
C. Presentation
 The teacher will ask the students what they have observed in the
previous activity.
 The teacher will give a feedback about the previous activity.
 The teacher will tell the students that the previous activity has a
connection to the new lesson which is “Adding and Subtracting
Radicals”.
 The teacher will present the objectives of the lesson and the
students to read it.
D. Discussion
 The teacher will present two radicals to the class.
3√2and5√2
 Muiingunangmaestrakungunsailangnaobserbahansagihatagngamga
example kung naabakiniparehanga radicand ug index.

59
 Mangutanaangmaestrakungpwedebaiaddangduhakaradicalngagihat
aggaina.
 Mangutanaangmaestrakungunsa may resulta kung
iaddangduhakaradical.
 Mangutanausabangmaestrakungpwedepudbaisubtractangduhakarad
ical.
 Mangutanadayunangmaestrakungunsana may resulta kung
isubtractangduhakaradical.
 Muhatagangmaestraug lain nga example arun mas
masabtansamgaestudyanteang lesson.
3 3
5√2 − 2 √5 + √2 + 7√5 =?
 Muhatagusabug example
angmaestraugduhakaradicalsnganagkaparehasug index
perodiliparehasug radicand.
Dayunmangutanaangmaestrakungunsaunkinisilapag add ugpag
subtract.
3 3
√16𝑥 4 𝑦 3 ug√54𝑥 4 𝑦 3
 Ipakitasamaestra kung unsaunpag simplify
angduhakaradicalsarungpwedenasilaiaddugisubtract.
 Mangutanadayunangmaestrakungpwedenabadayuniaddugisubtract
angduhakaradicals.
 Dayun, mangutanaangmaestrakungunsanamay answer
saduhakaradicals kung iaddsilaugisubtract.

60
E. Application
 The teacher will group the students into three groups to have
another activity.
 Each group will select a group leader, secretary and presenter.
 The activity will be done in five minutes.
 Before the activity will start, the teacher will let the students read
the cooperative learning rubrics for them to be guided in doing
their activity.
COOPERATIVE LEARNING RUBRICS

5 points 3 points 2 points
Neatness No erasures There are 2-3 The erasures
erasures. exceeded to 3.
Accuracy All the answers One answer is 2 or more
are correct wrong answers are
wrong
Participation / All the members Some of the All the members
Behavior cooperated and members did not did not
the group is well cooperate and cooperate and
behaved the group is the group is very
quite noisy noisy
Directions: Simplify the following radicals correctly.
1. √5 − 3√5
2. 3√6𝑎 + 7√6𝑎
3. √45𝑥 3 -√18𝑥 2 +√50𝑥 2 -√20𝑥 3
F. Generalization
The teacher will call a student to generalize the lesson.

61
IV. Evaluation
(Post Test)
V. Assignment:
Directions: Perform the indicated operations.
1. 2√45𝑥 3 -3√18𝑥 2 +3√50𝑥 2 -4√20𝑥 3

62
A Semi-Detailed Lesson Plan in Mathematics VIII

(Using English only as a Language of Instruction)
Prepared by: Basog, Arian Rea L.
Caballes, Honey Grace S.,
Manlang, Christian S.
Namoco, Vanessa Joyce S.
I. Objectives
Within 60-minute lesson, the Grade VIII students are expected to do the following
with at least 75% level of accuracy:
a. add and subtract radicals,
b. simplify radicals, and
c. show active participation in class and group discussion.
II. Subject Matter
Topic: Adding and Subtracting Radicals
Reference: Elementary and Intermediate Algebra, pp. 570-571, Mark Digopulski
III. Materials:
IV. Procedures
A. Preparation
 Greetings
 Prayer
 Checking of attendance
 Review
 Drill
The teacher will ask the students to arrange the jumbled letters and
use the pictures as their hint.

63
 Pre-test
B. Motivation
 The teacher will call five students to answer the following.
a+a=? answer: 2a
3a + 4a = ? answer: 7a
5b – 3b = ? answer: 2b
6c – 6c = ? answer: 0
C. Presentation
 The teacher will ask the students what they have observed in the
previous activity.
 The teacher will give a feedback about the previous activity.
 The teacher will tell the students that the previous activity has a
connection to the new lesson which is “Adding and Subtracting
Radicals”.
 The teacher will present the objectives of the lesson and the
students to read it.
D. Discussion
 The teacher will present two radicals to the class.
3√2 And 5√2
 The teacher will ask the students if the two radicals have the same
radicand and index.
 The teacher will ask again the students if the two given radicals
can be added together.

64
 The teacher will ask the students what will be the sum of the two
given radicals if they add it together.
 The teacher will ask the students if the two given radicals can be
subtracted.
 The teacher will ask the students what will be the difference of the
two given radicals if one radical can be subtracted from the other.
 The teacher will give feedback to the students about adding and
subtracting radicals with the same radicand and index.
 The teacher will give another example.

3 3
5√2 − 2√5 + √2 + 7 √5
 The teacher will ask the students what if, they are given two or
3
more radicals that are not simplified yet like √16𝑥 4 𝑦 3 and
3
√54𝑥 4 𝑦 3 how do they add and subtract them.
 The teacher will give feedback on the presented two or more
radicals that are not simplified yet.
E. Application
 The teacher will group the students into three groups to have
another activity.
 Each group will select a group leader, secretary and presenter.
 The activity will be done in five minutes.
 Before the activity will start, the teacher will let the students read
the cooperative learning rubrics for them to be guided in doing
their activity.
65
COOPERATIVE LEARNING RUBRICS

5 points 3 points 2 points
Neatness No erasures There are 2-3 The erasures
erasures. exceeded to 3.
Accuracy All the answers One answer is 2 or more
are correct wrong answers are
wrong
Participation / All the members Some of the All the members
Behavior cooperated and members did not did not
the group is well cooperate and cooperate and
behaved the group is the group is very
quite noisy noisy
Directions: Simplify the following radicals correctly.
1. √5 − 3√5
2. 3√6𝑎 + 7√6𝑎
3. √45𝑥 3 -√18𝑥 2 +√50𝑥 2 -√20𝑥 3
F. Generalization
The teacher will call a student to generalize the lesson.
IV. Evaluation
(Post Test)
V. Assignment:
Directions: Perform the indicated operations.
1. 2√45𝑥 3 -3√18𝑥 2 +3√50𝑥 2 -4√20𝑥 3

66
APPENDIX E
Script for the Class Using Bilingualism (mother tongue and English) as a Language of
Instruction
Maestra: Maayungbuntagmgaestudyante.
Estudyante: Maayungbuntag sad Ma’am.
Maestra: Have you done with your prayer class?
Estudyante: Yes Ma’am!
Maestra: Okay, before you take seats,

pakipunitsamganagkalatngabasurasailalumsainyungbangko.
Maestra: Tananbapresentkarun? Kinsaynakahinumdumsaatong past lesson?
Maestra: Karun, we will be discussing another lesson but before that, let us first have a
diagnostic test.
AFTER THE TEST 
Maestra: Let’s have a game! Naako dire mga jumbled letters, earrangeninyoang letters.
Gamitaninyoangmga pictures as your hint.
Maestra: Naakoymga flashcards dire, try to answer each flashcards
Maestra: I have here some radicals, 3√2and 5√2. Pareha ba silag radicand?
Estudyante: Yes Ma’am.
Maestra: Parehabasilaug index?
Maestra; Nganunakaingon man mo?Unsailanng radicand..
Studyante: √2 ma’am..
Maestra: Karun, panan-aw ninyo, pwedenatosilaiadd?
Maestra: Unsadiayilahang index?
Estudyante: 2 ma’am
Maestra: Paunsaninyonaingon?
67
Estudyante: Kay pareha man silag radicand ug index.
Maestra: Very good! So, karunpilanamanang radicals natougatonihsilangiadd?
Estudyante: 8√2 Ma’am
Maestra: Pwedepudbanatosilaisubtract?
Maestra: What makes you say so?
Estudyante: Kay pareha man silag radicand ug index Ma’am.
Maestra: Very good! Unsa man karunangmuresultanga radical karung kung

isubtractnatoangduhakaradicals? Say for example 5√2 − 2√2
Estudyante: 2√2
Maestra: Kanus-a tapwede mag-add o mag-subtract ug radicals?
Estudyante: Pagparehasilag radicand ug index Ma’am

3
Maestra: What if, walasilanasimplified? Parehaaningduhakaradicals; √16𝑥 4 𝑦 3 ug
3
√64𝑥 4 𝑦 3 . Parehabasilag index?
Maestra; Paunsaninyonaingon?Unsadiayilang index?
Estudyante: 3 ma’am
Maestra: How about ang radicand? Magkaparehaba?
Estudyante: No Ma’am
Maestra: Pwedebanatosilaiaddugisubtract?
Estudyante: Dili Ma’am kaydilisilaparehag radicandkayangisaka radical, angiyang index

kay16𝑥 4 𝑦 3 ugangisakay64𝑥 4 𝑦 3
Maestra; So, unsa may angaybuhatunparamaaddugmasubtractnatohangduhakaradicals?
Estudyante: Esimplify Ma’am.
Maestra: Very Good! Now, who can simplify the given example of radicals?
3 3 3 3
Estudyante: √16𝑥 4 𝑦 3 − √54𝑥 4 𝑦 3 = √23 𝑥 3 𝑥𝑦 3 − √43 𝑥 3 𝑥𝑦 3
68
3 3
=2𝑥𝑦 √𝑥 − 4𝑥𝑦 √𝑥
3
=−2𝑥𝑦 √𝑥
Maestra: Very Good! Nasabtanba?O Kailanganpagisakaexample?
Estudyante: Isa pa Ma’am!
Maestra: √𝑎3 𝑏 3 + √81𝑎3 𝑏 3 = √𝑎2 𝑎𝑏 2 𝑏 + √92 𝑎2 𝑎𝑏 2 𝑏
= 𝑎𝑏√𝑎𝑏 + 9𝑎𝑏√𝑎𝑏
= 10𝑎𝑏√𝑎𝑏
Maestra:Nasabtannabaninyokarun? Naa pa bay pangutana?
Estudyante: Walana Ma’am
Maestra: Okay, now let’s have an activity
(Bahinunangklasesatulokagrupo. Kada group kaymagpiliugisakaleader, secretary ug

presenter satrabaho)
(Paghumansa reporting, echeckang output samgaestudyanteuggraduhankada group)
Maestra: So, atoangbalikanatongnahisgutan. Kanus’agani tapwedemuaddugmusubtractug

radicals?
Estudyante: if parehasilag index ug radicand Ma’am
Maestra: Very Good! Unsaunpudpag add ugpag subtract kungdiliparehag radicand?
Estudyante: IsimplifysaMa’am ayhaiadd or isubtractbaang radicals.
Maestra: Naa pa bay mgapangutana?
Estudyante: Walana Ma’am
Maestra: Kay walana man, mag quiz tah.
AFTER THE TESTTTTTT 
Maestra: Kuhaainyungmga notebook ugkopyahainyung assignment.

69
PAGKAHUMAN 
Maestra: Goodbye class
Estudyante: Goodbye pud Ma’am.

70
Script for the Class using English Only as a Language of Instruction
Teacher: Good Morning Class?
Students: Good morning teacher!!
Teacher: Have you done your payer?
(If not yet, the class will proceed to the prayer)
Teacher: before you take your seats, please pick up the pieces of papers under your chair,
and arrange your chairs as well.
(The students will sit down)
Teacher: Now, who can remember, what was our topic last meeting?
(The class will have a short review)
Teacher: before we proceed to our new topic, let us first have a pre-test, or the diagnostic
test
(The class will proceed to the pre-test)
Teacher: today, we will be discussing a new topic, but before that, let us first have a
game. I have here some jumbled letters, arrange the letters and use the pictures as your
hint.
(The students will proceed according to instruction)
Teacher: wow! You’re quite good in arranging jumbled letters. Now, let’s try these
activities.. I will show you some flash cards and try to answer the equation.
(The students will answer the equations in the flash cards)
Teacher: today, we will be discussing “Adding and Subtracting” radicals, but before that,
let us first read our objectives.
(The students will read the objectives)
Teacher: I have here two radicals:
3√2 𝑎𝑛𝑑 5√2
Do they have the same radicand?
Students: Yes..
71
Teacher: How can you say so? What is the radicand?
Student: √2 ma’am,
Teacher: how about the index?
Students: Yes…
Teacheyr: What do you think is the index?
Student: 2 ma’am
Teacher: Do you think we can add these radicals?
Students: Yes…
Teacher: what makes you say so?
Students: because, they have the same radicand and index
Teacher: Very Good! And we call these as like radicals.
Now, what do you think is the sum of these radicals?
Students: 8√2
Teacher: can we also subtract these radicals? Say for example 5√2 − 2√2
Students: Yes ma’am…
Teacher: what makes you say so?
Students: Because they have the same index and radicand
Teacher: Very Good! Now, what do you think is the difference of these radicals?
Students: 2√2
Teacher: when can we add or subtract radicals?
Students: when the radicals have the same index and radicand
Teacher: what if, they are not yet simplified

3 3
Example: √16𝑥 4 𝑦 3 − √64𝑥 4 𝑦 3
Do they have the same index?
Students: Yes
72
Teacher: What is our index now?
Student: 3 ma’am..
Teacher: do they have the same radicand?
Students: No
Teacher: What is our radicand?
Student: the first radical has a radicand of 16𝑥 4 𝑦 3 and the other one is 64𝑥 4 𝑦 3
Teacher: can we perform the indicated operation then?
Students: No…
Teacher: what should we do first?
Students: we simplify ma’am
Teacher: Very Good! Now who can simplify the given example?
3 3
Students: √16𝑥 4 𝑦 3 − √64𝑥 4 𝑦 3
3 3
= √23 𝑥 3 𝑥𝑦 3 − √43 𝑥 3 𝑥𝑦 3
= 2𝑦√𝑥 − 4𝑦√𝑥
= −2𝑦√𝑥
Teacher: Very Good! Have you understood? Or do you want another example?
Students: we would like to have another example ma’am
Teacher: okay, let’s try this
√𝑎3 𝑏 3 + √9𝑎3 𝑏 3
√𝑎2 𝑎𝑏 2 𝑏 + √32 𝑎2 𝑎𝑏 2 𝑏
= √𝑎2 𝑎𝑏 2 𝑏 + √32 𝑎2 𝑎𝑏 2 𝑏
= 𝑎𝑏√𝑎𝑏 + 3𝑎𝑏√𝑎𝑏
= 4𝑎𝑏√𝑎𝑏
Teacher: have you understood? Is there any questions?

73
Students: None ma’am.
Teacher: If none, let’s have an activity
(The class will be divided into three groups. Each group will choose a leader, a secretary
and a presenter.)
(After the reporting, the work will be checked and rated)
Teacher: So, let’s have a recap on what we have discussed
When can we be able to add and subtract radicals?
Students: if they have the same index and radicand
Teacher: Very Good! What if, it is not yet simplified?
Students: we must simplify first and proceed in performing the indicated operation.
Teacher: Do you have any clarifications?
Students: None ma’am.
Teacher: Since none, let’s have a quiz.
(After the test)
Teachers: Now, I want you to copy your assignment.
(After copying the assignment)
Teacher: Goodbye class.
Students: Goodbye teacher.

74
APPENDIXF
Item Analysis of the Questionnaire Subject for Reliability and Validity Test
Difference
D Value
Correct
Answer
Middle
Action
Lower
Upper
Value
27%
27%
46%
Item
P
0.865
0.3
1 B 9 6 3 17 32 Very Easy Accept
Discriminating
Item
0.405
-0.1 Moderately
2 A 4 5 -1 Not 6 15 Difficult Discard
Discriminating Item
0
0.703 Needs
3 A 7 7 0 Moderately 12 26
Easy Item Revision
Discriminating
0.054
-0.1
Very
4 A 0 1 -1 Not 1 2 Discard
Difficult
Discriminating
Item
0.595
0.4 Moderately
5 C 7 3 4 12 22 Accept
Discriminating Difficult
Item
0.2 0.378 May
6 D 5 3 2 Moderately 6 14 Difficult Need
Discriminating Item Revision
0 0.838
Needs
7 B 8 8 0 Moderately 15 31 Very Easy
Revision
Discriminating Item
0.541
0 May
Moderately
8 C 5 5 0 Moderately 10 20 Need
Difficult
Discriminating Revision
Item
0.7
0.622
9 B 10 3 7 Very 10 23 Accept
Easy Item
Discriminating
0.1
0.703
10 C 8 7 1 Moderately 11 26 Accept
Easy Item
Discriminating
0.2 0.892 Needs
11 A 10 8 2 15 33
Moderately Very Easy Revision
75
Discriminating Item
0.2
0.784 Needs
12 A 9 7 2 Moderately 13 29
Easy Item Revision
Discriminating
0.459
0.3 Moderately
13 D 7 4 3 6 17 Accept
Item
0.2
0.649 Needs
14 B 7 5 2 Moderately 12 24
Easy Item Revision
Discriminating
0.1
0.676 Needs
15 B 7 6 1 Moderately 12 25
Easy Item Revision
Discriminating
0 0.811
Needs
16 A 8 8 0 Moderately 14 30 Very Easy
Revision
Discriminating Item
0.4 0.784
17 B 10 6 4 13 29 Accept
Discriminating Easy Item
0.838
0.4
18 B 10 6 4 15 31 Very Easy Accept
Discriminating
Item
0.405
0.2 May
Moderately
19 A 5 3 2 Moderately 7 15 Need
Difficult
Item
-0.1 0.216
20 B 1 2 -1 Not 5 8 Difficult Discard
Discriminating Item
0.3 0.730
21 A 9 6 3 12 27 Accept
0.514
0.2 May
Moderately
Difficult
Item
0.595
0.3 Moderately
23 B 7 4 3 11 22 Accept
Item
0.4
0.784
24 A 10 6 4 Very 13 29 Accept
Easy Item
Discriminating
0.4 0.865
25 A 10 6 4 Very 16 32 Very Easy Accept
Discriminating Item
26 A 10 9 1 0.1 15 34 0.919 Needs
76
Moderately Very Easy Revision

Discriminating Item
0.4 0.865
27 B 10 6 4 Very 16 32 Very Easy Accept
Discriminating Item
0.3 0.730
28 B 9 6 3 12 27 Accept
0.5 0.757
29 B 10 5 5 13 28 Accept
0.432
0.5 Moderately
30 A 7 2 5 7 16 Accept
Item
0.189
-0.4
Very
Difficult
Discriminating
Item
0.054
0.1 May
Very
32 B 1 0 1 Moderately 1 2 Need
Difficult
Item
0.405
0.3 Moderately
33 C 6 3 3 6 15 Accept
Item
0.1 0.324
34 C 4 3 1 Moderately 5 12 Difficult Accept
Discriminating Item
0.568
0.4
Moderately
35 A 7 3 4 Not 11 21 Discard
Difficult
Discriminating
Item
0.1 0.297 May
36 B 4 3 1 Moderately 4 11 Difficult Need
0.3 0.730
37 B 8 5 3 14 27 Accept
0.432
0.8
Moderately
38 A 8 0 8 Very 8 16 Accept
Difficult
Discriminating
Item
0.541
0.3 Moderately
39 D 8 5 3 7 20 Accept
Item
40 A 8 4 4 0.4 9 21 0.568 Discard
77
Not Moderately
Item
0.892
0.3
41 A 10 7 3 16 33 Very Easy Accept
Discriminating
Item
0.405
0.3 Moderately
42 B 6 3 3 6 15 Accept
Item
0 1.000
Needs
43 A 10 10 0 Moderately 17 37 Very Easy
Revision
Discriminating Item
0.432
0.6 Moderately
44 A 6 0 6 10 16 Accept
Item
0.486
0.6 Moderately
45 B 9 3 6 6 18 Accept
Item
0.162
-0.2
Very
Difficult
Discriminating
Item
0.3 0.784
47 A 10 7 3 12 29 Accept
0 0.216 May
48 A 3 3 0 Moderately 2 8 Difficult Need
0.5 0.757
49 A 9 4 5 15 28 Accept
0.189
0.2 May
Very
Difficult
Item
78
APPENDIX G
Split-Half Methodology: Validity and Reliability Test
Students x(odd) y(even) Rank of x Rank of y D D2

1 17 7 19.5 35 -15.5 240.25
2 19 12 12 17.5 -5.5 30.25
3 13 14 30.5 8.5 22 484
4 16 11 23.5 25.5 -2 4
5 21 15 5 5 0 0
6 21 14 5 8.5 -3.5 12.25
7 19 15 12 5 7 49
8 18 16 16 2.5 13.5 182.25
9 21 13 5 11.5 -6.5 42.25
10 21 12 5 17.5 -12.5 156.25
11 22 10 1.5 29.5 -28 784
12 21 13 5 11.5 -6.5 42.25
13 16 17 23.5 1 22.5 506.25
14 20 12 8.5 17.5 -9 81
15 19 11 12 25.5 -13.5 182.25
16 17 12 19.5 17.5 2 4
17 17 12 19.5 17.5 2 4
18 15 11 27 25.5 1.5 2.25
19 19 7 12 35 -23 529
20 17 14 19.5 8.5 11 121
21 20 12 8.5 17.5 -9 81
22 15 15 27 5 22 484
23 16 14 23.5 8.5 15 225
24 16 12 23.5 17.5 6 36
25 19 12 12 17.5 -5.5 30.25
26 18 12 18 17.5 0.5 0.25
27 8 8 36 32 4 16
28 10 10 34 29.5 4.5 20.25
29 9 12 35 17.5 17.5 306.25
30 13 8 30.5 32 -1.5 2.25
31 11 11 33 25.5 7.5 56.25
32 15 8 27 32 -5 25
33 12 11 32 25.5 6.5 42.25
34 14 11 29 25.5 3.5 12.25
35 18 7 16 35 -19 361
36 22 16 1.5 2.5 -1 1
∑𝑛𝑖=1 𝐷2 =
5155.5
79
6 ∑𝑛𝑖=1 𝐷2 6(5155.5) 30,933 30,933

𝑟ℎ𝑡 = 1 − 3 = 1− = 1 − = 1 − = 1 − 0.664
𝑁 −𝑁 (36)3 − 36 46,656 − 36 46,620
= 0.336
2𝑟ℎ𝑡 2(0.336) 0.672

𝑟𝑤𝑡 = = = = 0.501
1 + 𝑟ℎ𝑡 1 + 0.336 1.336
Hence, mark or moderate reliability.

80
APPENDIX H
(Computation)
Table 1. Pre-test and Post Test Results under the Class using Bilingualism (Mother
Tongue and English) as a Language of Instruction.
Student Pre-test Post Test

1 16 18
2 15 15
3 16 18
4 15 14
5 15 15
6 16 17
7 14 14
8 14 15
9 12 18
10 12 15
11 12 19
12 12 15
13 11 17
14 11 17
15 11 18
16 11 15
17 9 16
18 11 17
81
Table 2.Pre-test and Post Test Results under the Class using English only as a Language
of Instruction.
Student Pre-test Post test
1 19 18
2 17 17
3 16 18
4 17 18
5 16 14
6 14 18
7 14 16
8 14 18
9 14 11
10 15 18
11 14 17
12 13 16
13 12 15
14 11 15
15 11 15
16 10 15
17 11 15
18 8 10
82
Table 3. Computation of Mean of the Pre-test Result under the Class using Bilingualism
(Mother Tongue and English) as a Language of Instruction.
Score Range 𝑓𝑖 𝑑𝑖 𝑑𝑖 2 𝑓𝑖 𝑑𝑖 𝑓𝑖 𝑑𝑖 2
16-20 3 1 1 3 3
11-15 14 0 0 0 0
6-10 1 -1 1 -1 1
𝑛 𝑛
∑ 𝑓𝑖 𝑑𝑖 = 2 ∑ 𝑓𝑖 𝑑𝑖 2 = 4
𝑖=1 𝑖=1
∑𝑛𝑖=1 𝑓𝑖 𝑑𝑖 2
𝑥̅ = 𝐴𝑀 + [ ] 𝐼 = 13 + ( ) 5 = 13 + (0.11)(5) = 13 + 0.55 = 13.55
𝑛 18
83
Table 4.Computation of Mean of the Pre-test Result of the Class using English only as a
Language of Instruction.
16-20 5 1 1 5 5
11-15 11 0 0 0 0
6-10 2 -1 1 -2 2
𝑛 𝑛
∑ 𝑓𝑖 𝑑𝑖 = 3 ∑ 𝑓𝑖 𝑑𝑖 2 = 7
𝑖=1 𝑖=1
𝑥̅ = 𝐴𝑀 + [ ] 𝐼 = 13 + ( ) 5 = 13 + 0.833 = 13.833 = 13.83
𝑛 18
84
Table 5. Computation of Mean and Standard Deviation of Post Test Result of the Class
using Bilingualism (Mother Tongue) as a Medium of Instruction.
16-20 10 1 1 10 10
11-15 8 0 0 0 0
6-10 0 -1 1 0 0
𝑛 𝑛
∑ 𝑓𝑖 𝑑𝑖 = 10 ∑ 𝑓𝑖 𝑑𝑖 2 = 10
𝑖=1 𝑖=1
𝑥̅ = 𝐴𝑀 + [ ] 𝐼 = 13 + ( ) 5 = 13 + 2.8 = 15.8
𝑛 18
∑ 𝑛 2 ∑𝑛 2 2
𝑓𝑑 𝑓𝑑 10 10 10 100 180−100 80
𝑠 = 𝐼 √ 𝑖=1𝑛 𝑖 𝑖 − ( 𝑖=1𝑛 𝑖 𝑖 ) = 5√18 − (18) = 5√18 − 324 = 5√ 324 = 5√324 =
5√0.25 = (5)(0.5) = 2.5

85
Table 6.Computation of Mean and Standard Deviation of Post Test Result of the Class
using English only as a Language of Instruction.
16-20 10 1 1 10 10
11-15 7 0 0 0 0
6-10 1 -1 1 -1 1
𝑛 𝑛
∑ 𝑓𝑖 𝑑𝑖 = 9 ∑ 𝑓𝑖 𝑑𝑖 2 = 11
𝑖=1 𝑖=1
𝑥̅ = 𝐴𝑀 + [ ] 𝐼 = 13 + ( ) 5 = 13 + 2.5 = 15.5
𝑛 18
∑ 𝑛 2 ∑𝑛 2 2
𝑓𝑑 𝑓𝑑 11 9 11 81 198−81 117
𝑠 = 𝐼 √ 𝑖=1𝑛 𝑖 𝑖 − ( 𝑖=1𝑛 𝑖 𝑖 ) = 5√18 − (18) = 5√18 − 324 = 5√ 324 = 5√324 =
5√0.36 = (5)(0.6) = 3
86
Table 7. Computation of Mean, Standard Deviation and for the Significant Increase of
Mathematics Performance of Students under the Class using Bilingualism
(Mother Tongue) as Language of Instruction based on their Pre-test and Post
Test Results.
Students Post-test Pre-test 𝑑𝑖 𝑑𝑖 2
1 18 16 2 4
2 15 15 0 0
3 18 16 2 4
4 14 15 -1 1
5 15 15 0 0
6 17 16 1 1
7 14 14 0 0
8 15 14 1 1
9 18 12 6 36
10 15 12 3 9
11 19 12 7 49
12 15 12 3 9
13 17 11 6 36
14 17 11 6 36
15 18 11 7 49
16 15 11 4 16
17 16 9 7 49
18 17 11 6 36
𝑛
∑𝑛𝑖=1 𝑑𝑖 =60 ∑ 𝑑𝑖 2 = 336

𝑖=1
2 2
𝑛(∑𝑛 𝑛
𝑖=1 𝑑𝑖 )−(∑𝑖=1 𝑑𝑖 ) 18(336)−(60)2 6048−3600 2448
𝑠=√ = √ = √ = √ 306 = √8 = 2.83
𝑛(𝑛−1) 18(18−1) 18(17)
∑𝑛
𝑑𝑖 60
𝑑̅ = 𝑖=1 = = 3.33
𝑛 18
𝑑𝑓 = 𝑛 − 1 = 18 − 1 = 17
87
t-test Computation for Significant Increase of Mathematics Performance of Students

under the Class using Bilingualism (Mother Tongue and English) only as Language of
Instruction based on their Pre-test and Post test results
𝑑̅ − 𝑑𝑜 3.33 − 0 3.33 3.33

𝑡= 𝑠 = 2.83 = 2.83 = = 4.97
0.67
√𝑛 √18 4.24
t critical at 5% is 1.740.
Analysis: highly significant increase

88
Table 8.Computation of Standard Deviation and for the Significant Increase of

Mathematics Performance of Students under the Class using English only as
Language of Instruction based on their Pre-test and Post test Results.
Students Post-test Pre-test 𝑑𝑖 𝑑𝑖 2

1 18 19 -1 1
2 17 17 0 0
3 18 16 2 4
4 18 17 1 1
5 14 16 -2 4
6 18 14 4 16
7 16 14 2 4
8 18 14 4 16
9 11 14 -3 9
10 18 15 3 9
11 17 14 3 9
12 16 13 3 9
13 15 12 3 9
14 15 11 4 16
15 15 11 4 16
16 15 10 5 25
17 15 11 4 16
18 10 8 2 4
𝑛
∑𝑛𝑖=1 𝑑𝑖 =38 ∑ 𝑑𝑖 2 = 168

𝑖=1
2 2
𝑛(∑𝑛 𝑛
𝑖=1 𝑑𝑖 )−(∑𝑖=1 𝑑𝑖 ) 18(168)−(38)2 3024−1444 1580
𝑠=√ = √ = √ = √ 306 = √5.16 = 2.27
𝑛(𝑛−1) 18(18−1) 18(17)
∑𝑛
𝑑𝑖 38
𝑑̅ = 𝑖=1 = = 2.11
𝑛 18
𝑑𝑓 = 𝑛 − 1 = 18 − 1 = 17
89
t-test Computation for Significant Increase of Mathematics Performance of Students

under the Class using English only as Language of Instruction based on their Pre-test and
Post test results
𝑑̅ − 𝑑𝑜 2.11 − 0 2.11 2.11

𝑡= 𝑠 = 2.27 = 2.27 = = 3.91
0.54
√𝑛 √18 4.24
Analysis: highly significant increase

90
Table 9.t-test Computation for the Significant Difference in the Mathematics

Performance of the Students under the Class using Bilingualism (Mother
Tongue) as Language of Instruction and the Class using English only as
Language of Instruction
𝑥̅ n S
Post-test (B) 15.78 18 3
Post-test (E) 15.5 18 2.5
𝑥2 − ̅̅̅
̅̅̅ 𝑥1 15.8 − 15.5 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3
𝑡= = = = = = = 0.326
𝑠 2 𝑠1 2 (2.5)2 (3)2 6.25 9 15.25 √0.85 0.92
√ 𝑛2 + √ + √ + 18 √
2 𝑛1 18 18 18 18
𝑑𝑓 = 𝑛1 + 𝑛2 − 2 = 18 + 18 − 2 = 36 − 2 = 34
t critical at 5% is1.645
t critical at 1% is2.326
Analysis: No significant difference

91
Curriculum Vitae
Personal Data
Name: Arian Rea L. Basog
Date of Birtrh: September 23, 1999
Place of Birth: PurokElumba, Barangay Butong, Diplahan, ZamboangaSibugay
Height: 4’9”
Weight 54 kg
Gender: Female
Civil Status: Single
Religious: Iglesia Ni Cristo
Parents/Guardians: Artemio V. Basog Sr.
Marilyn L. Basog
Educational Attainment
Baccalaureate: Bachelor of Secondary Education
major in Mathematics
Mindanao State University- Buug Campus
DatuPanas, Buug, Zamboanga Sibugay
Secondary: Diplahan National High School
PoblacionDiplahanZamboanga Sibugay
March 2015
Elementary: Butong Primary School
Butong, Diplahan, Zamboanga Sibugay
March 2009
Kauswagan Elementary School
KauswaganDiplahan, Zamboanga Sibugay
March 2011
92
Curriculum Vitae
Personal Data
Name: Honey Grace S. Caballes
Date of Birtrh: August 26, 1998
Place of Birth: Purok 27, Poblacion, Buug, Zamboanga Sibugay
Height: 5’
Weight 40 kg
Gender: Female
Religious: Roman Catholic
Parents/Guardians: Danilo S. Caballes
Hydee S. Caballes
Mateo P. Silmaro
Domingga R. Silmaro
Secondary: Mindanao State University-Laboratory High School
March 2015
Elementary: Buug Pilot Central School
Pioneer St. Buug, Zamboanga Sibugay
March 2011
93
Curriculum Vitae
Personal Data
Name: Christian S. Manlang
Date of Birth: January 20, 1997
Place of Birth: Miare, Buug,ZamboangaSibugay
Height: 5’1”
Weight; 55 kg
Gender: Male
Religion: CAMACOP
Parents/Guardians: Henry C. Manlang
Marie Queen S. Manlang
Secondary: Mindanao State University- Laboratory High School
March 2013
Pioneer St., Buug, Zamboanga Sibugay
March 2009
94
Curriculum Vitae
Personal Data
Name: Vanessa Joyce S. Namoco
Date of Birth: December 11,1998
Place of Birth: Poblacion, Buug, Zamboanga Sibugay
Height: 5’2”
Weight: 50 kg
Gender: Female
Religion: Protestant
Parents/Guardians: Pepe B. Namoco
Jenalyn S. Namoco
Secondary: Mindanao State University- Laboratory High School
March 2015
Pioneer St., Buug, Zamboanga Sibugay
March 2011

Influence of Language Final

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Influence of Language Final

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

THE PROBLEM AND ITS SCOPE

Language, a system of conventional spoken, manual, or written symbols by means

express themselves. The functions of language include communication, the expression of

identity, play imaginative expression, and emotional release.

The influence of the language of instruction on students’ academic performance

foreign tongue as a medium of instruction. Bilingualism is one’s ability to speak

English. Comparing bilingual to English-only programs, many advantages have been

verbal self-perception were strongly related to corresponding achievement. According to

Lin (1993) student’s achievement is an important indicator of teaching and learning

Bilingualism should support the maintenance, development and full flowering of

English as a medium of instruction in Mathematics lessons. This may be one of the

with from early childhood. According to Nordquist, R. (2017),mother tongue is a

tongue (although these terms are not necessarily synonymous).

This study, The Influence of Language of Instruction on the Mathematics

Performance of the Grade VIII Quezon Students in Mindanao State University-Buug

corresponding effect in the students’ Mathematics performance.

being asked and might be the cause of having low performance.

classroom. These students have difficulty understanding written or verbal directions or

Toukomaa and Skutnabb-kangas (1997) “The ‘Threshold’ Theory” suggested that

first and second thresholds have been crossed.

languages used by an individual, though on the surface apparently separate, functions

there is one integrated source of thought.”

In other presentation of Cummins (2000),“Conceptual knowledge developed in

As shown in the figure, the study employed quasi-experimental inquiry in

assessing the influence of language of instruction to the Mathematics performance of the

Grade VIII-Quezon students of Mindanao State University-Buug Laboratory High

difference on the two groups’of Mathematics performance.

Bilingualism were English

The figure above represents the influence of language of instruction to the

Mathematics performance of the Grade VIII-Quezon students of Mindanao State

University-Buug Laboratory High School.

Statement of the Problem

The main purpose of this study is to determine the influence of language of

instruction to the Mathematics performance of the Grade VIII Quezon students of

Mindanao State University-Buug Laboratory High School.

Specifically, this study endeavored to answer the following questions:

1. What is the level of Mathematics performance in the pre-test result of the:

1.2.students under the class using English only as a language of instruction?

2.2.students under the class using English only as languages of instruction?

3. Is there a significant increase in the Mathematics performance of the students

under the class usingbilingualism (mother tongue and English) as alanguage of

instruction in their pre-test and posttest results?

4. Is there a significant increase in the Mathematics performance of the students

test and posttest results?

5. Is there a significant difference in the Mathematics performance of the students

instruction and the class using English only as language of instruction?

Ho1: There is no significant increase in Mathematics performance of students under

the class using bilingualism (mother tongue and English) as a language of

instruction based on their pre-test and posttest results.

Ho2: There is no significant increase in the Mathematics performance of the students

pre-test and post test results.

Ho3: There is no significant difference in the Mathematics performance of the

studentsunder the class using bilingualism (mother tongue and English) as a

language of instruction and the class using English onlyas a languages of

Significance of the Study

This study aimed to determine the influence of language of instruction to the

Mathematics performance of the Grade VIII Quezon students of Mindanao State

University-Buug Laboratory High School.

process more effective.

needs of the learners.

sources for their related studies.

Scope and Limitation