Chapter 2

Review of Related Literature

This chapter is organized into four parts namely; (1)

Time-Pressured Tests, (2) Non-Time Pressured Tests (3)

Mathematics Performance, and (4) Synthesis.

The First Part, Time-Pressured Tests, discuss the

different literature on timed-tests and how these affect to

students’ learning in mathematics.

The Second Part, Non-Time Pressured Tests, tells about

the importance of untimed assessments and its impact on

students’ performance.

The Third Part, Mathematics Performance, describes the

studies on performance of students in mathematics, both

locally and internationally.

The Last Part, the Synthesis, sums up the literature

reviewed in this study.

Time Pressured Tests

Mathematics is an important part of people’s daily

lives and that nobody can do away with it. People need

Mathematics in counting, computing sales, gains and

measuring areas and volume, and many more. The need to

 18

enhance students’ mathematical skills and at the same time

develop in them a positive attitude toward the subject is a

dire academic need (Kurucz, 2014).

Time pressure has been defined as an imposition of a

time horizon or a deadline for completing a task.

Similarly, Kayaalp (2014) define time pressure as a

difference between time available and time required for

performing a task.

According to Kayaalp (2014), time pressure has

generally been seen as an inhibitor of creative

performance. Deadlines or time pressure serve as

controlling contexts and act as inhibitors of intrinsic

motivation. Intrinsic motivation in turn is considered to

be a facilitator of creative performance. Thus, scholars of

creativity have suggested that since creativity consumes

significant amounts of cognitive and motivational

resources, one would expect that contexts that are charged

with time pressure would choke creative production.

Although thinking that time pressure chokes creative

performance makes intuitive sense, empirical work has

yielded mixed findings such that some studies have found

that time pressure hinders creative performance, while

others have found that although high levels of time

pressure do hinder creativity, optimum levels of time

 19

pressure facilitate creative performance (Baer & Oldham,

2009).

Conservative estimates suggest that at least a third

of students experience extreme stress related to timed

tests, and these are not students from any particular

achievement group or economic background. When we put

students through this anxiety-provoking experience, they

distance themselves from Mathematics. Math anxiety has now

been recorded in students as young as five, and timed tests

are a major cause of this debilitating, often lifelong

condition (Ramirez, et. al, 2013).

Faust et al (2010) provided some evidence to suggest

that time pressure creates an increased cognitive load,

which particularly impacts individuals high in math

anxiety. They observed that the negative consequences of

math anxiety disappeared when participants were tested in

an untimed paper-and-pencil condition, in which cognitive

load was reduced.

Kellogg et al (2009) suggested that task-related

cognitions may be more directly related to factors other

than time pressure, such as the presentation of math

stimuli or physiological arousal. However, recent work has

demonstrated that, even under non-timed conditions, 49.2%

of participants self-reported having thought about time

 20

pressure during an arithmetic test situation. Moreover,

self-reported math anxiety was significantly higher among

those who had experienced thoughts about time pressure

(Hunt, Clark-Carter & Sheffield, 2014).

Andrews & Farris (2012) investigated how time pressure

impacted scientists’ performance over a five-year span,

where performance was defined as the degree to which

scientists produced innovative outputs that were both novel

and useful. They operationalized time pressure as the

difference between typical time pressure experienced and

the optimal time pressure that respondents felt would

facilitate their work. Authors found that experienced time

pressure was positively related to increased usefulness (r

=0.49), while relaxed environments (or mild time pressure)

were related to decreased usefulness. Also, time pressure

was positively related to innovativeness (i.e., novel

outcomes; r = 0.25) but as time pressure increased beyond

moderate levels, it reduced innovativeness. In fact,

authors found that high performing scientists wanted higher

levels of time pressure.

Furthermore, several experiments from decision-making

research have studied the effects of time pressure.

Findings on time pressure and its effects on decision

making find that high levels of time pressure lead

 21

individuals to (a) use fewer decision making attributes,

(b) focus on negative aspects of the problem at hand such

that they weight negative information more heavily, (c)

make less risky choices, and (d) focus on scanning more

alternatives but at the cost of gleaning detailed

understanding of the presented alternatives (White, 2013).

Sternberg (2009) asserts that for individuals to

effectively solve a complex problem, they have to first

structure, redefine, and organize the problem such that

problem itself becomes a problem-solving heuristic. This

becomes even more critical when individuals are presented

with complex, abstract, and/or novel problems. Further, if

high time pressure triggers participants’ risk-avoidance

strategy then it would be hard for them to produce novel

solutions. To the extent that creativity entails taking

risks, high levels of time pressure can thus be expected to

reduce novelty dimension of creative outcome effectiveness.

Creative performance behaviors such as idea generation

are contingent on an individual’s ability to sample ideas

and associations from wide domains (Kaufman et al. 2015).

The finding that individuals use fewer attributes under

time pressure might also lead to lowered idea generation on

the divergent thinking task.

 22

According to Binnewies & Wörnlein (2011), decision-

making and creativity literatures tend to converge on

identifying time pressure as a stressor that leads to

affective changes. In performance situations, individuals

can appraise the stressful situations as threatening,

challenging, or difficult to control.

Matthews & Campbell (2009) tested how individuals

appraised work pressure on Rapid Information Processing

task (RIP) and found that when a situation is appraised as

threatening it produced a distress reaction accompanied by

negative moods, whereas when a situation was appraised as

challenging it invoked task engagement.

Binnewies & Wörnlein (2011) found that both low and

high levels of time pressure decrease performance, while

moderate levels of time pressure increase performance. It

is apparent that depending on its level, time pressure can

act as both a constraint and a facilitator.

Under high levels of time pressure, the most salient

cue to people is one of constraints. Although typically,

high Intellect individuals enjoy working on challenging

problems, when they encounter high time pressure their

trait-consistent behaviors will be constrained (Mussel &

Spengler, 2015).
 23

Furthermore, a study on physiological and affective

reactivity to stressors found that individuals high on

Openness were more resilient to stressors than individuals

low on Openness (Williams, Rau, Cribbet, Gunn, 2009). If

individuals have the resources to cope with time pressure

as a stressor, then they might feel “eustress, a positive

responsive state involving effort and challenge but no

negative affect while individuals with perceived/actual

deficits in coping with stress might feel “distress” which

is associated with anxiety and helplessness.

Individuals’ reactions to affective states generated

by contextual features like time pressure also depend on

their traits. High levels of time pressure can act as

constraints for expression of Intellect-consistent

behaviors and thus create negative affect, while mild

levels of time pressure act as facilitators for expression

of Intellect-consistent behaviors and create positive

affect(Mussel & Spengler, 2015).

In another important study, researchers found that

the most powerful learning occurs when we use different

areas of the brain. Some parts of the brain handle

symbolic information; others handle visual and spatial

information. Researchers found that mathematics

 24

learning and performance are optimized when different

areas of the brain are communicating (Park &Brannon, 2013).

Researchers also found that when students were working

on math fact questions, the most successful students were

those who exhibited the strongest connections between

different areas of the brain. The implications of this

finding are extremely important for mathematics learning,

as they tell us that learning the formal abstract

mathematics that makes up a lot of the school curriculum is

enhanced when students are using visual and intuitive

mathematical thinking.

A large amount of literature from the decision-making

field suggests that manipulating the time limit/pressure

associated with a task has a very strong effect on the

stressful nature of that particular task (Byrne et al.,

2015). However, in the mathematical cognition field few

studies have considered a time deadline as an important

interference source and explicitly manipulated it by

inserting in the experimental design atleast two separate

conditions; one with and one without a time limit.

Subsequent research has manipulated the time limit

using more controlled experimental designs, across a

variety of mathematical tasks, such as numerosity judgment

arithmetical problems, probabilistic and proportional

 25

reasoning (Agus et al., 2015), and algebraic concepts

(Chesney et al., 2013).

According to this viewpoint, Gillard et al. (2009)

manipulated time pressure by reducing the solution time or

introducing a concurrent task, leading to a self-imposed

time constraint to complete the main task. They found that

limiting students’ resources, by reducing their response

time or loading their working memory system, resulted in an

increase in the wrong choice of heuristic proportional

solution strategy. Thus, time pressure is one factor that

influencing which strategy people select to deal with a

particular math problem situation (Alison et al., 2013).

McNeil and colleagues investigated how time pressure

can influence the strategies used by both adults and

children to solve equation problems. They found that under

time pressure, students performed at a low level in their

mathematics. This low performance is the result of using

the same typical arithmetic strategies applied by children

to solve mathematical equivalence problems, demonstrating

how people can shift from more complex to simpler

strategies when they are under pressured conditions

(Chesney et al., 2013).

 26

Ogidi,et.al. (2011) found out that students have a low

level ability as a whole when asked to answer mathematical

problems using the time-pressured test.

Similarly, Campbell and Austin (2012) used a time

limit manipulation when adults were solving simple addition

problems in order to alter their strategy choice. The

author imposed a fast deadline (750 ms) to force adult

participants to use a retrieval strategy, and a slower one

(2,500 ms) to elicit use of procedural strategy (e.g.,

counting or transformation). Results indicated adaptive

strategic behavior which was influenced by problem features.

The fast deadline resulted in a small effect on retrieval

strategy usage for smaller problems, where fact retrieval

was used under both conditions. On the other hand, for

larger problems, participants report decreased use of

procedural strategies under the faster condition. The time

pressure imposed by the fast deadline adaptively modified

the participants’ selection strategy increasing the

attempts to solve larger problems by a retrieval strategy.

For large problems under the time pressure condition,

retrieval strategy was both faster and more accurate than a

multistep procedure, making this an example of adaptive

strategy selection.
 27

A similar pattern of results has been found by Luwel

and Verschaffel (2013) testing the estimation strategies of

sixth graders under three different time pressure

conditions. In this study, participants were asked to

determine the number of filled blocks in a 10 × 10 grid as

accurately and fast as possible, according to time pressure

conditions, operated by introducing three temporal windows

of stimulus presentation (5, 10, or 20s). To accomplish the

task, participants would engage three possible strategies,

identified in prior studies, each of which is expected to

elicit a specific pattern of response times (and deviation

scores) as a function of the number of blocks present.

Analysis of the results revealed that children’s

performance was also affected by increasing time pressure on

strategy repertoire, relative frequency of strategy use and

efficiency of strategy execution, indicating that even at a

young age children seem able to adapt their strategy use to

the external task demands, in terms of coping with the

given time restrictions. The overall results highlight that

time pressure adjusts the strategy decision process

generating a sort of strategy costs and benefits trade-off:

when the available time is short and the task complexity is

substantial, strategies that can be applied rapidly

represent the more appropriate choice.

 28

Tsui and Mazzocco (2006) examined the effects of math

anxiety on math performance, under timed and untimed

testing conditions in 36 sixth grade primary school

children. They found a general pattern of reduced accuracy

in math performance under the timed testing condition. This

was influenced by participants’ math anxiety level: higher

anxiety children performed equally under timed and untimed

testing conditions. Conversely, lower anxiety children had

decreased math performance under timed condition. Although

there was no main effect of gender on timed vs. untimed math

performance, boys were equally accurate on timed and

untimed testing, by contrast, girls showed a discrepancy in

accuracy in favor of untimed conditions. They explain this

pattern of results in terms of facilitating anxiety:

according to the authors, the performance of gifted

children with high math anxiety did not drop under time

pressure because of math anxiety canceling out the negative

effect of time pressure; effect that was present for lower

math anxiety children.

Kellogg et al. (2009) tested 30 undergraduate

university students divided into three different groups

according to their math anxiety level. Participants were

asked to solve a series of arithmetical tasks in both a

timed and untimed condition. Kellogg et al. (2009) did not

 29

observe any difference between high and low anxiety

individuals, although the timing manipulation negatively

affected the arithmetic performance of both groups. The

authors stated that time pressure manipulation had an

additive effect with anxiety on arithmetic performance.

Consequently, although “worry” may adversely affect the

performance of highly anxious individuals, it does not

appear that the level of worry is differentially related to

the amount of time assigned to perform a mathematical task.

In other words, they concluded that time pressure was not a

contributor to the worrisome thoughts that occupy

individuals with high math anxiety during arithmetic

testing. In sum, there is some evidence that math anxiety

interacts with timed or high-stakes conditions to cause a

further performance decrement than usual. However, due to

the paucity and heterogeneity of research both in terms of

sample and tasks considered, these results do not allow us

to conclude that increasing time pressure has a differential

effect depending on math anxiety. Similarly, assuming causal

relations between time pressure and inducing math anxiety

currently does not have evidential support.

Some research on math anxiety suggest that trait

anxiety also reduces effective working memory capacity. This

suggests that anxiety impairs performance by overloading

 30

working memory. Specifically, pressure is expected to lead

to worry, concern and other distracting thoughts about

performance, which consume working memory resources. It has

been widely assumed that people are equipped with a range

of cognitive strategies which they adaptively select and

apply according to the specific task and situation. Within

this framework, pressure represents one factor that can

influence which strategy people select to deal with a

particular situation. Relatively little research has

focused on the impact of time pressure on strategy

selection in mathematics, principally aiming to show how

time pressure interferes with the decision process in terms

of strategy selection in mathematical domain. Results seem

to suggest that time pressure generally acts as a stressor,

causing suboptimal strategy selection (Krause, 2013).

Interestingly, Roskes, Elliot, Nijstaf and De Dreu

(2013) studied the effect of time pressure as a function of

avoidance motivation versus approach motivation. The former

represents striving to avoid failure and was measured by

scale items such as “when it looks like something bad could

happen, I have a strong urge to escape”. The researchers

observed that performance was particularly negatively

affected under time pressure among those who are avoidance

 31

motivated. In this instance time pressure was induced by

setting a time limit for each math problem.

Also, DeCaro, Rotar, Kendra and Beilock (2010)

observed a significant negative correlation between the

number of self-reported task-related thoughts and problem

solving accuracy. However, the nature of worrisome thoughts

proposed to be experienced as a result of math anxiety has

been somewhat speculative, although there are some

empirical findings that indicate what such thoughts may

consist of.

Beilock, Kulp, Holt and Carr (2014) asked participants

to perform arithmetic in a high pressure condition and

noted that they had significantly higher perceptions of

performance pressure than those in the low pressure

condition. In the high pressure condition participants were

also more likely to report thoughts and worries about the

situation and its consequences.

To directly assess the relevance of time pressure on

the relationship between math anxiety and performance,

Kellogg, Hopko and Ashcraft (2009) gave low and high math

anxious individuals a series of math problems under timed

and untimed conditions. They observed an overall positive

relationship between math anxiety and number of errors

made, but this did not vary according to timed or untimed

 32

conditions, suggesting that time pressure may not be as

important as first predicted in explaining the effect of

math anxiety on performance.

Bosmans and De Smedt (2015) tested math performance of

children under timed and untimed conditions and observed a

significant negative direct relationship between math

anxiety and performance in both conditions. In their study,

the timed condition required participants to respond to

columns of math problems, solving as many as possible

within one minute, demonstrating one particular way of

creating a timed condition.

Non-Time Pressured Tests

Time is a fundamental element of all human activities,

and many human activities are subject to limited time

frames. Past research indicates that time impacts an

individual’s decision strategy and affective state. For

example, analysis for an important decision might normally

be performed using a deliberative processing strategy,

which is slow, highly analytic, and based on a conscious

appraisal of facts and cause-and-effect relationships

(Epstein 2009).

An individuals’ negative affect can have an array of

negative consequences for organizations. Postponing

 33

decisions can lead to high costs for organizations

(O'Donoghue and Rabin 2009). It was found that individuals

increase their processing speed when given enough time,

i.e. change their micro decision strategies. Moreover, the

increased processing speed indicating intuitive processing,

make individuals show a more complete scanning of

information when they are asked to justify their decision.

Thus, a justification requirement without time-pressure

might be effective to increase the amount of information

processed.

The large gap in confidence and uneasiness scores

between the time-pressure and no time-pressure groups

coupled with the dramatically lower scores in fixation

duration and number of fixations for the time-pressured

group indicates that making selection decisions under time

pressure is potentially risky. The selection decision that

participants made was not nearly as complex as a real

software selection task so the differences between groups

suggests that we can potentially expect even poorer

outcomes in the more complex considerations made when

making real decisions under time pressure unless the

process is designed carefully (Fehrenbacher& Smith, 2014).

According to a metaphor by Amabile (2009), doing a

task or solving a problem is like getting through a maze

 34

based on a notion that creativity depends on the

exploration of the maze of available cognitive pathways.

Although satisfactory outcomes can be attained by following

a straight path (a familiar task algorithm) out of the

maze, creative solutions require exploration of unfamiliar

territory. One recent laboratory study designed to examine

the applicability of this maze metaphor revealed that

people who allocate more time to exploratory task behaviors

are more likely to produce work that is rated by observers

as creative (Wright, 2014).

If such cognitive exploration of the maze of

possibilities is important to creativity, there must be

sufficient time devoted to the cognitive processing

involved in intellectually playing with ideas and possible

solution paths. If people are too busy, they may not

allocate the time to engage in this sort of thinking. The

more time that is made available for this type of thinking,

the more variations that can be generated and evaluated.

There is some suggestive evidence, from prior empirical

studies, that successful creative processing is a function

of available time. In one laboratory study, participants

who were given five minutes to plan their structure-

building activity, either by having five minutes to

physically play with task materials, or five minutes to

 35

simply look at (and mentally play with) the materials,

subsequently produced structures that were rated as more

creative than those produced by participants who began the

structure-building task immediately after being given the

materials (Whitney, et.al, 2010).

There is suggestive evidence from the problem-solving

and decision-making literatures, as well. In a review,

Edland and Svenson (2013) noted that people working without

time pressure tend to employ more effective strategies of

filtering information more. For example, in a gambling

simulation study, Ben Zur and Breznitz (2010) found that

individuals working without time pressure have the capacity

to ignore negative information (i.e., probability of

losing) and do not accelerate the decision making process,

resulting in a preference for more effective solutions.

This phenomenon can be attributed to the state of

"hypervigilance" (excessive alertness to signs of threat or

pressure) that is triggered by the time pressure and other

stressful situations. The reasoning is that, because hyper

vigilance in response to approaching deadlines causes

people to increase the selectivity of the information they

process and to make a decision without generating all of

the available alternatives, it leads to ill-considered

decisions that are frequently followed by post-decisional

 36

conflict and frustration. These notions are consonant with

those of threat-rigidity theory, which proposes that, under

threatening situations, individuals and organizations

become more likely to rely on familiar algorithms. In sum,

the literature suggests that time pressure is likely to

result in shallow, narrow, conservative thinking – the

opposite of creative thinking (Fredman & Edward, 2010).

This shallow, narrow, conservative thinking should

affect not only the exploration for new ideas, which is

termed “response generation” in the componential theory. It

should also affect each of the other elements of creative

cognitive processing. Under time pressure, people may be

less likely to take the time to understand a problem deeply

(“problem or task identification”), or to fully prepare to

solve the problem through learning and contemplation of

what they have learned (“preparation”), before they delve

into response generation. Moreover, they may be less likely

to fully think through or talk through the implications of

the response possibilities they have generated (“response

validation and communication”). In other words, the entire

set of elements that make up creative cognitive processing

could be adversely affected by time pressure.

Given the tremendous importance of time as an

organizing principle for behavior, it is surprising how

 37

little attention it has been given as a factor in decision

making and choice. Indeed, by definition, to decide means

to arrive at a conclusion or make up one's mind. Thus,

decision making is rooted in the concept of time, and time

is one of the primary resources that decision making and

choice draw upon. Inherent in the relationship between time

and choice is the notion that better choices require more

time. Considered judgment, careful deliberation, and a

timely conclusion imply that the quality of one's decisions

and judgments are reflected in the time afforded the

process, carry the image of incubation in which information

and values are carefully evaluated, and appropriate

tradeoffs are made. In contrast with the notion of time as

a resource that facilitates decision making and choice, is

time as a scarce commodity to be used wisely. The decision

maker, for example, who uses too much time in making up

his/her mind is labeled indecisive, implying a deficiency

in decision-making skills; a wasting of time that perhaps

could be better used for other purposes. Thus a conflict

arises: A good and prudent individual consciously allocates

time to making decisions and choices, but not too much

time. The establishment of a clear frame of time is an

important element of good decision making, and a good

decision maker manages time as an allocatable resource.

 38

Given this model, all decisions and choices occur under

time pressure, within a time frame that has a deadline,

either self-imposed by an individual, or established by the

external context in which the behavior occurs (MacGregor,

2013).

In the study conducted by Zakay (2009), it was found

out that participants who were given a mathematical problem

solving test without time limits registered a high level of

mathematics performance. It was also found out that there

is a significant difference on the performance of students

between the two groups.

During the design of the experiment various time

constraints on the problem were tested. It was determined

that a subject could obtain the optimum solution within a

five-minute time limit. Less time, e.g. 2 to 3 minutes,

appeared to induce excessive strain and seriously impair

performance. Pilot studies revealed that 15 seconds

represented substantial time pressure for the subjects. The

first group made the 36 decisions without any time

pressure, while the second group was allowed only 20

seconds for each decision (20 seconds having been found in

a pilot study to constitute severe time pressure). Result

of the study revealed that participants perform better when

taking test without so much time pressure. Participants

 39

stated that they can think better, concentrate more, and

give more focus when they are not being timed (Zakay &

Wooler, 2011).

Various theories of time perception have proposed that

the passage of time is judged on the basis of the number of

intervening events during an interval. The larger the

number of events that occur within a given time period, the

longer the period is judged to be. By implication, anything

that increases the perception that a number of events have

transpired will also increase one's perception of the

length of the time period of those events. More simply put,

when many events take place, a large amount of time must

have passed. Events, then, can serve as a cue for how

rapidly time is passing. This could be extended to include

cognitive events, such as the processing of information

relevant to a decision or choice. If cognitive events are

used as a basis for judging the passage of time, then

increasing cognitive activity should increase the amount of

time that an individual will perceive as passing. Under

conditions where a fixed amount of time is allowed for

decision making, increased cognitive activity may

exacerbate a perception that time is being consumed. Thus,

the time-pressured individual experiences an increase in

the perception of time pressure due to the increase in the

 40

number of cognitive events taking place (Block & Reed,

2009).

On the study conducted by Ghanbari, et.al (2015), it

was found out that time pressure did not have any

significant effect on students, performance (Ghanbari,

et.al, 2015).

Caudery (2010) run a study in which 24 participants

were divided into two 12 member groups to show the effect

of time restriction on their essay writings. Students wrote

two argumentative assays, in each case with a choice of two

topics. So there were two different conditions, i.e. one

essay was written in class in 40 minutes and another was

started in class. In the second situation, students were

given one hour of classroom time and their task was

commenced in the class but it was continued and finished at

home during two days. The essay topics were reversed for

the two groups, i.e. the topics on which one group wrote in

40 minutes were the topics on which another group wrote

without any time pressure. Finally, the results indicated

that there was no evidence to support the hypothesis that

students will write better without a time restriction. In

other words, correlation between the groups’ timed and

untimed essay scores proposed no reason to prove the

 41

relationship between the variation in individual students’

scores and time factor.

Livingston (2009) conducted a study that examined

differences in students, scores under three separate timing

conditions: (a) 20 minutes, (b) 30 minutes, and (c) 30

minutes with separately timed sections of 10 minutes for

planning and 20 minutes for writing. Results showed that

the two essays differed in difficulty — one essay was

clearly easier for the majority of students irrespective of

ability level, timing, or order of presentation. Several

conclusions from that study were made concerning essay

timing: a) the effect of an extra 10 minutes (allowing 30

minutes instead of 20 minutes) was “very small in relation

to the other sources of variation,” and the effect of

students’ ability on the difference between a 20- and 30-

minute essay was far short of significant, b) providing

students with 30 minutes, but requiring a 10-minute

planning period (condition c above) appeared to lower

scores if this essay came first, and appeared to have a

slight increase in scores if it was the second essay, c)

for students with low ability, neither the extra time nor

topic made a difference in their score.

Crone, et al., (2013) also showed that examinees

received lower scores in the 15-minute condition than in

 42

the 30-minute condition. Furthermore, the study examined if

the time difference had any impact on ethnic/racial

minorities or language minorities. The study confirmed that

English Second Language (ESL) students scored lower than

English First Language (EFL) students irrespective of essay

length and that all groups scored lower on the 15-minute

essay.

Powers and Fowles (2011) examined the difference in

examinee performance on a 40-minute and 60-minute proposed

GRE writing test. Three hundred prospective graduate

students completed two different essays under each of the

time limits. On a questionnaire completed after writing the

essays, 75 percent of respondents said a 40-minute time

allocation was adequate, and 88 percent felt 60 minutes was

adequate. The differences in the perception of time

provided were statistically significant, especially for

students who said they were slow or average test-takers.

Additional time was equally beneficial to test-takers, who

judged themselves as faster, average, or slower writers.

Mean scores increased slightly with additional time (mean

increases were .06 and 1.0 for different prompts on a 1–6

scale with two readers). However, the relative performance

of fast, average, and slow test-takers and the meaning of

 43

test scores did not change noticeably when more time was

allocated.

In the study conducted by Kellogg, Hopko and Ashcraft

(2009), they assess the relevance of time pressure on the

relationship between math anxiety and performance by giving

low and high math anxious individuals a series of math

problems under timed and untimed conditions. They observed

an overall positive relationship between math anxiety and

number of errors made, but this did not vary according to

timed or untimed conditions, suggesting that time pressure

may not be as important as first predicted in explaining

the effect of math anxiety on performance.

Kelly & McGrath as cited in Holmes (2012) found that

individuals in a team produced higher quality of solutions

when they had more time (less time pressure) than when they

had less time (high time pressure). Furthermore, Andrews &

Smith (2006) found that as time pressure increased beyond

moderate levels participants’ creativity on developing

plans decreased (β = -0.12) because participants tended to

fall back on using tried and-tested approaches in problem

solving when under time pressure.

On the other hand, leaving an open time window to

complete a task enables participants to get a greater

amount of information by using a slower but more accurate

 44

strategy (Heinze et al., 2009). A reduction in execution

time allowed to solve a mathematical task can lead to a

decrease of information that can be collected. The

importance of reaction time analysis in the study of

mathematical processes is widely acknowledged, above all in

the domain of strategy selection (DeCaro et al., 2016). For

example, it is worth noting that switching between complex

and shortcut strategies incurs a cost to reaction time

(Lemaire and Lecacheur, 2010), but this can be directly

tested only when the experimental paradigm requires there

to be no time limit in place.

Mathematics Performance

Mathematics instruction is a high priority in any

educational system because math skills function as a

gatekeeper to college and career opportunities (Booth &

Newton, 2012). Sells (2010) described mathematical

proficiency as a critical filter that determines what

opportunities will be available to an individual.

According to Buckley (2010), mathematical

understanding is necessary for economic and democratic

participation in our society. He claimed that the filtering

process based on math ability begins in elementary school,

stating that a student’s failure to master arithmetic

 45

skills in the elementary grades creates a major barrier to

career opportunities as an adult.

In the study of Cabatay et.al (2011), they pointed out

that mathematics is learned because of many reasons.

Firstly, the mastery of basic mathematical skills is needed

in order to cope with the demand of life. Such demands

include being numerically literate, gaining tools for

future employment, developing the prerequisites for further

education, and appreciating the relationship between

mathematics and technology. Secondly, mathematics is the

language of the sciences, and many disciplines depend on

this subject as a symbolic means of communication. Thirdly,

mathematics education can play an important part in

developing students’ general decision making and problem

solving skills.

According to World Bank report (2007), in most

developing countries, not enough Mathematics teachers are

being produced by Universities and Colleges. Therefore,

College and Universities graduates are being encouraged to

pursue these courses purposely to fill the gap. Students’

performance in mathematics subject has been investigated

through bilateral surveys in two European countries. Poor

school performance not only results in the child having a

low self-esteem, but also causes significant stress to the

 46

parents. Teacher’s quality supported by training and

experiences has influencing role in effective teaching-

learning. Teaching experience plays important role in

success of education. Baruah (2010) revealed that

mathematics performances of schools are positively

correlated with (a) the academic performance of school

indicated by school leaving pass percentage and also (b)

with the performances in subjects other than mathematics.

On the other hand, students and teacher ratio seems not to

affect the mathematics performance of the schools under

study. The requirement of urgent attention to improve the

performance of secondary school is indicated considering

the societal needs.

Teacher factor is the most recommended factors

impacting students learning. Accumulated evidences suggest

that it moderates the effect of other risk factors like

parent’s educational level of attainments, gender of

students, socio-cultural and socio-economic backgrounds

(Cave & Brown, 2010). Teachers are responsible to the kind

of learning and experiences the students may engage

everyday as well as setting of educational goals and total

personality development.

Professional development of teachers on content-

focused instruction has tremendous effect on student

 47

achievement. The study of Blank and de las Alas (2009)

provided a scientifically based evidence for its positive

effect. The students of the teacher who participated in

programs for faculty development had scored above the

students whose teachers did not participate.

The study of Hill, Rowan & Ball (2009) concluded that

teacher’s mathematical knowledge had strong significant

relationship on student achievement. Quimbo (2013) says

that teachers who are always absent or did not teach had

among the lowest score in mathematics achievement test.

Thus, mathematics achievement can be improved by improving

teacher’s mathematical knowledge, commitment in the

profession and always engaging in professional development.

Alvaera, Bayan, & Martinez (2009) of De LaSalle

University, Manila, conducted study intended to determine

whether parental involvement and autonomy (mothers and

fathers), and teaching approach can predict public school

students’ achievement as measured by the general average

grades of students. In determining which variable has a

significant relationship with student achievement, it

showed that mother involvement was significantly related

with the students' academic achievement. Parents'

involvement in the child's schooling like assisting the

child's in making their assignments explains much the grade

 48

of the child. It was concluded in the study that only

mother involvement can predict students' achievement.

Base on the study conducted by Corros (2017) found

that the level of the mathematics performance of the

students is “very satisfactory”. There was a significant

difference in the mathematics performance of students when

they were classified according to the teaching

effectiveness. There was a significant relationship exists

between the mathematics performance of students and

teaching effectiveness.

According to the study conducted by Lantoria (2016),

it was found that generally, the level of abstract

reasoning of Grade 7 students was “average”. The level of

verbal abilities of Grade 7 students as an entire group was

“low”. In general, the problem solving skills of Grade 7

students within a one-hour time allotment was “proficient”.

There was a significant difference in the problem solving

skills of Grade 7 students when they were classified

according to their abstract reasoning. There was no

significant difference in the problem solving skills of

Grade 7 students when classified according to their verbal

abilities. There was a significant relationship between

abstract reasoning and their problem solving skills and

between the abstract reasoning and verbal abilities.

 49

Butthere was no significant relationship between the verbal

abilities and problem solving skills of Grade 7 students.

Based on the Center for Educational Management CEM

result (2014) of the IJA Grade 6 pupils batch 2014-2015,

10% performed excellent, 6% performed approaching

excellence, 10% performed average, 16% performed moving

towards excellence, 22% performed needs improvement, 14%

performed low average, 4% performed below average, 12%

performed poor and 4% performed Very poor. This means that

the percentage that got average and up is 65.31%.

The percentage of students who got average and up in

each subject are the following: Mathematics has 65.31%,

English has 87.76% and Science has 91.84%. This result

shows that the math subject got lowest results among the

said disciplines.

Based on the study conducted by Piansay (2016) in

Falcis (2016) found that Grade six pupils have similarly

“poor” mathematics performance in the pretests both in the

control and experimental group. While after the

intervention, pupils have “excellent” mathematics

performance in both the control and experimental groups.

There is no significant difference in the mathematics

performance of Grade six pupils in the pretests of the

control and experimental groups. There is a significant

 50

difference in the mathematics performance of the Grade six

pupils in the pretest and posttest of the control group.

There is a significant difference in the mathematics

performance of the Grade six pupils in the pretests and

posttests of the experimental group. There is no

significant difference in the mathematics performance of

the Grade six pupils in the posttests of the control and

experimental group.

As cited in a research conducted by Cabahug and Ladut

(2005) in Falcis (2017), the University of the Philippines’

greatest failure is in mathematics. It is also said that

repetition in mathematics is common among UP students that

almost one out of three repeat a mathematics course.

Cabahug and Ladot (2005) also said that the faculties of

the UP Cebu Natural Science and Mathematics Division or

NSMD have felt the declining performance of students in

basic mathematics. It is also stated that the attitude

towards mathematics and achievement in mathematics have

always been a great concern.

According to Math Fluency (2011), educators and

cognitive scientists agree that the ability to recall basic

math facts fluently is necessary for students to attain

higher-order math skills. The implication for mathematics

is that some of the sub-processes, particularly basic

 51

facts, need to be developed to the point that they are done

automatically. If this fluent retrieval does not develop

then the development of higher-order mathematics skills-

such as multiple-digit addition and subtraction, long

division, and fractions - may be severely impaired. Indeed,

studies have found that lack of math fact retrieval can

impede participation in math class discussions, successful

mathematics problem-solving, and even the development of

everyday life skills. And rapid math-fact retrieval has

been shown to be a strong predictor of performance on

mathematics achievement tests.

According to Effandi&Normah (2009), students'

attitudes towards mathematics are closely related to their

attitude towards problem-solving in general; negative

attitudes need to be overcome, so that students will not

suffer from poor problem-solving skills later in life.

Olatunde (2010) opined that the process of learning depends

not only on family factors but also of students' personal

characteristics that are naturally correlated with family

characteristics but have an effect on their own. Therefore,

in order to analyze achievement, some students' personal

characteristics must be taken into account.

The research of Mohd, Mahmood & Mohd (2011) entitled

"Factors that Influence students in Mathematics

 52

Achievement" revealed that there is significant

relationship between the level of patience towards problem-

solving and mathematics achievement. It also reflects that

there is significant relationship between attitude towards

problem solving and mathematics achievement. On the other

hand, the finding shows that there is no significant

relationship between the level of confidence and

willingness towards problem solving and mathematics

achievement. This research also reflects that there is

significant relationship between attitude (patience,

confidence and willingness) towards problem solving and

mathematics achievement.

According to Manoah (2011), attitude towards

mathematics has been considered an important factor in

influencing participation and success in mathematics. In

their study "Influence of attitude on performance of

students in mathematics curriculum”, it is worth noting

that the independent variable (Attitude) for girls and boys

had significant association with dependent variable

(Mathematics Test.).

Educational researchers and policymakers have

expressed great concern about mathematics achievement based

on comparisons with other countries (Kankaraš & Moors,

2014). Results from the Program for International Student

 53

Assessment (PISA) and Trends in International Mathematics

and Science Study (TIMSS) suggest that numerous countries

are outperforming the United States in mathematics (Täht &

Must, 2013). The 2009 PISA results show that American

students are poorly prepared to compete in today’s

knowledge economy. A considerable amount of controversy

has arisen regarding the comparability of results on

international assessments such as PISA and TIMSS (Kankaraš

& Moors, 2014).

The achievement scores, whether in local or

international examinations, are means to measure

comprehension on different subject areas and highlight

students’ over-all academic performance. The National

Achievement Test (NAT) results for grade 6 in SY 2009-2010

showed only a 69.21% passing rate while the NAT results for

high school is at a low 46.38%. Moreover, in international

test results such as the 2003 TIMSS (Trends in

International Mathematics and Science Study), the

Philippines ranked 34th out of 38 countries in HS II Math

and ranked 43rd out of 46 countries in HS II Science; for

grade 4, the Philippines ranked 23rd out of 25

participating countries in both Math and Science. In 2008,

even with only the science high schools participating in

 54

the Advanced Mathematics category, the Philippines ranked

lowest (Department of Education, 2010).

TIMSS advanced results showed that, in general,

Philippines performed least among ten (10) participating

countries in mathematics overall and as well as in specific

content areas and cognitive domains in terms of average

scale score and percent correct responses. Comparing the

scale scores of the students with the benchmark levels,

only 1% of the Filipino students reached the Advanced level

(International Association for the Evaluation of

Educational Attainment (IEA), 2010).

Aquino (in Sewala, 2013) pointed out that deeper

understanding of mathematical concepts and ideas develop

when students contribute to a solution. By talking about

how a problem should be solved, students make their

thinking visible to themselves and their peers.

Abaldonado (2013) quoted the version of National

Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM, 2000) in his

study that in order to improve the skills of the students,

educators must truly believe that all students can learn

rigorous mathematics. When this belief is in place,

educators can embrace the learning issues of students in

order to provide effective instructions and develop

productive lessons.
 55

Abaldonado (2013) figure in his study that the

problems that has a language that does not explicit action

will create difficulty on the part of students to relate

given quantities. Similarly, it is possible for students

who do not have a firm grasp of mathematical concepts

involved in the problem to give correct answer. Thus, to

become a good problem solver in mathematics, one must

develop a base of mathematics knowledge.

Kankaraš and Moors (2014) claimed that the PISA tests

given in different countries may not be equivalent due to

cultural and linguistic differences. They cautioned

readers that many factors may influence test results,

including translation and students’ differing familiarity

with the format of the assessments. In addition, cultural

bias may be present in the content of specific test items.

Täht and Must (2013) conducted a factor analysis based

on the PISA 2006 data. They concluded that comparisons of

different countries’ PISA scores are unjustified. Tienken

(2013) claimed every nation that outperformed the United

States on the PISA 2009 mathematics assessment had

significantly lower rates of childhood poverty in

comparison with the U.S. He asserted that U.S. students

score higher than any other country after controlling for

the national poverty rate.

 56

A strong negative correlation exists between math

anxiety and achievement in mathematics (May, 2009). That

is, students with higher levels of mathematics anxiety tend

to earn lower grades and test scores in mathematics.

Researchers have demonstrated a strong negative

correlation between mathematics anxiety and math self-

efficacy (Ashcraft, 2012). In other words, students who

lack confidence in their own mathematical ability tend to

have higher levels of math anxiety. Not surprisingly,

mathematics self-efficacy is positively correlated with

achievement in mathematics (Hoffman, 2010).

Recent forms of instructional technology may also have

the potential to help increase student achievement by

reducing math anxiety and increasing math self-efficacy

(Titman & Lancaster, 2011).

Ali, et al. (2010), identified in her study that

many students were considered underachievers in

mathematics. Students were average or above average in

their intelligence but their actual performance in

mathematics did not coincide to their intellectual

capabilities. Several factors had been identified (Suan,

2014) which seems to be the reason for student’s

underachievement in mathematics. First was teacher factor,

such as teaching styles, mastery of the subject matter,

 57

instructional techniques and strategies, classroom

management, communication skills, behavior and personality.

Second was student factor like study habits, time

management, attitude and interests towards mathematics.

Third was environmental factor such as parents’ values

attitudes, classroom settings and peer group.

Additionally, Azarcon (2015) also found out that

students have both poor level of Mathematics Achievement in

the pretest and posttest of the control and experimental

group. There is no significant difference in the

Mathematics Achievement of students in the pretests between

the control and the experimental groups. Also, there are no

significant differences in the posttest scores of students’

Mathematics Achievement using the lecture and modular

approach.

On the other hand, Luces (2014) have found that

students have very poor mathematics performance prior to

the conduct of intervention which is also notable in the

study conducted by Flazo (2013). In conjunction, the study

of Tropico (2015) revealed that mathematics performance of

college students before the conduct of the study are

“poor”, while after the intervention, students have very

good mathematics in both the control and experimental

groups.
 58

According to the study of Filosofo (2012), she found

that the student’s mathematics performance in mathematics

is satisfactory. The students satisfactory performance in

mathematics was visible to male and female students whose

father’s and mother’s educational attainment are elementary

levels, elementary graduates, high school level, high

school graduates and college levels except the passing

performance of college graduates and good performance in

masteral units; to public schools but not to private

schools where they graduated from; and from low, average

and high monthly family income. Also, students’ performance

in mathematics does not differ significantly in terms of

sex, type of high school graduated from, parent’s

educational attainment, and monthly family income. In

short, they have the same level of performance.

Corros (2012) further found out in his study that the

level of students’ mathematics performance is very

satisfactory and there is a significant difference in the

mathematics performance of students when they are

classified according to the teaching effectiveness.

Another study conducted by Edullantes (2015) has major

findings that the level of mathematics performance of

secondary students in general is high and there was no

significant difference in the mathematics performance of

 59

the secondary students when they were classified according

to self-esteem and mathematics anxiety levels.

In addition, Tolentino (2017) in his study found that

the level of students’ mathematics performance is average

and there is a significant difference in the mathematics

performance of Grade 10 students among their levels of

retention ability but there is no significant difference

when they are classified according to their comprehension

ability.

Meanwhile, Lussier as cited in De La Paz (2009)

pointed out that performance is preconditioned by three

interdependent factors namely: ability, motivation and

resources. It is the ability that makes the performance

different. When a student is given the same type of

motivation and quantity of resources, the output varies

because of the different abilities of students. On the

other hand, it is the motivation that initiates and keeps

students moving on from the start of the activity until it

is finished. While resources are the materials and

facilities used in the activity. Its availability will

determine the quality of the output even though ability and

motivation is high. In short, if one of the three is low or

missing, performance level is adversely affected.

 60

Synthesis

Time pressure is a key contextual variable that is

known to be a stressor and impacts work outputs.

Traditionally, time pressure has been thought of as an

inhibitor of performance because most activities demand

time. However, research on time pressure in decision-making

would suggest that the relationship of time pressure with

complex tasks is not as simple. Manipulating time pressure

during a mathematical task might elicit an anxiety state

that allows accurate analysis of how anxiety can disrupt or

interfere with arithmetic task execution. Although it seems

to be widely recognized that providing a reasonable time

for the accomplishment of a math test should be effective in

reducing at least some of the disadvantage experienced by

math anxious subjects, surprisingly little research

directly includes a time condition manipulation. It is not

clear whether time pressure interferes with strategy

selection or whether it simply renders the optimal

strategy. Similar considerations can be drawn regarding the

relationship between time pressure and emotional aspects

within the mathematical learning framework, leaving space

for several open questions. Among them is whether time

pressure can be always considered as a negative factor in

 61

terms of proficiency and math anxiety. Decreased performance

under time pressure is not consistently observed in high or

low math anxiety individuals. Previous problem-solving

studies suggest that time constraints inhibit creative

thinking; but more recent research indicates that time

constraints can sometimes prove beneficial. Future research

should systematically examine the effects of time pressure

on math performance and strategy selection to develop a

fuller framework of phenomena that drive choking or

excelling under pressure.

Untimed testing on the other hand gives students the

time and the breaks they need to complete a test. This is

most helpful for students who need more time than generally

allowed to complete a test. It was claimed that the extra

time needed can help students to stay focused and feel less

pressured during the test because of the reduction in

anxiety by knowing that plenty of time is available.

Untimed testing produces a relaxed state of mind, and makes

test-taking far less stressful. He pointed out that

accuracy in logical thinking is largely a function of time,

hence giving students as much time as they needed could

result to a far better performance.

As the literatures suggests Mathematics performance of

students are quiet low compared to other subjects. Various

 62

researchers applied different strategies, approaches and

interventions to improve school based ratings in quarterly

assessment and national level assessment such as the

National Achievement Test (NAT). The quest on how to

address diversity in the classroom and the ways in which

they can perform better is a never ending discovery for a

classroom teacher. In this fast paced modern teaching,

there is surely a need to focus and do thorough

comprehension of the subject math. Giving students enough

time in answering mathematical tests may greatly contribute

in enhancing their mathematics performance.