Journal of Critical Reviews

ISSN- 2394-5125 Vol 7, Issue 11, 2020

OUTCOMES IN QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WRITING AMONG JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL

MATHEMATICS TEACHERS
Lany D. Dullas
College of Arts and Sciences, Nueva Vizcaya State University, Nueva Vizcaya, Philippines.

Received: 08.03.2020 Revised: 16.04.2020 Accepted: 06.05.2020

Abstract
This study investigated the junior high school mathematics teachers in terms of their research profile and performance in quantitative
research writing and along the different parts of a quantitative research paper. It employed the qualitative approach in data gathering
where a practical test in quantitative research writing was administered among 108 teachers. Frequencies and percent were computed
to describe the research profile of the teachers and the actual outputs of the teachers in the practical test were evaluated by research
experts using a rubric and their performance was measured quantitatively. The study revealed that majority of the junior high school
mathematics have insufficient academic preparation in research, have not written research papers nor undergraduate and Master’s
degree theses, lack professional development in research and involvement in research-related activities, and “underload” in terms of
teaching load. They performed “Novice” or have attained the learning level in crafting a research title, developing the parts of the
problem and its background, organizing the related literature, organizing the research methodology, analyze and interpret data, present
bibliographic entries and stating the conclusions and recommendations. Their performance in quantitative research writing reveals that
prerequisite and fundamental knowledge and research skills have not been acquired or developed adequately to aid understanding.
Hence, an intervention program should be undertaken to upgrade the research capabilities of teachers.
Keywords: novice, quantitative research writing, research profile, research skills,

© 2020 by Advance Scientific Research. This is an open-access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.31838/jcr.07.11.07

INTRODUCTION
Research is an instrument of progress and development in the
society as it helps man become more innovative, inquisitive and
inventive in a more systematic and efficient way to attain
national and global advancement. Research has been concerned
with gathering data that can help answer questions about
various aspects of society and a way to understand the situations
that exist in a society. Accordingly, Singh (2016) emphasized that
research is the most important process to advance knowledge for
promoting progress and to enable man to relate more effectively
to his environment, achieve his purpose, and to resolve his
conflicts and find solutions to his problems. Western Sydney
University (2020) also defines research as the creation of new
knowledge and/or the use of existing knowledge which include
synthesis and analysis of previous research to generate new
concepts, methodologies and understandings and eventually to
the extent that it leads to new and creative outcomes.
These descriptions of research require an in-depth knowledge on
the different parts, features and processes of research and
eventually the application of higher order thinking skills and
effective writing skills to be able to conduct a research. In the
field of education, Khudayberdiech, et al. (2020) stressed that
one of the problems of modern education is education of a
creative person. As such, educational systems should provide
creative measures to enhance the research knowledge and
develop research skills among educators in order to bring
educational innovations.
Pozilova et al. (2020) stated that the advancement of information
and communication technologies in the educational process
brought important means to enhance intellectual development of
learners and socio-economic development of society. The
accumulation of educational resources on the Internet is an
avenue for educators to become more critical and creative in
integrating educational methods and strategies to become more
competitive in their workplace.
These advancements adhere to the enhancement of the 21st
century skills in teaching and learning. These include learning
and innovation skills; critical thinking and problem solving skills;
information, media and technology skills; and life and career
skills. It involves the ability to think and work creatively with
others, to search and evaluate and use information, to reason
effectively to be able to solve problems and make decisions as
well as to be more flexible in the delivery of thoughts and ideas
(DepEd Order No. 21, s. 2019).
In addition, the rise of new technologies specifically information
and communication technologies create big help in the research
activities among educational institutions, individuals,
organizations. Tulaev et al. (2020) explained that the
advancement of information and communication help foster
immediate access to global information and modern technologies
which become an important necessity in our daily lives. As such,
these technologies accelerates the process of research as a way
to learn, update, and create new approaches in expanding
opportunities in the challenging world. In addition, Shepelyuk
(2020) stated that world civilization is a reality of "educational
boom" due to the emergence of the "information society", where
information and technology have a great role in the fields of
education, economics, and other trends of development. More
so, research needs systematic processes which require the skills
of reading and writing wherein research writing is considered as
one of the most difficult skill to develop. It was emphasized in
the result of the study of Aguilar et al. (2017) that individuals
who are more exposed to various types of non-print media such
as internet and audio/visual enhances the level of reading skills.
In addition, Travis (2017) stressed that these new technologies
enhance the versatility of individuals in writing and eventually
trained to conduct surveys, focus groups and interviews.
Aside from the use of educational technologies, the result of the
study of Gutierez et al. (2017) suggested that collaboration,
sustainability, trust and commitment are important in

Journal of critical reviews 30

 OUTCOMES IN QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WRITING AMONG JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL MATHEMATICS TEACHERS
classroom-based research to improve classroom instructional
activities. In this way, teachers become more aggressive in
responding to the vision of the Department of Education in the
implementation of the new curriculum in the Philippines known
as the Enhanced Basic Education Act (RA 10533) or the K to 12
curriculum which geared towards the development of a
holistically developed Filipino individuals with 21st century
skills who is ready for employment, entrepreneurship, middle
level skills development, and higher education upon graduation
from Grade 12 (DepEd Order No 21, s. 2019).
The aim of the Department of Education envision teachers to
play a vital role in molding and enhancing the skills of students
specifically in the field of research to become more inquisitive
and inventive in developing various tools and techniques to help
pave the pathways of progress. However, Abarro, J. & Mariño,
W. (2016) hypothesized that some teachers are not skillful in
conducting research particularly on classroom based or action
research. The results of their study, however, showed that the
public secondary and elementary school teachers in the Division
of Antipolo City were moderately capable in writing a research
proposal as well as publishable research paper or article. In
addition, the study of Morales et al. (2016) showed that
elementary and secondary teachers in schools in the National
Capital Region perceived a moderate level of difficulty of
conducting action research but they had a positive view about
conducting research which develops the learning of students in
science and mathematics. It was also revealed in the study of de
Gracia and Valdez (2017) that the research proponents in the
schools Division of Nueva Vizcaya for school year 2015-2016
reflected difficulty in identifying the research method, identifying
statistical tools to analyze the data and organizing and
presenting data in tables, graphs and charts.
To sustain the standard goal of quality education, the
Department of Education (DepEd Order 39 series 2016)
reiterates the adoption of the Basic Research Agenda which
identify research topics that will fill in critical knowledge gaps
that could respond to pressing concerns in Philippine basic
education. The DepEd order convinces basic education teachers
to utilize research findings to enhance teaching and to conduct
research to maximize available resources for research within and
outside the department. However, only P37,825.00 for Nueva
Vizcaya was allotted in the fund during the year 2016-2017 and
only two junior high school mathematics teachers among nine
basic education teachers availed of the fund. It shows that very
few teachers were able to utilize the research fund since the
amount was too meager to finance a bigger number of
researchers. Accordingly, such an amount may not suffice to
encourage teachers to conduct research. It was also concluded in
the study of Dacles et al. (2016), that the involvement of teachers
in research can be influenced by the institution’s support in
making research specifically, research unit, financial reward and
research capability program which are some major contributory
factors in doing research.
In addition, majority of the elementary and secondary teachers of
the Department of Education are students of Tertiary schools
offering graduate programs. Graduate School requires students
to come up with a research paper or thesis or dissertation
focusing on problems, issues or topics relative to their interest in
order to obtain Master’s and Doctorate degrees. However, in the
Division of Nueva Vizcaya the study of Pasion (2016) revealed
that among 305 public secondary school teachers, only 94
teachers finished Master’s and Doctorate degrees, the rest having
finished baccalaureate degrees.
These findings triggered the researcher to look into details the
status of the teachers in terms of their research endeavors and
research writing abilities.
Journal of critical reviews
Objectives of the Study
In view of this study, it was forthright
1. To describe the profile of the junior high school mathematics
teachers in the Division of Nueva Vizcaya on research related
activities;
2. To evaluate the performance of their actual outputs in writing
the different parts of a quantitative research paper specifically in
terms of crafting a research title, developing the problem and its
background, developing the related literature, research
methodology, analysis and interpretation of data, stating the
summary of findings, conclusion and recommendations and
writing the bibliography or references cited in the study.
METHODOLOGY
Research Design
The study utilized a combination of quantitative-qualitative
research approaches. The quantitative research method utilized
the descriptive research design to describe the research profile
of the junior high school mathematics teachers. Qualitative data
was gathered through actual research writing and their
performance in quantitative research writing was described
quantitatively.
Research Setting
The research was conducted in the Division of Nueva Vizcaya in
Cagayan Valley during 2017. It consisted of 108 junior high
school public mathematics teachers teaching from 44 public
schools in the Division of Nueva Vizcaya.
Data Gathering Procedures
The data gathering activities had two major phases: the
preliminary phase and the investigation phase. On the first
phase, the researcher – made instruments consisting of the
Research Profile of Respondents and Practical Test in
Quantitative Research Writing were examined and validated by
test and scale experts in the field of research. On the second
phase, the researcher was given the opportunity to attend the
meeting with the officials of the Department of Education,
Division of Nueva Vizcaya to brainstorm the conduct of a five-day
seminar among junior high school mathematics teachers of the
Division for which, it was decided that the first day would be
allotted for the conduct of the researcher’s study. Thus, the
research instruments were given to the junior high school
mathematics teachers who participated during the five-day
seminar workshop on May 2 – 7, 2017, exclusively among public
junior high school mathematics teachers. The administration of
the research instruments was done during the first day of the
seminar wherein the respondents at the same time accomplished
the given research instruments. Focus group discussion was
employed on the morning of the second day of seminar to
supplement the collected qualitative data.
In gathering the needed data, the study utilized two instruments:
(1) the Questionnaire on Research Profile – a survey concerning
the academic preparation of respondents in research,
professional development in research, faculty workload of
respondents and studies conducted by the respondents; and (2)
Practical Test in Quantitative Research Writing – a researcher
made instrument used to evaluate the performance of teachers in
actual research writing which consisted of performance tasks
involving situations as basis for research writing and some
situations were research outputs culled from researches where
teachers applied their research skills required in research
writing.
Statistical Analysis and Treatment of Data
Descriptive statistics like frequency and percent were utilized to
describe the research profile of the respondents. The
performance of the respondents in the actual outputs of research
writing was evaluated by three expert evaluators using a
common criteria validated by an expert. Thus, this qualitative
31
 OUTCOMES IN QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WRITING AMONG JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL MATHEMATICS TEACHERS

part of this study made it different from previous researches like actual research writing, the descriptions of the rubric for giving
the methodology used by Morales et al. (2016) and Abarro and scores is shown below:
Mariño (2016), where they used survey method. To attain
consistency of ratings by the evaluators in giving scores to each
of the demonstrated skill of teachers in the given tasks in the

Table 1. Rubrics as Basis for Scoring in the Actual Outputs of the Practical Test
Scores Description
0 No answer in the given task.
1 - 25% The thought and objectivity of the given answer were insufficient and incomplete to justify the required
knowledge and skill in research writing.
26 - 50% The thought and objectivity of the given answer were halfway demonstrated as compared to the required
knowledge and skill of research writing.
51- 75% The thought and objectivity of the given answer were almost complete to justify the required knowledge
and skill in research writing.
76 - 100% The thought and objectivity of the given answer were complete and comprehensive to justify the required
knowledge and skill in research writing.

The scores of the teachers in every major part of the quantitative percent scores. The performance of the teachers in the actual
research paper as well as the scores in all items in the actual outputs of research writing was based on DepEd Order 73, series
research writing were summed up and were converted to mean 2012 described in Table 2.

Table 2. Level of Performance in the Actual Research Writing

Mean Score Range Levels of Proficiency
84.00 and Above Advanced/ above Proficiency
76.00 to 83.99 Proficiency/ Mastery
68.00 to 75.99 Approaching Proficiency/
Fundamental
60.00 to 67.99 Developing Proficiency
Less than 60 Novice/ Learning Level
Qualitative Descriptions
The teacher at this level exceeds the core requirements in terms of
knowledge, skills and understanding and can demonstrate them
automatically and flexibly through authentic performance tasks.
The teacher at this level has developed the fundamental knowledge and
skill and core understandings and can demonstrate them independently
through authentic performance tasks.
The teacher at this level developed the fundamental knowledge and skills
and core understandings, and with little guidance from the expert and/or
with some assistance from peers, can demonstrate these understandings
through authentic performance tasks.
The teacher at this level possesses the minimum knowledge and skills and
core understandings, but needs help throughout the performance of
authentic tasks.
The teacher at this level struggles with his/her understandings prerequisite
and fundamental knowledge and/or skills have not been acquired or
developed adequately to aid understanding.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Profile of the Junior High School Mathematics Teachers on
Research-Related Activities

Table 3. Frequency and Percent Distribution of the Research Units Finished by the Junior High School Mathematics Teachers
Research Unit/s in Undergraduate Course Frequency Percent
0 unit 28 25.9
3 units 57 52.8
6 units 20 18.5
More than 6 units 3 2.8
Total 108 100.0
Research Unit/s in Master’s Course
0 unit 34 31.48
3 units 56 51.85
6 units 11 10.19
More than 6 units 7 6.48
Total 91 100.0
Table 3 presents that majority (52.8%) of the junior high school their Master’s course. Such data present that majority (68.52%)
mathematics teachers earned three units in research while of the respondents had research units in Master’s course and had
25.9% of them had no research units in their undergraduate already acquired knowledge in research writing or had a
course. It also shows that 51.85% of the junior high school background in research writing.
mathematics teachers claimed to have earned three units in
research while 31.48% of them had no research units taken in

Journal of critical reviews 32

 OUTCOMES IN QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WRITING AMONG JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL MATHEMATICS TEACHERS

Table 4. Frequency and Percent Distribution of the Nature of Involvement of Junior High School Mathematics Teachers in
Research
Nature of Involvement in Research Frequency Percent
As adviser to student researches 8 7.4
As member of a reading committee of student researches 6 5.6
As solo researcher 10 9.3
As lead researcher in a team research 1 0.9
As collaborator in a team research 4 3.7
As an adviser or coach to an investigatory project 1 0.9
As data analyst 2 1.9
As data enumerator/gatherer (including interviewer, etc. 2 1.9
As adviser to student researches and as member of a reading committee of 1
0.9
student researches
As adviser to student researches and As data analyst 1 0.9
As data analyst and as data enumerator/gatherer 1 0.9
as solo researcher, as collaborator in a team and as consultant 1 0.9
as adviser to student researches, as solo researcher and as adviser/coach to an 1
0.9
investigatory project
None 69 63.9
Total 108 100
Table 4 reveals that about 64% of the junior high school (1.9%), as data enumerator/gatherer (1.9%), as lead researcher
mathematics teachers had no involvement in research activities. in a team research (0.9%) and as an adviser or coach to an
It means that the acquired knowledge in research during their investigatory project (0.9%).
undergraduate and master’s course were not applied or
practiced. But some of the respondents had research experience
as solo researcher (9.3%), as adviser to student researches
(7.4%), as member of a reading committee of student researches
(5.6%), as collaborator in a team research (3.7%), as data analyst

Table 5. Frequency and Percent Distribution of the Institutional and Division Levels of Seminars/Trainings attended by the
Junior High School Mathematics Teachers
Seminars/Trainings Attended (Institutional Level) Frequency Percent
Inset Training on Action Research
17 15.7

Mid-sem Inset Training on Action Research 3 2.8

SSP Seminar on Action Research 1 .9
School-Based Action Research 3 2.8
In-service Training on Action Research 1 .9
Empowering Mathematics Teachers Through Researches in Mathematics 1 .9
Workshop on Research Writing for Journal Publication 1 .9
No Research Seminars/Trainings 81 75.0
Total 108 100
Division Level
Seminar-workshop on Qualitative Research for Practical Research Teachers 2 1.9
Seminar-workshop on Action Research (August 2016) 5 4.6
2014 Seminar-workshop on Action Research 4 3.7
Division-Based Action Research Seminar-Workshop 3 2.8
Seminar-workshop on Action Research for Selected Teachers, Master Teachers and 1 .9
Head Teachers
Seminar-Workshop on Practical Research 1 2 1.9
Action Research Seminar-Workshop for School Heads Part 2 1 .9
Seminar-Workshop on Writing IMs and Action Research 1 .9
No of Seminars/Trainings 89 82.4
Total 108 100
Table 5 reveals that 25% of the junior high school mathematics writing. On the other hand, three-fourths of them did not
had participated in seminars or trainings related to research and participate in seminars or trainings related to research as they
most of the seminars they attended focused on action research claimed that seldom were mathematics teachers sent to
such that some of them attended the inset training on action seminars. If they did, most of the seminars attended were
research. However, these teachers claimed during their Focus focused on the content of Mathematics.
Group Discussion (FGD) that they were only given the lectures on
action research but were not given the chance to do the research

Journal of critical reviews 33

 OUTCOMES IN QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WRITING AMONG JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL MATHEMATICS TEACHERS
Table 6. Frequency and Percent Distribution of the Regional, National and International Levels of Seminars/Trainings attended
by the Junior High School Mathematics Teachers
Seminars/Trainings Attended (Regional Level)
2nd Regional Basic Education Research
Regional Conference on Mathematical Modeling
Inter-Regional Research Conference
2nd Regional Basic Education Research Conference and 2nd Regional Research
Caravan
No Seminars/Trainings
Total
National Level
National Mathematical Modeling seminar (October 2014)
No Seminar/training
Total
International Level
International Seminar-Workshop on Action Research (Feb. 2014)
Research Conference and Paper Presentation in other Country
No Seminar/Training
Total
About six percent of the junior high school mathematics teachers
had attended research seminars/trainings within the regional
level and one of them had attended two regional research
seminars. Table 6 shows that most of the seminars attended by
the teachers were focused on research conferences in which
research presentations were witnessed. Thus, only few of the
teachers were informed about the highlights of research
endeavors among research enthusiasts within the region. In
addition, a larger proportion of the junior high school
mathematics teachers, (92.6%) were not sent to attend
international seminars in research.
As to faculty load, the Department of Education (DepEd) Order
16 series of 2009 (Guidelines for the Implementation of CSC
Resolution No. 080096 on Working Hours for Public School
Teachers) stated that the actual classroom teaching hours should
be six hours which cover the full teaching load of a teacher in a
day to complete the prescribed 30 hours per week, however, the
data emphasized that about 75% of the respondents were
“underload” in terms of classroom teaching hours. This result
was already surfaced in the findings of the study of de Gracia, et
al. (2017) wherein the mean load of junior high school teachers
in the Schools Division of Nueva Vizcaya was categorized as
“underload” and the Mathematics group emerged to be one of
them aside from other groups of different learning areas. The
result implies that these teachers had some other teaching
assignments especially those with lower number of teaching
hours per week to complete the required classroom teaching
hours. About 43% of the teachers had two teaching preparations
or was teaching two grade levels and about 38% of them had one
teaching preparation.
Performance of the Junior High School Mathematics
Teachers in their Actual Outputs of Research Writing Using
the Different Research Skills
In this section, teachers were given performance tasks involving
situations as basis for research writing and some situations were
actual research outputs culled from researches (with some
modifications) where the teachers applied the different research
skills required in research writing. The respondents were asked
to complete the parts of a research paper based on the cited
situations.
For the research title, teachers were asked to identify the
appropriate title of the study given the objectives of the study.
In the first chapter of a research paper, teachers were asked to
convert the objectives of the study into specific research
questions. They were asked to write some sentences on the
Journal of critical reviews
Frequency Percent
2 1.9
2 1.9
1 .9
1 .9
102 94.4
108 100
1 .9
107 99.1
108 100
7 6.5
1 .9
100 92.6
108 100
rationale, significance of the study, to identify the variables to be
defined and to define a term operationally and construct the
paradigm of the study supported by a discussion.
In the second chapter, the teachers were directed to paraphrase
the given paragraph lifted from an article and synthesize the
findings of some researches related to the given study.
In the third chapter, they were directed to describe the research
design, sample and sampling procedure, data gathering
instruments, data gathering procedure, and statistical tools
based on the given objectives.
In the fourth chapter, the teachers were directed to interpret the
given statistical tables on the first and second level
interpretation.
In the fifth chapter, they were directed to make a brief summary
of findings and conclusion and recommendation based on the
findings of a study.
With references, they were asked to write the correct
bibliographic entry in American Psychological Association (APA)
format of sources of information taken from journals, thesis and
internet sources.
Developing the Title of the Problem and its Background and
Research Methodology
On the given test, teachers were asked to develop identified parts
of a research based on the given objectives. They were given
some details and they were asked to provide answers
corresponding to the given tasks provided below:
Objectives of the Study:
1. To determine the level of knowledge competence of the
cooperating and student teachers in the laboratory high
school of School A in the following areas of Math: (a)
elementary algebra (b)intermediate algebra (c)geometry
(d) statistics
2. To determine the level of personal teaching efficacy of
cooperating and student teachers at the laboratory high
school of School A in terms of (a) discipline, (b) parents,
(c) planning, (d) socialization ,(e) motivation
3. To test the significant differences of cooperating and
student teachers in the above areas of teaching situations?
Task 1: Formulate an appropriate title of the study.
34
 OUTCOMES IN QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WRITING AMONG JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL MATHEMATICS TEACHERS
Based on the evaluated output, they obtained a mean score of
52.44 which indicates that they performed within the learning
level. Their performance illustrates that they were not able to
adequately develop the fundamental knowledge and skill in
crafting the title of a study. Hence, the performance task was
Table 7. Sample Answers of Teachers in Formulating the Research Title
Teachers Answers
In Table 7, Teacher 1 is a teacher of Grade 7, 8 and 9 and claimed
finishing the thesis requirement in her undergraduate course but
she already forgot the title of her thesis. With her research
experience, she was able to formulate a title of the study given in
the practical test. Her answer which is “Cooperating and Student
Teachers Level of Competence and Personal Teaching Efficacy in
the Laboratory High School A in Mathematics” was within the
focus of the expected correct answer. However, the
arrangements of the variables (in the Laboratory High School A
and in Mathematics) seemed to be a factor for not obtaining a
higher or perfect rating. Nonetheless, the rating of Teacher 1 of
86.67 which is within above proficiency level shows that she can
demonstrate the required skill in the given task.
Teacher 3 was not able to write the complete variables in the title
of the study specifically the subject “Mathematics” and research
environment “laboratory high school A”. However, his rating of
76.67 with proficient level shows that he can demonstrate the
knowledge and skills in this performance task independently.
On the other hand, a different answer was the answer of Teacher
2 as “Factors affecting the level of knowledge competence of the
cooperating and student teachers in the laboratory high school in
the elementary algebra” which focused on determining factors
that may affect knowledge competence and personal teaching
efficacy. It was not the expected focus of the study since the
objectives of the study did not specify on predicting factors that
influence the dependent variables of the study. In this case,
Teacher 2 got low scores from the inter-raters which averaged
22.67% which is within learning level. The result implies that
teacher 2 needs to study the fundamental knowledge and skills in
writing the appropriate title of a study. This further indicates
that teacher 2 lacks creativity in performing the task.
Table 8. Performance of Mathematics Teachers in Developing the Problem and Its Background
Skill/Process in Research MPS Std. Deviation
Writing the Research Problems 75.86 17.05
Writing Rationale 26.14 20.51
Definition of Terms 30.01 19.04
Stating the Significance of the Study 36.23 27.73
Conceptual Framework 12.89 14.65
Overall 34.32 12.05
Less than 60%=Novice/Learning Level; 60.00 to 67.99%=Developing Proficiency; 68.00 to 75.99%=Approaching Proficiency; 76.00 to 83.99%=
Mastery/Proficiency ; 84.00 and Above =Advanced/Above Proficiency
Table 8 shows the performances of junior high school
mathematics teachers in their outputs in organizing the different
parts of Chapter 1 of a research paper. In writing the research
problems, they obtained the mean percent score of 75.86 which
indicates that they performed within the level of approaching
Journal of critical reviews
considered difficult among the junior high school mathematics.
In this case, they need to study and learn more about the
important features of formulating interesting research titles.
However, some of the teachers did not answer the given task, like
Teacher 4, (No Answer). As Cerejo (2015) asserted that the most
difficult phase of research is to find an interesting problem to
start with. This finding can be explained by the research profile
of the teachers wherein few of the teachers were involved in
research-related activities.
B. Developing the Problem and its Background
The following were the performance tasks given in the Practical
Test in organizing the different parts of the first chapter of a
research paper (The Problem and its Background)
Task 2. Construct the research problems of objectives 1 and 3
based on the given objectives.
Task 3. Write at least three sentences that will manifest the main
content of the Rationale.
The performance tasks of the respondents were: to convert the
research problems of objectives 1 and 3 based on the given
objectives of the study; write at least three sentences that will
manifest the main content of the Rationale; identify all the
variables that are necessary to be defined and to define the level
of knowledge competence based on the objectives and research
instrument; construct sentences that will manifest the
significance of the study; Construct a schematic research
paradigm and develop at least three-sentence description of
interrelatedness of variables.
Based on the mean ratings of evaluators, the performance of
respondents in the identified part of a research paper is shown in
Table 8.
Level
Approaching Proficiency
Novice or Learning Level
Novice or Learning Level
Novice or Learning Level
Novice or Learning Level
Novice or Learning Level
proficiency. This result shows that the teachers had developed
the fundamental knowledge and skills and core understandings
in writing research questions but they still need some guidance
from experts or peers.
35
 OUTCOMES IN QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WRITING AMONG JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL MATHEMATICS TEACHERS
However, they performed only at the learning level in the other
research processes of developing the first chapter of a research
paper which included writing the rationale (26.14), definition of
terms (30.01), stating the significance of the study (36.23) and
organizing the conceptual framework (12.89). Overall, they
performed “novice” or learning level of applying their research
skills in developing the first chapter of a research paper. It
Table 9. Sample Answers of Teachers in Writing the Research Problems
Teachers
Table 9 manifests that Teacher 1 obtained a very high rating of
91.67 which is above proficiency level in constructing the
research problems of the specified objectives of the given study.
She was able to convert the first research objective into a
research question but she changed the tense of the verb of the
original statement which is “is” into “are”. In addition, her answer
in question 3 was incomplete since she did not write the teaching
situations like discipline, parents, planning, socialization and
motivation. Thus, this case seems to have affected her rating
although her rating showed that she could demonstrate the skill
flexibly.
However Teacher 3 did not write completely the identified areas
of Mathematics as well as the teaching situations as described in
the objectives of the study when he performed the task of
constructing the research problems of the given objectives (1 and
3). He even answered the second question which was not
included in the instruction as shown in Figure 4. His rating was
67.14% which means that he was within the approaching
Journal of critical reviews
implies that the teachers were weak in developing statements
which may give shape to the background of the study and other
parts of Chapter 1.
Shown below are some of the outputs of the teachers in
performing the given tasks would explain their low performance.
Answers
proficiency level in writing clearly the specific research questions
aligned with the objectives of the study. It shows that he was able
to demonstrate the task however, he needs some guidance from
his peers to perform the given task well.
Whereas, the answer of Teacher 2 got a rating of 80.95%
(Proficient), which is considered a high rating even though in
research question 3, she stated again the areas of mathematics
instead of the different teaching situations which was stated as
“What is the significant difference of cooperating and student
teachers in following areas of Mathematics?”. She was not also
aware of stating inferential types of question by not starting with
What is…” The answer of Teacher Evarisha for research question
2 was a common answer to most of the teachers. This can be a
reason for the teachers to have a lower rating on the task of
converting the objectives into clear research questions compared
with their higher rating in the task of aligning the research
questions with the objectives of the study.
36
 OUTCOMES IN QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WRITING AMONG JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL MATHEMATICS TEACHERS
Table 10. Sample Answers of Teachers in Writing the Rationale
Teachers
12
13
Table 10 shows that Teacher 1obtained a lower rating of 55.56 %
which is within the learning level in writing statements on the
rationale of the given study. This rating can be attributed to the
idea of Teacher 1 who admitted that she just described the
themes of the content of the rationale instead of writing the
specific details on the themes she enumerated. However, the
themes she enumerated were focused on the competence and
teaching efficacy of the cooperating and student teachers. Thus,
Teacher 1 showed that she was not able to demonstrate the
fundamental knowledge and skills of writing the rationale.
Similarly, Teacher 4 did not write the specific reasons for
undertaking the study but she wrote the themes to be discussed
in the rationale (Table 10). However, the themes she suggested
Journal of critical reviews
Answers
to be discussed in the rationale like factors that affect the level of
competency are not the main focus of the study since the study
focused more on the performance of teachers in the contents of
math. With these answers, she was given a rating of 28.10%
compared to the rating of Teacher 1, which is within the learning
level. This also means that she was not able to demonstrate the
knowledge and skills of writing the rationale of a study.
Some of the answers of the teachers in identifying the terms to be
defined and in defining the identified terms, stating the
significance of the study and constructing framework are shown
below.
37
 OUTCOMES IN QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WRITING AMONG JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL MATHEMATICS TEACHERS
Table 11. Sample Answers of Teachers in Defining Terms
Teachers
14
It can be observed in Table 11 that Teacher 2 stated different
variables which were not included in the described parts of the
given study. Her output was given a rating of 16.67% which
shows that she needs total assistance in determining variables,
and in defining them. Teacher 4 had identified almost all of the
variables to be defined but she missed including the level of
knowledge competence and laboratory high school. Her idea of
defining the level of knowledge competence was almost achieved
only that she missed relating it to her idea of “extent of
knowledge” to scores in the given test in the different areas of
Mathematics. In this case, Teacher 4 was given a rating of 67.08%
which is within the developing proficiency level which means
that she can demonstrate the required skill but with further
guidance from experts.
Likewise, Teacher 3 also obtained a rating of 67.50% (developing
proficiency) but his answer was of a different case since he might
have obtained a higher rating if he did not abbreviate the
different variables to be defined. He also missed including the
laboratory high school A as one of the variables to be defined but
he included profile variables which were not included in the
focus of the study. On the other hand, he was able to define the
level of knowledge competence operationally since he was able
Journal of critical reviews
Answers
to describe the level to be the measure of performance of the
teachers in the given knowledge test in Mathematics. Thus,
Teacher 3 can demonstrate the knowledge and skills in defining
variables of a study with some guidance from peers or research
experts.
On the other hand, it was observed that Teacher 2 stated
different variables which were not included in the described
parts of the given study. It shows she needs total assistance in
determining variables, defining them as well as shown by her
rating of 16.67% (learning level). But teacher 6 was able to state
some of the variables to be defined in the given study. On the
other hand, his idea about the definition of level of knowledge
competence was not sufficient enough to describe the specific
operational definition of performance. In this case, Teacher 6
obtained a rating of 37.50% (learning level) which means that he
was not able to adequately demonstrate the knowledge and skills
in identifying and defining variables in a study.
Based on the varied answers of the teachers, it can be stated that
most of the teachers had difficulty in identifying variables needed
to be defined and in defining the terms operationally.
38
 OUTCOMES IN QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WRITING AMONG JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL MATHEMATICS TEACHERS
Table 12. Sample Answers of Teachers in Stating the Significance of the Study
Teachers
15
In terms of stating the significance of the study, the answer of
teacher 1 as shown in Table 12 (The teachers will be given
knowledge on the things he need to share and to assess to the
student teachers) seemed to indicate a problem in the
organization of ideas such that it would have been better if she
stated it as” The teachers will be informed about the things to be
imparted to the student teachers”. Still the thought of the idea
was within the expected answer. While her statement is still
within the expected answer, she needs to revise it to make the
presentation of ideas more cohesive. This situation illustrates
that the teacher has problem in her written communication skill.
Teacher 3 had a better rating of 70.83%, a higher level of
performance (approaching proficiency) in stating the
significance of a study compared with the ratings of teachers 1
and Teacher 4. Teacher 3 had answers which may be considered
comprehensively stated as “ Knowing the levels of knowledge
competence and personal teaching efficacy would give them an
idea on finding ways to improve it and on improving their
instruction”.
Journal of critical reviews
Answers
On the other hand, Teacher 2 had different answers in stating the
significance of a study. It is observed that her first statement was
an inferential question about the comparison of the two teachers
while the second statement was the null hypothesis of her first
answer. These answers were not the expected possible answers
in this part of the task. Teacher 6 who had unanswered item, was
not able to express his thoughts on this task, thus he is novice as
far as stating the significance of a study is concerned.
Another sample of answers from the teachers with approaching
proficiency level in demonstrating the required skill in the given
task was the answer of Teacher 15. It can be observed that the
answer of Teacher 15 in the significance of the study addressed
to the teachers missed including the idea “becoming effective in
the field of teaching”. Also, she missed stating “the importance of
becoming competent in the field of math” as part of the
significance of the study addressed to students.
Most of the answers of the given answers showed that the
teachers were not able to reflect the correct way of stating the
significance of the study for to the teachers and students.
39
 OUTCOMES IN QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WRITING AMONG JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL MATHEMATICS TEACHERS

Table 13. Sample Answers of Teachers in Constructing the Schematic Diagram with Discussion
Teachers Answers

In constructing the schematic diagram of the study, Table 13
presents that Teacher 1 seemed to have the correct idea of
comparing cooperating teachers and students where she wrote
on the upper box “significant difference”. However, the way she
constructed the paradigm conveyed descriptions about the level
of competence and personal teaching efficacy of both teachers.
With this answer, Teacher 1 was given a rating of 30% which is
within the learning level of performance. It means that she needs
to study the different approaches of constructing research
frameworks and she should approach the total assistance of
research experts in this research process.
Teacher 4 was given a rating of 43.75% which means that she
was not able to demonstrate sufficiently the required skills (The
significance of the study is to deepen the knowledge of the
cooperating and students teachers in the different math areas
and employ necessary activities/strategies in teaching). This did
not achieve the objective of the performance task because she
did not only address the significance of the study to the teachers
but also to students which means that she did not follow the
instruction surrounding the task. The missing idea might be
attributed to the essence of becoming effective teachers.

Journal of critical reviews 40

 OUTCOMES IN QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WRITING AMONG JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL MATHEMATICS TEACHERS

Meanwhile, exploring the answer of Teacher 5, it reveals that she made meaningful when students integrate them into their existing
tried to fit in the variables of the study in the independent situations of knowledge.
variable box (IV) and dependent variable box (DV). Even though
her diagram was far from the expected diagram, she was able to Task 2: The following hypothetical table shows the summary of
identify the dependent variables (level of knowledge competence results and methodology of researches related to a present study.
and level of personal teaching efficacy- which is supposed to be Make a synthesis of the study on Mathematics skills of students.
performance instead of level). She had a great idea on the
outcomes of the framework (Improved Teaching and learning Researcher Delineated Major Methods
Process) but they were not significant in the context of the study. (Year) Factor Insights Used
On the other hand, her discussion: “there are low groups of
Acosta Critical Age and IQ Survey
respondents” seemed to be a conclusion out of her mind which
(2015) thinking influence the questionnaire
should not be the case. The explored answer of Teacher 5
skills of critical
manifested a rating of 21.67% (learning level) which indicates
students thinking skills
that she needs to study with the assistance of peers or experts to
of students
further explore about the creativeness of sketching the paradigm
Carpio Problem Sex and Survey
of framework with the corresponding discussion.
(2013) solving skills attitude of questionnaire
students
The overall mean percent score of 34.32% indicates that the
towards
teachers performed within the learning level of developing the
mathematics,
different parts of the first chapter of a research paper. Hence, the
previous
junior high school mathematics teachers were novice or they
grade in Math
were not able to acquire or develop adequately the fundamental
predict
knowledge and skills in performing the different parts of
problem
organizing the problem and its background. This finding is a
solving skill
reflection of their research profile since they lacked involvement
Dakila Mathematics Sex, IQ, grade Achievement
in professional development in research and majority of them
(2012) competence in Math are test in
had no thesis requirement during their undergraduate degree. In
in Geometry significantly Geometry
addition, they claimed in the Focus Group Discussion (FGD) that
related to
they had attended much seminar on Mathematics content but not
their
in research seminar-workshop. According to Lander (2019),
knowledge
Learning from personal experience is important to better
competence
understand the concepts and acquisition of skills is easier to
in math
apply rather than simply recalling the knowledge.
Ebanes Competence Sex, attitude Achievement
C. Citing the Sources and Developing the Review of Related (2010) in Basic toward test in Basic
Literature and Studies Math mathematics Math
and school
Task 1: Paraphrase the given paragraph into one- sentence graduated
statement with correct in-text citation focusing the idea about the from affects
view of constructivism in the learning of students. The paragraph is the level of
lifted from the article “Constructivist Learning and Teaching” competence
(Clements , 2009) as given below: in Basic Math
Knowledge is constructed by the students by reflecting on actions
performed on numerous sets of objects. Ideas are constructed or

Table 14. Performance of Mathematics Teachers in Developing the Related Literature and Studies
Skill/Process in Research MPS Std. Dev. Performance Level
Paraphrase is organized properly 32.89 20.72 Novice or Learning Level
There is coherence of ideas in the synthesis 14.73 19.68 Novice or Learning Level
Developing the Related Literature and Studies
25.63 16.77 Novice or Learning Level
(Over-All)
Less than 60%=Novice/Learning Level; 60.00 to 67.99% =Developing Proficiency; 68.00 to 75.99% =Approaching Proficiency; 76.00 to 83.99%=
Mastery/Proficiency ; 84.00 and Above =Advanced/Above Proficiency
As gleaned from Table 14, it shows that the performance of the discussion (FGD) that they found difficulty in connecting ideas
teachers in demonstrating the skill to paraphrase paragraphs in taken from different sources. They also confessed that they were
an organized way is within the learning level as indicated by a not confident in their English grammar.
mean percent score of 20.72%. On the other hand, they were not
able to develop the adequate fundamental knowledge and skills Some of the answers of the teachers in organizing the related
in writing the synthesis as indicated by a rating of 14.73%, hence literature which may explain their difficulties are shown below.
the teachers are described again to be “Novice” in this skill.
Some of the answers of the teachers in organizing the related
Overall, their performance in developing the related literature literature which may explain their difficulties are shown below.
and studies is within the learning level (25.63%) which means
that they were not versatile in paraphrasing and deriving
synthesis. Furthermore, they confessed during the focus group

Journal of critical reviews 41

 OUTCOMES IN QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WRITING AMONG JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL MATHEMATICS TEACHERS

Table 15. Sample Answers of Teachers in Organizing the Related Literature

Teachers Answers

Synthesis

2
Synthesis

Synthesis: NO ANSWER

7
Synthesis

In terms of paraphrasing, Teacher 1 just used the conjunction
“and” in expressing the two statements into one sentence (Table
15). Also, she did not demonstrate the correct way of in-text
citation. Similarly, she has not synthesized the different results of
studies well, neither did cite the name of researchers shown in
the table. Teacher 1 was given a rating of 39.67% (learning level)
since she still needs to study the approaches in paraphrasing
statements and synthesizing results of studies completely.
Teacher 2 was not able to paraphrase the paragraph well since
she missed including the second process “integrating” which is
an important part in acquiring meaningful knowledge. On the
other hand, her answer in the second task was very different
from the expected answer, hence her rating of 18.33% was still
within the learning level.
In addition, the answer of Teacher 6 did not achieve well the
thought of the paragraph since he interchanged the order of the
two processes described, “reflecting and integrating”. Also, he
did not answer the second task, hence he was still considered
Novice or within the learning level as shown by a rating of
16.67%. Most of the other teachers did not answer the second
task as shown in the answer of Teacher 7.
Thus, the overall performance in developing the related
literature and studies is within the learning level (25.63%) which
means that they were not versatile in paraphrasing and deriving
synthesis. These teachers confessed in the FGD about their
difficulty of connecting ideas generated from different sources to
organize related literature. Hence, they need to study the
different approaches or strategies in paraphrasing and synthesis.
D. Organizing the Research Methodology
Respondents were given the following Task:
Task. Write sentences describing the following:
a) research design
b) possible sample and sampling procedure
c) research instruments
d) the statistical tool to be used in each of the research
questions.
Table 16 shows the performance of respondents in their actual
outputs of research writing based on the evaluation ratings of
evaluators.

Journal of critical reviews 42

 OUTCOMES IN QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WRITING AMONG JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL MATHEMATICS TEACHERS

Table 16. Mean Percent Score, Standard Deviation and Qualitative Description of the Performance
of Mathematics Teachers in Developing the Research Methodology
Skill/Process in Research MPS Std. Dev. Qualitative Description
Identify and describe the appropriate research
13.74 22.88 Novice or Learning Level
design
Describe appropriately the samples and
19.50 29.82 Novice or Learning Level
sampling procedure
Describe clearly the research instruments 24.86 23.52 Novice or Learning Level
Identify appropriately the statistical tools 26.05 21.81 Novice or Learning Level
Develop the Research Methodology (Over-All)
20.91 19.55 Novice or Learning Level

Less than 60%=Novice/Learning Level; 60.00 to 67.99%=Developing Proficiency; 68.00 to 75.99% = Approaching Proficiency;
76.00 to 83.99%= Mastery/Proficiency ; 84.00 and Above =Advanced/Above Proficiency
The research methodology part of a research paper serves as a describing clearly the research instruments (24.86%), and
general plan of the research process. As gleaned from Table 16, identifying appropriately the statistical tools (26.05%). Their
the junior high school mathematics teachers performed within performances in the different parts mean that the teachers were
the learning level or novice in demonstrating the skills required not able to demonstrate adequately the fundamental knowledge
in performing the different tasks given to organize the research and skills in describing the appropriate methods, designs and
methodology of a research paper. It includes the skills of appropriate statistics to be used in data analysis. An in depth
identifying and describing the appropriate research design of a analysis on some of the outputs of the teachers are shown.
study (13.74%), in demonstrating the other skills like describing
appropriately the samples and sampling procedure (19.50%,),

Table 17. Sample Answers of Teachers in Describing the Parts of Methodology

Teachers Answers

Journal of critical reviews 43

 OUTCOMES IN QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WRITING AMONG JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL MATHEMATICS TEACHERS
Table 17 shows that Teacher 1 was able to identify one of the
appropriate research designs employed in the study which is
descriptive but she forgot to include the comparative research
design. She did not describe the samples, sampling procedure
and research instruments well. Statistical tools were not also
identified but on her answer on R3, she described the objective of
the statistical tool to be used in answering the third research
question. Thus, Teacher 1 was given a rating of 20.20% (learning
level) on this task. She, thus, needs to study the different
research methods, and other parts of research methodology to be
able to organize this section of a study.
Likewise, Teacher 4 was not able to describe the research design
correctly since she answered “descriptive correlation” instead of
descriptive-comparative type of research. Meanwhile, she was
able to describe the sample of the study as well as the research
instruments. In addition, she was able to identify the statistical
tools for the first research question which is “measures of central
tendency” but not the specific descriptive statistics. She was able
to identify the appropriate statistical tool for the second research
question and had no answer for the third research question. Yet
even with these insufficient answers she rated 51.67% compared
to Teacher 1, Teacher 2 was still within the learning level which
means that she still needs to acquire the fundamental knowledge
and skills in this performance task.
In addition, it seems that teacher 8 did not understand the
direction of the required task since she described the function of
a research design as well as the idea of research instruments. She
also identified incorrectly the type of sampling method as well as
Journal of critical reviews
statistical tools (e.g. Person r) with her remark “not sure po”.
Teacher 8 showed that she had an idea on what to do on the
different parts but she lacked the knowledge and skills in
demonstrating the tasks. Teacher 8 got a rating of 13.51% which
made her performance belong to the novice or learning level.
Moreover, most of the answers of respondents got low ratings
from the evaluators. Thus, they obtained an overall rating of
20.91% which indicates that the teachers performed within the
learning level in developing the research methodology of the
study. Their performance would imply that the teachers lacked
knowledge and skills on how to do the task of describing the
general approach or flow of the study or on how to demonstrate
the skills specifically in describing the accepted techniques,
procedures and instruments for data gathering and data analysis.
The low performance of teachers in carrying out the research
methodology was similar with the result of the study of
Murtonen (2005) which found that quantitative methods as well
as statistics appeared to be more difficult among education and
sociology students than students majoring other academic
subjects.
E. On Data Analysis and Interpretation of Data
The following were the given tasks given to the respondents:
Task 1: Describe the profile of respondents in terms of their
ethnicity group affiliation (The given data is a hypothetical data)
44
 OUTCOMES IN QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WRITING AMONG JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL MATHEMATICS TEACHERS

Table 3. Level of Competency of Cooperating and Student

Table 2. Ethnicity Group Affiliation of Grade 10 Students Teachers in Geometry
Ethnicity Frequency Percent Cooperating Student Combined
Score Teacher Teacher (n=36)
Ifugao 5 7.9
F % F % f %
Ilocano 54 85.7
6 0 0 1 3.6 1 2.8
Tagalog 3 4.8
7 0 0 1 3.6 1 2.8
Others 1 1.6
8 0 0 1 3.6 1 2.8
Total 63 100.0
9 0 0 4 14.3 4 11.1
Task 2: The following samples of statistical tables show the result
10 0 0 5 17.9 5 13.9
of the study with the objectives described above in A. Make a brief
discussion on the interpretation of data ( including implications of 11 0 0 4 14.3 4 11.1
the result as well as the inclusion of the related studies and 12 1 12.5 5 17.9 6 16.7
literature given below) after each table. 13 1 50.0 5 17.9 6 16.7
The study of ABC (1996) indicated that the students in all four-year 14 4 50.0 2 7.1 6 16.7
levels lacked basic skills in learning Geometry. 15 2 25.0 0 0 2 5.6
The study of DEF (2000) found that students have poor foundation Mean 13.88 10.86 11.53
of their elementary and first year mathematics. SD 0.99 2.05 2.25
Percent 92.50 72.38 76.87
Mean
Level of High Average Average
Competence

Objective: To determine the level of knowledge competence of

cooperating and student teachers in Geometry.

Table 18 shows the summary of performance of the teachers in

answering the given tasks.

Table 18. Performance of Mathematics Teachers in Developing the Analysis and Interpretation of Data
Skills/Processes in Research MPS Std. Dev. Qualitative Descriptions
Describe clearly the profile of the respondents 63.72 23.99 Developing Proficiency
Analyze completely the results and able to
40.40 21.86 Novice or Learning Level
present them properly
Discuss the implications and able to validate
8.97 13.55 Novice or Learning Level
through studies
Develop the analysis and interpretation of data
(Overall) 39.09 16.67 Novice or Learning Level

Less than 60%=Novice/Learning Level; 60.00 to 67.99%=Developing Proficiency; 68.00 to 75.99%=Approaching Proficiency;
76.00 to 83.99%= Mastery/Proficiency ; 84.00 and Above =Advanced/Above Proficiency
In decision-making, analytical and reasoning skills are essential
skills to problem solving which weigh and evaluate alternative
solutions to arrive at the best possible solution Meerah (2011).
However, as gleaned from Table 18, the junior high school
mathematics teachers obtained a very low rating (8.97%) in
demonstrating the skill of discussing the implications of a
statistical result and how to validate the results through studies,
thus considered novice or within the learning level in this skill. It
means that they were not equipped with the fundamental
knowledge and skills in deriving inferences from a given result as
well as the creativity of incorporating studies with findings
related to the result of the study.
In addition, they need to have an in-depth review or longer time
to study the process. Similarly, they were within the learning
level in analyzing results and presenting the results properly
since they obtained a rating of 40.40%. It suggests that the
teachers need practice in giving meaning to statistical results.
On the other hand, they obtained the highest rating of 63.72%
(developing proficiency) in clearly describing the profile of the
respondents which indicates that they possessed the minimum
knowledge and skills in presenting and describing verbally the
frequency and percent of categorical data. This finding had a
bearing on the confession of teachers during the FGD wherein,
they disclosed that they only taught the basic parts of Statistics.
The overall performance of the teachers in developing the
analysis and interpretation of data in quantitative research
writing is within the learning level (39.03%) which implies that
they need to study the fundamental knowledge and skills in data
analysis since they lacked the higher application of the acquired
knowledge and skills in the different processes.
The findings that the teachers had lack knowledge and skills on
statistical computations which are needed in data analysis and
interpretation of statistical results can be justified by some of the
outputs of the teachers in the given tasks of organizing the data
analysis as shown.

Journal of critical reviews 45

 OUTCOMES IN QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WRITING AMONG JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL MATHEMATICS TEACHERS
Table 19. Sample Answers of Teachers in Data Analysis and Interpretation of Data
Teachers
10
As gleaned from Table 19, Teacher 1 described the ethnicity of
the students well but she forgot to make a conclusive statement
about the common ethnicity of the respondents. On the other
hand, Teacher 1 did not include the descriptive statistics as
support to the given descriptions of the levels of knowledge
competency. Also, she stated the implication which may not be
the case. Teacher 1 attained a learning level (52.67%) in
demonstrating the given task, hence she needs time to study
analyzing and interpreting statistical data.
Teacher 9 attained a rating of 57% in analyzing and interpreting
the given data. But she was able to describe the categorical data
in terms of percent and able to generalize the features of the
respondents in terms of ethnicity as “Most of the respondents or
85.7% are Ilocano”. She also enumerated the other figures found
in the statistical table (“7.9% are Ifugaos, 4.8% are Tagalog and
Journal of critical reviews
Answers
1.6% are others”) which can be re-stated in a conclusive way.
However, she forgot some equivalent figures that should be
added to the qualitative descriptions of their performances. On
the skill of making implications, she was not able to derive the
implications of the result but only a conclusive statement ”the
cooperating teacher is more competent than the student teacher”.
Moreover, she did not show support of the results of the study
though the use of other studies as stated in the task. Thus,
Teacher 9 needs time to study Statistics.
The answer of Teacher 10 that “Most of the respondents are
Ilocanos” was also the common answer of some of the answers in
the first task. In this case, teacher 10 was able to make a general
description about the features of respondents in terms of
ethnicity but she disregarded describing the other items in the
statistical table. In the analysis, she was able to achieve the
46
 OUTCOMES IN QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WRITING AMONG JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL MATHEMATICS TEACHERS

objective of the task, which was to compare the competence level of students towards Mathematics using the following table of
of the cooperating and student teachers. On the higher skill of statistics of a study.
giving implication to the result of the study, teacher 10 was not Table 4. The Group Statistics and Independent Samples Test
able to demonstrate the skill (No answer). With her different of Attitude towards Mathematics between BEEd and BSEd
ways of answering the different tasks, she performed within the pre-service students
learning level (25.67%) which indicates that she has to study the Group Statistics Independent Samples t - test
fundamental knowledge and skills in making interpretation and Levene’s test t-test for equality
implications of statistical results. for equality of of means
variances
Course N Mean SD F Sig t df Sig
Answers of the respondents obtained an overall performance of
BEEd 18 2.43 .37 1.404 .239 -.07 90 .94
the teachers in developing the analysis and interpretation of data BSEd 74 2.44 .53
in quantitative research writing is within the learning level Total 92 2.44 .50
(39.03%) which implies that they need to study the fundamental
knowledge and skills in data analysis since they lacked the higher Based on the table of statistics, a) make a brief summary of
application of the acquired knowledge and skills in the different findings about the level of attitude of students towards
processes. The result was a reflection of the findings of the study Mathematics and b)make a brief conclusion about the difference
of Cancino (2015) which established secondary mathematics on the attitude of the BEEd and BSEd students towards
teachers in the Division of Nueva Vizcaya obtained low in the Mathematics. (One sentence for each is enough)
knowledge test in Statistics and Probability where most of the Task 2. One of the conclusions derived from a study showed that
items of which were problem solving. Bachelor of Secondary Education students have high mathematics
anxiety. What should be one of the researcher’s best
F. Writing the Summary, Conclusions and Recommendations recommendations to the Mathematics teachers?
In this part, the teachers were asked to write the summary of Table 20 shows the summary of performance of the teachers in
findings, conclusions and recommendations based on the given answering the given tasks.
hypothetical data as shown below:
Task 1. Make a brief summary and conclusion about the attitudes

Table 20. Performance of Mathematics Teachers in Developing the Summary of Findings,

Conclusions and Recommendations
Skill/Process in Research MPS Std. Dev. Qualitative Description
Summarize the findings
44.43 28.20 Novice or Learning Level
comprehensively
State the conclusion properly 33.01 29.43 Novice or Learning Level
Present or state the proper
31.40 24.28 Novice or Learning Level
recommendation
Developing the summary of
findings, conclusion and 37.16 22.26 Novice or Learning Level
recommendation (Over-All)
Less than 60%=Novice/Learning Level; 60.00 to 67.99% = Developing Proficiency; 68.00 to 75.99%=Approaching Proficiency; 76.00 to 83.99%=
Mastery/Proficiency ; 84.00 and Above =Advanced/Above Proficiency
knowledge and skills in making summary, conclusion and
As gleaned from Table 20, junior high school mathematics recommendation.
teachers performed within the learning level in organizing the
different parts of the fifth chapter of a research paper. It includes The following sample answers of teachers will evidently show
the process of making a comprehensive summary of findings of a that they obtained low ratings in developing the summary of
study (44.43%), in making conclusion and recommendation as findings, conclusions and recommendations
shown by their ratings of 33.01% and 31.40%, respectively.
These results mean that they need time to study the fundamental

Table 21. Sample Answers of Teachers in developing the summary of findings,

Conclusions and recommendations
Teachers Answers
1

Journal of critical reviews 47

 OUTCOMES IN QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WRITING AMONG JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL MATHEMATICS TEACHERS
11
16
In writing the summary of findings, Teacher 1 was not able to
describe well the attitude of both students towards Mathematics
which was “undesirable”. Also, her conclusion was not properly
stated (There is no significant difference between the a towards
Mathematics of BEED and BSEd students) wherein BEEd and
BSEd students supposed to be written after the word “between”.
Her recommendation was a command statement based on the
word “must “which is to be avoided even though the thought of
her statements was also valid suggestion on the part of the
teachers in order to lessen their anxiety. With these answers,
Teacher 1 was given a rating of 37.5% which was within the
learning level which showed that she needs time to study some
ways of writing the summary, conclusions and recommendations
of a study.
Also, while teacher 11 incorporated the description
”undesirable” of her answer, it was still observed that what she
was describing as “undesirable” were the group of statistics and
independent sample test of attitude towards mathematics and
Journal of critical reviews
not the attitude of students towards mathematics. What she
knew about her answer which she stated “ The Group statistics
and Independent sample test of attitude towards mathematics
between and BEEd and BSEd pre-service students are both
undesirable” might be an interpretation that the attitude of BEEd
and BSEd students towards math is undesirable, which was the
objective of the task. The way Teacher 11 answered indicated
that she performed within the learning level (35.42%) which
implies that she also has to study the proper ways of making
creative summary of the research findings comprehensively. In
the same way that she needs total guidance from experts in
stating the proper recommendation. More so, her answer in the
conclusion part was far from the expected answer which was
stated as “ I therefore conclude that the two group is not consistent
with theyre scores”. The answers of Teacher 11 provide evidence
on the consistency for incorrect grammatical structure including
for spelling. Her over-all rating of 23.33% is within the learning
level of performance.
48
 OUTCOMES IN QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WRITING AMONG JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL MATHEMATICS TEACHERS

Meanwhile, Teacher 2 obtained a rating of 28.35% in writing the A. Thesis

summary, conclusion and recommendation of a study which is Details:
within the learning level of performance. It seemed that her Author: Esteves, Genevieve B.
answers did not achieve the objective of the task specifically on Title of Thesis: Problem posing and problem solving skills
the summary and conclusion. However, she had forwarded a involving similarity among high school geometry students
good idea for the recommendation. School: Saint Mary’s University
Place: Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya
Majority of the respondents had insufficient answers. During the Year: 2013
focus group discussion, the teachers admitted further that they
did not know how to start the summary because they forgot the
arrangement as well the correct order or the main parts of the
B. Online Source
summary. Also, they stated that it was difficult to construct and
complete the words to be used in the conclusion as well as in
Details:
identifying the right person to whom the recommendation
Author: Rallis, Homer. M.
should be forwarded. This result can be explained by their
Title of Article: Guidelines for writing a literature review
research profile that some teachers had obtained few research
Date Retrieved: February 12 , 2017
units in their graduate studies.
Date of Publication: November 21, 2014
G. Writing the Bibliography or References
URL:
http://www.duluth.umn.edu/~hrallis/guides/researching/litr
In research writing, a way to acknowledge the sources of
eview.html
information is to express the important features of the sources of
Date Last Modified: December 2015
information in a formal format which is called the American
Psychological Association (APA) format. In the given test, the
teachers were asked to write the bibliographic entry of the given C. Journal
sources in APA format. There were three sources of information
considered in the test: thesis, online source and journal. Author: Ondrusek, Anita L
Title of Journal: Journal of Education for Library and
Task: Write the bibliographic entry of the given sources in APA Information Science
format. Kindly underline the elements which are supposed to be Title of Article: What the Research Reveals about Graduate
italicized when encoded in a computer. Students' Writing Skills: A Literature Review
Date: May 2012
Volume number: 53
Issue Number: 3
Pages: 176
Publisher: Research Library

Table 22. Performance of Mathematics Teachers in Writing the Bibliography or References

Skill/Process in Writing MPS Std. Dev. Qualitative Descriptions
References
Thesis 75.57 22.52 Approaching Proficiency
Online Source 45.00 25.93 Novice or Learning Level
Journal 49.38 30.21 Novice or Learning Level
Write references (Overall)
56.88 21.58 Novice or Learning Level

Less than 60%=Novice/Learning Level; 60.00 to 67.99%=Developing Proficiency; 68.00 to 75.99% = Approaching Proficiency; 76.00 to 83.99%=
Mastery/Proficiency ; 84.00 and Above =Advanced/Above Proficiency
As shown in Table 22, the teachers manifested the highest rating learning level in writing the bibliographic entries for online and
of 75.57% in writing the bibliographic entry for thesis. They journal sources with ratings of 45% and 49.38%, respectively.
performed within the level of approaching proficiency in The following answers of teachers would explain that they still
demonstrating the said skill however, they need some guide from lack knowledge in writing their references in APA format.
research experts in expressing the details of a thesis in APA
citation format. On the other hand, they performed within the

Table 23. Sample Answers of Teachers in in writing the bibliographic entries

for online and journal sources
Teachers Answers
Thesis

On Line

Journal

Journal of critical reviews 49

 OUTCOMES IN QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WRITING AMONG JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL MATHEMATICS TEACHERS

Thesis

4 On Line

Journal

Thesis

Online : NO ANSWER
Journal: NO ANSWER
In writing the references, Teacher 1 had a rating of 65.83%
which shows that she had developed the minimum knowledge
and skills of writing references and can demonstrate the skill
with assistance from peers. She was able to write the correct
bibliographic entries of a thesis but she forgot to insert
“Unpublished thesis” after the title and forgot to express the
source in terms of a hanging indention. The hanging indention
was also the missing format in her answers for online and
journal references. For the online source, she wrote first the web
source before the author’s name which was not supposed to be
but she had demonstrated the appropriate format for the journal
source. The overall rating of Teacher 1 in her actual output of
quantitative research writing was 43.73% which was within the
learning level. This result would mean that teacher Belinda needs
to have enough knowledge and skills in research writing to be
able to demonstrate them with utmost comprehension.
In addition, Teacher 6 showed the correct arrangements of the
details in writing the bibliographic entry for thesis, however, he
wrote the complete name of the author which was not supposed
to be. Because he did not answer the other two given tasks, his
performance in the whole task was within the learning level as
shown by a rating of 26.39%.
Most of the results of their outputs showed low ratings. Hence, as
manifested during the group discussion, they revealed that they
were not familiar with APA citation format. Furthermore, they
admitted that they did not have knowledge on the proper way of
writing the bibliographic entries of sources in APA citation
format.

Table 24. Summary of Performances of Mathematics Teachers in the Actual Research Writing
Skill/Process in Research MPS Std. Dev. Qualitative Descriptions
Writing
Crafting the Title of the
52.44 28.81 Novice/Learning Level
Study
Developing the Problem and
34.32 12.05 Novice/Learning Level
its Background
Developing the Related
25.63 16.77 Novice/Learning Level
Literature and Studies
Developing the Research
Methodology 20.91 19.55 Novice/Learning Level

Developing the Analysis and

Interpretation of Data 39.09 16.67 Novice/Learning Level

Journal of critical reviews 50

 OUTCOMES IN QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WRITING AMONG JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL MATHEMATICS TEACHERS
Stating the Summary of
Findings, Conclusion and 37.16
Recommendation
Writing the Bibliography
56.88
Overall Performance in the
Actual Research Writing 34.20
Less than 60%=Novice/Learning Level; 60.00 to 67.99%=Developing Proficiency; 68.00 to 75.99% = Approaching
Proficiency; 76.00 to 83.99%= Mastery/Proficiency ; 84.00 and Above =Advanced/Above Proficiency
The overall performance of the junior high school mathematics
teachers in quantitative research writing is within the learning
level (34.20%) which indicates that they were not able to
demonstrate adequately the knowledge and skills in research
writing. This finding shows that the teachers had problems on
their research writing skills. The junior high school mathematics
teachers had insufficient research writing practices since only
few of them had experienced being involved in research related
activities. Based on their research profile, only two of them were
given research loads and about 25% of them had attended
institutional research seminars or trainings. In addition, only
about 27% of them had conducted their thesis requirement in
Bachelor’s degree while only about 12% of them had conducted
thesis requirement in Master’s degree.
In addition, the development of the different parts of a research
paper needs higher level of thinking which was reiterated by
Bifuh-Ambe (2013) that writing is a complex process requiring
skills in many domains from generating ideas, to presentation of
ideas which means that the teachers lacked higher domains of
writing skills due to insufficient research writing practices.
Results from the study of Biruk (2013) similarly revealed that
the secondary school teachers had very low practice in
conducting research because they lacked involvement in
conducting research. It was also affirmed in the study of Morales
et al. (2016) that elementary and secondary teachers perceived
themselves to have a moderate level of difficulty, hence their
competence in conducting research as well as the application of
research skills still need to be enhanced. Also, a study of Dacles et
al. (2016) on factors contributory to the involvement in research
and research-related activities among Catholic professors found
that the faculty members’ involvement in research was at a
minimal level.
CONCLUSION
On the basis of the foregoing summary of findings, the following
conclusions were derived:
1. Majority of the junior high school mathematics teachers have
insufficient academic preparation and involvement in research,
lack of professional development in research and are described
to be “underloaded” in terms of teaching workloads and very few
had research loads and few had undergraduate degree and
Master’s Degree theses.
2. Public junior high school mathematics teachers performed
“novice” or within the learning level in their actual outputs in
quantitative research writing specifically in crafting the title of a
study, in developing the problem ad its background, related
literature and studies, research methodology, analysis and
interpretation of data, summary of findings, conclusion and
recommendations, and writing the bibliography.
RECOMMENDATIONS
In the light of the analyses and findings made from this study, the
following are recommended:
1. Junior high school mathematics need to be professionally and
academically upgraded specially in the field of research by
enrolling research subjects in the graduate school and to finish
Master’s and Doctoral degrees on time so that they will serve as
Journal of critical reviews
22.26 Novice/Learning Level
21.58 Novice/Learning Level
11.75 Novice/Learning Level
agents in igniting 21st century skills among students and be able
to achieve the goals of the K to 12 Curriculum in the area of
Mathematics.
2. The Department of Education in the Division of Nueva Vizcaya
may have a bigger allotment on the Basic Education Research
Fund to encourage more junior high school mathematics teacher
and basic educators, in general, to conduct research.
3. The Department of Education in the Division of Nueva Vizcaya
may propose an intervention program to develop the research
skills of teachers specifically in formulating title of a study
creatively; develop the parts of the problem of study and its
background including statement of specific research questions;
develop an organized rationale of a study; state well the
significance of a study; define terms conceptually and
operationally; construct conceptual frameworks; organize the
related literature and studies; organize the research
methodology which includes research design, description of
research instruments and sampling and data gathering
procedures, statistical tools to be used; analysis and
interpretation of data based on statistical software output;
formulating the summary, conclusions and recommendations of
the study; and write the APA format of references.
REFERENCES
1. Singh, Y. (2016, July 27). Research methodology and
statistics. New Age International (P) Ltd. Retrieved from
http://www.slideshare.net/madhuvardhan/research-
methodology-and-statistics
2. WESTERN Sydney University (2020, January). Retrieved
fromhttps://www.westernsydney.edu.au/research/researc
hers/preparing_a_grant_application/dest_definition_of_rese
arch
3. Rakhimov Bakhtiyor Khudayberdievich, Misirova Nodira
Tavbaevna, Norboeva Sayora Muratovna, Toshmatova
Mukarram Djumanovna, Turdieva Rakhima Kurbanovna
(2020) Educating Research Approach in Future Teachers.
Journal of Critical Reviews, 7 (4), 62-67.
doi:10.31838/jcr.07.04.1
4. Hakhnoza Pozilova, Mavjuda Zaynutdinova, Sobirjon
Yuldashev,Zamira Yusupova, Tulqin Delov (2020)
Formation of ICT Competence of Students of Technical
Spezialnosti on the Basis of Project-Based Learning (for
example, application programs). Journal of Critical Reviews,
7 (4), 378-383. doi:10.31838/jcr.07.04.72
5. DepEd Order No. 21 series 2019. (2019, August 22). Policy
Guidelines on the K to 12 Basic Education Program.
Retrieved from https://www.deped.gov.ph/wp-
content/uploads/2019/08/DO_s2019_021.pdf
6. Bekmurat Ruzmatovich Tulaev, Oybek Olimovich Daminov,
Khakimov Jamshid Oktyamovich, Jamoliddin Pardaboy ugli
Turdiev. (2020) Developing Competencies in the
Development of Information and Communication
Technologies. Journal of Critical Reviews, 7 (2), 296-298.
doi:10.31838/jcr.07.02.55
7. Olga L. Shepelyuk (2020) The Role of Communicative
Qualities in the Teaching Profession. Journal of Critical
Reviews, 7 (1), 493-495. doi:10.31838/jcr.07.01.97
8. Aguilar, A., Dumag K., Magtarayo, F. Jr., Rivera, R., &
Soriano, J. (2017). Perceived level of communication skills
51
 OUTCOMES IN QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH WRITING AMONG JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL MATHEMATICS TEACHERS
of graduating BSA students. (Unpublished Undergraduate
Thesis) Saint Mary’s University, Bayombong, Nuva Vizcaya
9. Travis, E. (2017). Effective communication skills used in
public relations and marketing. Australian International
Education Conference (2007). Hearst Newspapers, LLC
(2017).Retrieved from www.idp.com/aiec.
http://smallbusiness.chron.com/effective-communication-
skills-used-public-relations-marketing-14256.html
10. Gutierez, S., Orcid, I. & Heui-Baik, K. (2017, July 6).
Becoming teacher-researchers: teachers’ reflections on
collaborative professional development. Published online.
Retrieved from
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00131881.
2017.1347051?src=recsys&journalCode=rere20
11. Abarro, J. & Mariño, W. (2016, June). Research capabilities
of public secondary and elementary school teachers in the
division of Antipolo City. International Journal of Scientific
and Research Publications, 6, (6) ISSN 2250-3153.
Retrieved from http://www.ijsrp.org/research-paper-
0616.php?rp=P545501
12. Morales, M., Abulon, E., Roxas-Soriano, P., David, A.,
Hermosisima, V. & Gerundio, M. (2016). Examining
teachers’ conception of and needs on action research. Issues
in Educational Research, 26(3), 464-489. Retrieved from
http://www.iier.org.au/iier26/morales-2.pdf.
13. de Gracia, R. & Valdez, J. (2017). Research literacy skills
among research-proponents in the schools division of
Nueva Vizcaya for S.Y 2015-16. Educares Journal (2017
Maiden Issue). The Official Research Journal of DepEd SDO-
Nueva Vizcaya (Unpublished).
14. DepEd Order No. 39, s. 2016. Adoption of the basic
education research agenda. Retrieved from
http://www.deped.gov.ph/sites/default/files/order/2016/
DO_s2016_039.pdf
15. DepEd Order No. 73, s. 2012 (2012, September 5).
Guidelines on the assessment and rating of learning
outcomes under the K to 12 basic education program.
Retrieved from
http://www.gov.ph/downloads/2012/09sep/20120905-
DepEd-DO-0073-BSA.pdf
16. Dacles, D., Valtoribio, D., del Rosario, F. Y., Matias, C. &
Saludarez, M. (2016). Cultivating research culture: An
analysis of contributing factors, the institution’s research
initiatives, and collaboration among the HEI’s trifocal
functions. American Journal of Educational Research, 4(6),
439-449. Doi: 10.12691/education-4-6-2.
17. Pasion, J. (2016, June). Interrelatedness among secondary
school teachers’ personal and organizational profiles,
Journal of critical reviews
organizational justice and organizational behavior:
groundwork for a revitalization plan. (Unpublished
Dissertation). Saint Mary’s University, Bayombong, Nueva
Vizcaya
18. DepEd Order No. 16, s. 2009. Addendum to DepEd
Memorandum No. 291, s. 2008 (Guidelines for the
implementation of CSC Resolution No. 080096 on working
hours for public school Teachers). Retrieved from
http://www.deped.gov.ph/orders/do-16-s-2009
19. Lander, J. (2019, June). Learning Practical Research Skills
Using An Academic Paper Framework – An Innovative,
Integrated Approach. Science Direct. 5 (2), 136-145. Doi:
10.101/j.hpe.2018.06.002
20. Murtonen, M. (2005). Learning of quantitative research
methods - university students’ views, motivation, and
difficulties in learning. Retrieved from https://iase-
web.org/documents/dissertations/05.Murtone.Dissertation
.pdfUniversity of TurkuJ. U. Duncombe. Infrared
navigation—Part I: An assessment of feasibility, IEEE Trans.
Electron Devices, vol. ED-11, pp. 34-39, Jan. 1959.
21. Meerah, T., Osman, K., Zakaria, E. & Ikhsan, Z. (2011).
Developing an instrument to measure research skills.
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 60, 630 – 636.
Retrieved from www.sciencedirect.com4. Hakhnoza
Pozilova, Mavjuda Zaynutdinova, Sobirjon
22. Cancino, O. (2015). Knowledge dimensions, beliefs, teaching
efficacy among Filipino junior high school mathematics
teachers: A basis for an enhanced teacher bridging program.
(Unpublished Dissertation). Saint Mary’s University,
Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya
23. Bifuh-Ambe, E. (2013, December). Developing successful
writing teachers: Outcomes of professional development
exploring teachers’ perceptions of themselves as writers
and writing teachers and their students’ attitudes and
abilities to write across the curriculum. English Teaching:
Practice and Critique. 12 (3), 137-156. Retrieved from
http://education.waikato.ac.nz/research/files/etpc/files/2
013v12n3art8.pdf
24. Biruk, B. (2013). The practice and challenges in conducting
action research: The case of Sululta Secondary School.
Retrieved
fromhttp://etd.aau.edu.et/bitstream/123456789/4842/1/
33.%20Biruk%20Haile.pdf
25. Esteves, G. (2013, May). Problem posing and problem
solving skills involving similarity among high school
geometry students. (Unpublished Thesis). Saint Mary’s
University, Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya
52