EFFECTS OF EXAMPLE-PROBLEM PAIRS ON STUDENTS’ MATHEMATICS

ACHIEVEMENTS: A MIXED-METHOD STUDY

Nawaf Awadh K. Alreshidi1
1
College of Education, University of Ha’il, Saudi Arabia
Correspondence: Nawaf Awadh K. Alreshidi,
College of Education, University of Ha’il, Saudi Arabia.
E-mail: nawwaf2012@hotmail.com

Brief Introduction:
This study aimed to investigate how the utilization of example-problem pairs affects
the outcomes of mathematics students when compared to conventional teaching methods.
Thus, the researcher used mixed method embedded design, with a main emphasis on a quasi-
experiment with supplemental field notes, was conducted with 64 grade eight students.
Respondents were divided into two groups comprising 33 students in the experimental group
and 31 students in the controlled group. One teacher taught both groups. Field notes were
taken by the researcher during the interventions with the purpose of providing a deeper
meaning and greater understanding of the phenomenon being studied. The combination of a
quantitative and qualitative approach in this study is important to understand the
implementation efforts between the actual practice and evidence, and examine the context of
the study.

Summary of the Proper Implementation:

Prior to the 2-week proper implementation of the study inside the classroom the
researcher trained and briefed the teacher-implementer on how to use and implement the
example-problem pairs approach to teaching mathematics problem solving. The researcher
also informed the controlled group (respondents) that they will be taught using example-
problem pairs teaching strategy. ‘Probability’ was used as the study topic. The content was
new to the students. The topic was chosen in order to cope with the textbook order at time of
implementing the study.
The implementation started with administering both the controlled and experimental
group a pretest to check the respondents prior knowledge and found out using appropriate
statistical method that the groups has almost no knowledge about the new topic to be
discussed.
After which the teacher-implementer deliver the lesson to the groups. Ofcourse, for
the controlled group, the teacher delivered the lesson in conventional way, the teacher
following the book’s instructions in doing the problems. While on the other hand, the
experimental group was taught using the example-problem pair strategy wherein the teacher
will discuss the lesson with example then the teacher will give a problem parallel the given
example. Also, as part of the intervention, the teacher will identify those students who were
not able to grasp the topic and immediately address the students need. Like giving more
example to work on, or repeating the procedure.
From the beginning to the end of the implementation, the researcher do the classroom
observation using the field notes. The field observation notes used in this study consisted of
two parts: firstly, descriptive, followed by reflective information. The researcher was situated
at the back of classroom to make sure everything was proceeding as planned. The intention
was to monitor the implementation of the study and to document all the observations,
particularly what took place during lessons and the researcher’s observations inside
mathematics classrooms. Thus, the implementation ended with administering the posttest
(achievement test).
The ANCOVA test revealed that the average scores of achievement of the students
taught using the example-problem pairs were higher than the average scores of the students
who were taught using conventional teaching methods, with a very large effect size.
Moreover, the qualitative findings revealed that the students taught using example-problem
pairs were more engaged and took more responsibility for their learning than the students
who were taught using conventional teaching methods. In addition, the students who lacked
the necessary prerequisite knowledge needed more support than the higher achieving
students.

Critiquing in accordance with the definition of core characteristics discussed:

1. collects and analyzes both qualitative and quantitative data rigorously in response to
research questions and hypotheses,
 In my own understanding, I guess 2 weeks of data collection would not be enough for
this kind of study. The aim of the study is to investigate the effectiveness of example-
problem pairs instruction when compared to conventional teaching methods in
relation to students’ mathematics achievements. It is not rigorous enough to conclude
such things as mentioned in the above result.
2. integrates (or mixes or combines) the two forms of data and their results,
 Yes, the researcher was able to integrate the two forms and their results. But, I guess
it will be more powerful if the researcher include some interview questions with the
 teacher-implementer on things like what was her observation on the students behavior
towards the intervention and what was the teacher’s feeling on the intervention.
3. organizes these procedures into specific research designs that provide the logic and
procedures for conducting the study, and
 In this particular characteristic, I think the researcher should not use the controlled vs.
experimental group design in this study. Why? Because for me, yes it really has an
effect. Allow me to give an example, let’s try to investigate student’s happiness
(hypothetically). Controlled group without an ice cream and experimental group with
an ice cream. Ofcourse, we would say that the ones with ice cream will be happier
than those with no ice cream. I therefore suggest that the researcher should only use
one classroom or group instead and must set a standard like, after the intervention the
students will get 75% of the highest possible score.
4. frames these procedures within theory and philosophy.
 With respect to the researcher’s procedure, yes, the researcher was able to frame these
with theory and philosophy..