Final Paper 21st Century Techniques and Pedagogies in Mathematics

21st Century Techniques and Pedagogies in Mathematics
Noriemel M. Bautista, Nathalie R. Cordial, John Carlo D. Gutierrez, Justine A. Salido
Abstract
In the Philippine education, most of the students have problems and difficulties towards Mathematics
and considered it as the most difficult subject. Teachers served as critical factors in students’ learning and their
teaching techniques should be observed. This study aims to discover the effective 21 st century techniques and
pedagogies in Mathematics. The study also investigated potential differences in the demographic profile and on
the perceived assessment on the 21st century skills of the learners the respondents consider in the selection of
teaching techniques, and the significant difference on the perceived assessment on pedagogies used by the
respondents when grouped according to demographic profile. A descriptive evaluative research design was used
in this study. A total of 73 Mathematics teachers from nine (9) public Junior High Schools in Binan City
participated in the study. Results revealed that Mathematics teachers has been using modern teaching
techniques namely technology integration, game-based teaching technique, flexible teaching technique, and
collaborative teaching technique. Within the scope of the 21st century, these strategies must be considered for
creating new teaching techniques in Mathematics. Intervention plan was proposed to address the necessary issue
about 21st century teaching techniques and pedagogies in Mathematics.
Words: 21st century skills, Intervention Plan, Junior High School Math Teachers, Mathematics, Pedagogies,
Teaching Techniques
INTRODUCTION
In the Philippine education, most of the students have their problems and difficulties towards
Mathematics. It can be observed through variety of factors. Those factors are classified as personal, emotional, and
educational factors (Ganal et al, 2014). When they encounter Mathematics, they tend to feel scared, and given
that there were lectures provided, still, many students experienced difficulties in learning the subject. With that,
students have considered Mathematics as the most difficult subject (Subia S, G. et al). In contrast, students with
positive attitude towards Mathematics have more chances to execute well performances (Alpacion et al, 2019). It
is important to highlight the specifics of mathematics and its role in the intellectual development of a person
(Perevoshchikova, 2019), and Mathematics should be understood properly. (ABD ALGANI, 2019).
Now, in the 21st century, the mode of education is shifting. From the traditional methods, the pedagogy
in schools is transforming little by little (Ardeleanu 2019). The skills necessary for the modern world have been
replaced by more appropriate for the knowledge-based world. The models of learning in which we believed for so
long have also progressed: from seeing the learners as “tabula rasae” (blank slate), we now view the learners as
active builders of information, and constructing knowledge (Mevarech Z. & Kramarski B., 2014). The emergence
and use of technology became popular in the teaching profession. For this instance, exploring and creating new
and modern strategies in teaching Mathematics, could possibly help the students exert excellent performances in
it (Burgić et al. 2017). These actions will surely become a challenge for the present and future of the said discipline.
The chain of continuous negative reactions is needed to be solved.
The teachers are critical factors in the learning of Mathematics and the extents of their content and
pedagogical knowledge do determine students’ achievement (Mapolelo, D. & Akinsola, M., 2015). Lack of
knowledge in the modern techniques and pedagogy in Mathematics of the teacher may cause delay on the
learning of the students as well. To address this, the government must look at ways on improving the curriculum,
training teachers, resourcing the classroom with locally made and new technological tools (Panthi, RK, & Belbase,
S., 2017).
The 21st century techniques and pedagogies promotes holistic education that emphasizes life skills and
critical thinking (Teo, 2019) as well as creativity, innovation adaptability and the knowledge in using the technology
(Lamb et al., 2017). These are some of the techniques that a mathematics teacher should know for them to think
of ways on how to introduce their lesson to their students. By discovering effective 21st century techniques and
pedagogies in Mathematics used by teachers, we can infuse it to the new generations of students for them to
further understand and enjoy the subject. If we have an enhanced 21st-century teacher, in turn, we can have a
better 21st-century learner (Kim et al., 2019).
The researchers are trying to investigate the 21 st century skills of the students considered by the teachers
that can be helpful in the selection of their teaching techniques. According to Teo, P. (2019), the educators need to
prepare students for the 21st century to help them navigate an increasingly globalized world and inter-connected
landscape. The educators need to equip the students to have a holistic education that emphasizes life skills like
communication, cross-cultural collaboration, and critical thinking. In addition, if we want the students to become
competent in a global society, then the K-12 teachers need to develop, model, and assess the 21st-century skills in
their students (Urbani, J. et al 2017). According to Guerriero S., (2017), highly qualified and competent teachers are
fundamental for equitable and effective education systems. Teachers today are facing higher and more complex
expectations to help students reach their full potential and become valuable members of 21st century society.
Filipino students lagged behind other countries in the international assessment for mathematics and
science for grade 4, the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study 2019 (TIMSS) revealed. The
Philippines only scored 297 in mathematics and 249 in science, which are "significantly lower" than any other
participating country. The country also scored the lowest among all 58 participating countries for both tests. In
mathematics, only 19% of Filipino students were on the Low benchmark, which means that they had "some basic
mathematical knowledge," while 81% did not even reach this level. (Magsambol, B. (2020, Dec 9).
As students, the researchers had their observation that there is something with the teaching method of
the teachers in Mathematics. It seems that their application of various teaching techniques and pedagogies are not
that so effective for the students to learn Mathematics. There is the use of both traditional and modern tools for
teaching but still, there exist the significant effect on how the teachers will use those tools with the students'
learning in Mathematics. Aside from the personal and emotional factors, students are significantly affected by the
teacher's method of teaching. The delivery of instructions and learning is not easily understood and acquired by
the students. It is also observed that some of the teachers in Mathematics are not creative enough in adapting
his/her own style of teaching to reach students' interest and capabilities. Another observation is that in Junior High
School, majority of students are struggling with the new techniques used by Math teachers. These observation
does not guarantee conclusive statements; therefore, the researchers would like to conduct a more thorough
study about the topic.
The current research aims to study the various dominant 21st century techniques and pedagogies of
secondary math teachers. The findings of the study will be beneficial to the institution, teachers, and other
stakeholders by presenting the new teaching techniques used in the new normal that will be considered in creating
new plans and techniques in teaching Mathematics. In addition, this will provide imperative suggestions to
institutions and other stakeholders in developing their techniques and pedagogies.
Objectives of the Study
This study aims to determine the different 21 st century techniques and pedagogies in Mathematics being used by
the secondary teachers. Specifically, the study would answer the following questions:
1. What is the demographic profile of the participants in terms of?

A. Age
B. Sex
C. Marital status
D. Highest educational attainment
E. Position/Academic Rank
2. What are the 21st century skills of the learners do respondents consider in the selection of teaching
techniques in Mathematics?
3. Is there a significant difference on the perceived assessment on the 21 st century skills of the learners the
participants consider in the selection of teaching techniques when grouped according to demographic
profile?
4. What are the pedagogies used by the participants in teaching Mathematics?
5. Is there a significant difference on the perceived assessment on pedagogies used by the participants
when grouped according to demographic profile?
6. What are the new teaching techniques used by the participants in the new normal?
7. Based on the finding of the study, propose an intervention plan.
Hypotheses
This study will test the following hypotheses:

1. There is no significant difference on the perceived assessment on the 21 st century skills of the learners the
respondents consider in the selection of teaching techniques when grouped according to demographic
profile.
2. There is no significant difference on the perceived assessment on pedagogies used by the respondents
when grouped according to demographic profile.
Theoretical Framework
This research was based on the study of Kapur R. (2020) in Theories of Pedagogy where he stated that
pedagogy is the basis of having a good quality of instruction, and from pedagogical theories, pedagogical strategies
had emerged. Pedagogical theories postulate the manner of teaching into application, and how these can
positively impact the students in developing their abilities and skills. He believed that these theories were from
different perspectives. Specifically in these perspectives, the Learning Theory was served as the conceptual
framework of teaching and learning.
In the field of Mathematics, the Social Constructivism Learning Theory was the one which fits in the study.
This theory of Lev Vygotsky states that learning takes place in a social context where individuals are active
participants in creation of their own knowledge (Davis, et.al., 2017). Teachers are part of the social environment.
They play their role through creating problem-solving activities for students to be done with collaborative effort.
The Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) best describes the interaction between the instructor and the learner
(McLeod, 2019).
Conceptual Framework
Figure 1. The major concept of this study is focused on the 21st Century techniques and pedagogies,
wherein the researchers include the demographic profile of the respondents, which contains the age, sex, marital
status, and highest educational attainment, as the variables of the study. The researchers distributed
questionnaires containing an open and close ended questions and secure the needed information to know the 21 st
Century competencies highly considered by teachers in teaching Mathematics and the dominant pedagogies and
techniques used by the teachers in teaching Mathematics so that the researchers will be able to make an
intervention plan.
Figure 1. Research Paradigm
21st Century competencies

highly considered by teachers in
teaching Mathematics.
Demographic profile of the

respondents in terms of:
A. Age
B. Sex INTERVENTION
C. Marital status
PLAN
D. Highest
educational
attainment
Dominant pedagogies and

Definition of Terms techniques used by teachers in
The following terms are operationally and conceptually defined:
teaching Mathematics
21st Century Skills – refers to the learner’s modern competence as basis of teachers in selecting their teaching
techniques
21st Century Techniques – refers to the modern strategies used by the teachers in teaching students
Blended – Learning Approach – refers to the pedagogical approach which incorporates traditional and digital
technology in teaching
Collaboration – refers to the 21st century skill which involves group works accomplished by students and be able
to perform the task in a united manner
Collaborative Approach – refers to the pedagogical approach where the teacher incorporates group works among
the students
Communication – refers to the 21st century skill which involves explanation, understanding, expressing and
justification of students’ mathematical work
Constructivist Approach – refers to the pedagogical approach used in the study to determine how the teacher see
his or her way of teaching based on constructivism theory
Cooperative Approach– refers to the pedagogical approach where the teachers divide students into heterogenous
group for an activity and evaluate them individually
Creativity and Innovation – refers to the 21 st century skill where the students brought up their imagination into
their work
Critical Thinking and Problem Solving – refers to the 21 st century skill which involves solving, logical reasoning,
analyzation, drawing conclusion in their mathematical data
Direct-Instruction Approach – refers to the pedagogical approach where the teachers give a discussion with clear
direction, illustrations, and explanations about the topic in front of their students.
Inquiry-Based Approach – refers to the pedagogical approach where the teacher let their students ask questions,
organize information and demonstrating skills in searching and screening relevant information
Integrative Approach – refers to the pedagogical approach used by the teacher where they combine and
assimilates the topics in different subject areas
Lecture-Method Approach – refers to the pedagogical approach used by the teacher in explaining their topic
wherein they are the active participants, and the students are the passive listener
Metacognitive Approach – refers to the pedagogical approach used in the study to determine how the teacher
see his or her way of teaching based on metacognition
Pedagogy – refers to the art and science of teaching; it is the set of approaches which are used by teachers based
on how they see the way they should teach in class
Limitations of the Study
This study focuses on the 21st Century techniques and pedagogies in Mathematics. The data collection
will only be conducted to the secondary Mathematics teachers in public Junior High Schools in the division of the
City of Binan, who will represent the population. The study will not cover other variables which are not considered
as teaching techniques and pedagogies. Mathematics teachers that are not part of the respondents are not within
the scope of this research.
Benefits of the Study
This research would be beneficial to Mathematics teachers, students, and future researchers.
Teachers. Mathematics teachers will be able to adapt new teaching techniques and apply the dominant
pedagogies in teaching Mathematics effective for the learning of the students.
Students. The students will be able to enhance their learning, boost their confidence and appreciate Mathematics
through the influence of the effective teaching of their teachers.
Future researchers. The future researchers will be able to use this study in the field of Mathematics to serve as a
reference and guide in developing the research with the connection of variables used.
METHODOLOGY
Research Design
The researchers wish to conduct a study on the evaluation of the 21 st century techniques and pedagogies
in Mathematics. The researchers devise a questionnaire which evaluates the different 21 st century skills on the
learners that is considered in the selection of teaching techniques as well as the different pedagogies used by the
respondents in teaching mathematics. The study uses a descriptive evaluative research design to carefully
appraise the worthiness of the current study.
Respondents
The respondents in this study were selected Mathematics teachers from nine (9) public Junior High
Schools in the Division of Bin͂ an namely: 1.) Biñan City Science and Technology High School, 2.) Biñan Integrated
National High School, 3.) Biñan Secondary School of Applied Academics, 4.) Dela Paz National High School, 5.)
Jacobo Z. Gonzales Memorial National High School, 6.) Mamplasan National High School, 7.) Nereo R. Joaquin
National High School, 8.) Southville 5A Integrated National High School, 9.) St. Francis National High School.
Population and Sampling Techniques
Table 1
Distribution of the Population and Sample per School
Public Junior High Schools Population Percentage Sample
size size
Nereo Joaquin National High School 7 7% 5
Biñan National High School 18 19% 13

Dela Paz National High School 7 7% 5
Jacobo Z. Gonzales Memorial National High School 24 25% 17
St. Francis National High School 7 7% 5
Biñan City Science and Technology High School 1 1% 1
Biñan Secondary School of Applied Academics 15 16% 11
Southville 5A National High School 12 13% 9
Mamplasan National High School 5 5% 4
TOTAL 96 100% 70
The respondents were randomly chosen based on the conducted stratified proportional sampling which
aimed to have a proportional allocation of respondents (Etikan & Bala, 2017). The vast population size was
computed using Cochran formula to come up with an adequate and acceptable sample population size (Cochran,
1963). Out of the required sample size, retrieval of questionnaires were 73 respondents.
Instrumentation
In this study, a survey questionnaire instrument was incorporated and comprised of three parts:
demographic profile, Likert scale, and an open-ended question. Part I of the instrument deals with demographic
profile of the respondents, Part II deals with the 21 st century skills of the learners, in Part III, it deals with teaching
pedagogies and Part IV deals with other techniques. The questionnaire was researchers made to be validated by
(3) three experts in the field of education and research and it was subject for pilot testing to (30) thirty
respondents. The researchers used Google Forms in gathering of data. To interpret the result, the following likert
scale below will be used:
Likert Scale for the 21st Century Techniques
Response Scale Degree of Descriptive Mean Interval

Intensity Interpretation
4 Strongly Agree High considered 3.50 and above
3 Agree Moderately 2.50-3.49
considered
2 Disagree Less considered 1.50-2.49
1 Strongly disagree Not considered 1.00-1.49
Likert Scale for the Dominant Pedagogies
Response Scale Degree of Intensity Descriptive Mean Interval

Interpretation
5 Always true to me Very evident 4.50-5.00
4 Often true to me Evident 3.50-4.49
3 Sometimes true to me Moderately evident 2.50-3.49
2 Rarely true to me Less evident 1.50-2.49
1 Never true to me Not evident 1.00-1.49
Data Gathering Procedure
The data gathering process was conducted wherein the researchers obtain the approval of the research
committee in the school. The researchers had also secured the permission and requested for an endorsement
letter to the School’s Division Superintendent of the Division Office in Bin͂ an. The researchers disseminated it
together with the request letter to the principals from nine (9) public Junior High Schools and conducted a short
orientation to the respondents to make sure that they know the purpose of the study. The survey was conducted
through an online platform to avoid physical contact with the respondents. Likewise, the researchers assured the
confidentiality in the responses of the selected respondents.
Data Analysis
The following were the statistical tools used in interpreting the data.
1. Frequency and percentage
It was used to determine the frequency and percentage distribution of the teachers’ demographic profile.
2. Mean and standard deviation
It was used to determine the 21st century skills of the learners that the respondents consider in the
selection of teaching techniques in Mathematics and to know the pedagogies used by the participants in
3. Kruskal-Wallis H test
It was used to see if there will be any significant differences between two or more groups of independent
variables.
4. Mann Whitney U test
It was used to find out the significant differences between two groups of significance, the result will be
noted as significant if the Asymp. Sig. is less than the 5% level of significance.
5. Thematic analysis
It was used to categorize the responses of the respondents from the open-ended question.
Ethical Considerations
The survey and validation instruments will be treated with the highest confidentiality and will follow the
established research practices in the administration, retrieval and preservation of survey information and replies,
as well as data privacy. Prior to conducting the survey, the consent of the participants must be obtained.
Throughout the research, ethical considerations will be considered. In conducting any survey, the participants'
consent will be requested. Similarly, data and information will be treated with the utmost discretion, and data
privacy will be protected throughout the study.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
This section presents the findings of the study and discusses some attributions related to the findings.
The order of the presentation of the findings follows the order of the statement of the problems mentioned in the
introduction.
Profile of the Respondents

Table 2
Profile of the Respondents in terms of Age
Age Frequency Percentage

20 and below 0 0%
21-30 years old 24 33%
31-40 years old 29 40%
41-50 years old 15 21%
51-60 years old 4 5%
61 and above 1 1%
TOTAL 73 100%
Table 2 shows the profile of the respondents in terms of age, wherein 29 respondents (40%) belongs to
the age bracket of 31 – 40 years old; 24 respondents (33%) belongs to the age bracket of 21 – 30 years old; 15
respondents (21%) belongs to the age bracket of 41 – 50 years old; 4 respondents (5%) belongs to the age bracket
of 51 – 60 years old; and 1 respondent (1%) belongs to the age bracket of 61 and above. There’s no respondent for
the age bracket of 20 and below.
The findings of the study agree with the study of Flores, I.M. (2019) where Mathematics public school
teachers in the province of Batangas is dominated by those in the age range of 29-35. However, it contradicts the
study in the article of Salvan, & Hambre (2020) that 27-32 is the dominant age range for teachers in Naawan
Mindanao.
Table 3
Profile of the Respondents in terms of Sex
Sex Frequency Percentage
Male 23 32%
Female 50 68%
TOTAL 73 100%
Table 3 shows the profile of the respondents in terms of sex, wherein majority of them are female
composed of 50 respondents (68%) while 23 respondents (32%) are male.
The findings of the study agree with the study of Salvan, & Hambre (2020) that there are more female
than male teachers, wherein 67% are female teachers while only 33% are male. The same with the study of Flores,
I.M. (2019) wherein 63.4% are composed of female Mathematics teachers while 36.7% are male, thus result
confirms that the teaching profession is still a female dominated profession.
Table 4
Profile of the Respondents in terms of Civil Status
Civil Status Frequency Percentage

Single 24 33%
Married 48 66%
Legally separated 0 0%
Widower/ed 1 1%
TOTAL 73 100%
Table 4 shows the profile of the respondents in terms of civil status, wherein 48 respondents (66%) are
married; 24 respondents (33%) are single; 1 respondent (1%) is a widower/ed; and no one is legally separated.
The findings of the study agree with the study of Flores, I.M. (2019) wherein majority of Mathematics
teachers are married 65.9%, 31.7% are single and there is 2.4% of the teachers are widower/ed. The result could
possibly be attributed to the fact that majority of the respondents belonged to age group of 31-40 which based on
the observation are the age of married couples.
Table 5
Profile of the Respondents in terms of Highest Educational Attainment
Educational Attainment Frequency Percentage

Bachelor’s degree 23 32%
With Master’s units 35 48%
Master’s degree 12 16%
With Doctorate units 3 4%
Doctorate degree 0 0%
TOTAL 73 100%
Table 5 shows the profile of the respondents in terms of highest educational attainment, wherein 35
respondents (48%) are with Master’s units; 23 respondents (32%) have Bachelor’s degree; 12 respondents (16%)
have Master’s degree; 3 respondents (4%) are with Doctorate units. No respondents have Doctorate degree.
The findings of the study agree with the study of Flores, I.M. (2019) wherein majority of Mathematics
teachers are with master’s units 46.3%. Also, according to Salvan & Hambre (2020), 66.7% of the teachers are
pursuing their master’s degree program which agrees to the researcher’s study.
Table 6
Profile of the Respondents in terms of Position/Academic Rank
Position/Academic Rank Frequency Percentage

Teacher 66 90%
Master Teacher 6 8%
Head Teacher 1 1%
TOTAL 73 100%
Table 6 shows the profile of the respondents in terms of position/academic rank, wherein 66 respondents
(90%) are teachers; 6 respondents (8%) are masters teachers; and 1 respondent (1%) is a head teacher.
In this result, the study of Francisco (2020) in Teachers’ Personal and Professional Demographic
Characteristics as Predictors of Students’ Academic Performance in English agrees that teacher as an academic
rank got the highest frequency specifically, in teacher 1.
Perceived Assessment on the 21st Century Skills of the Learners Considered in the Selection of Teaching
Techniques
Table 7
Perceived Assessment on the 21st Century Skills of the Learners Considered in the Selection of Teaching
Techniques
Table 7 shows the average mean of 21st century skills of the learners considered in the selection of
teaching techniques wherein the highest mean was obtained by creativity and innovation with an average mean of
3.74. Next is collaboration with an average mean of 3.72, then communication with an average mean of 3.71 and
critical thinking and problem solving with the average mean of 3.67. All of these were interpreted as highly
considered.
The result indicates that creativity and innovation is the most considered 21 st century skills of the learners
when it comes to selection of teaching techniques. Creativity and innovation have been highlighted as essential
skills for the 21st century, especially if we consider that both skills that can promote human potential by eliciting
positive aspects of the individual (Nakano & Wechsler, 2018). Therefore, being creative is no longer something that
is “nice to have,” it is a “must have.” It is the only set of skills that will give students a meaningful competitive
advantage in the innovation era (Wagner, 2019).
Following as the next highly considered 21 st century skill for the selection of teaching techniques is the
collaboration skill. In Mathematics classrooms, collaboration as a learning format is continuously growing. As one
way of resolving students’ confusion in learning Mathematics, forming students into groups is observed where
students can guide each other (Webel, 2010).
21st Century Skills Mean Std. Verbal Interpretation

Deviation
Creativity and Innovation 3.74 0.37 Highly Considered
Critical Thinking and Problem Solving 3.67 0.46 Highly Considered
Collaboration 3.72 0.42 Highly Considered
Communication 3.71 0.44 Highly Considered
Significant Difference on the Perceived Assessment on the 21st Century Skills of the Learners the Respondents
Consider in the Selection of Teaching Techniques when Grouped According to Demographic Profile
Table 8 shows the significant difference of the perceived assessment on the 21 st century skills of the
learners when they are grouped according to age. Comparing to the 5% level of significance, critical thinking and
problem solving which obtained an Asymp Sig. of 0.245, communication which obtained an Asymp. Sig. of 0.22,
collaboration which obtained an Asymp. Sig. of 0.122, were all interpreted as not significant. On the other hand,
the sole 21st century skill interpreted as significant which obtained Asymp. Sig. of 0.018 is the creativity and
innovation.
The result indicates that there is no significant difference in terms of age of the respondents to the 21 st
century skills of the learners the respondents consider in the selection of teaching techniques when it comes to
critical thinking and problem solving, communication, and collaboration. On the other hand, there is a significant
difference in creativity and innovation on the perceived assessment on the 21 st century skills when grouped
according to age. According to Ismail et. al (2018), there is a significant difference between age, experience, and
teacher effectiveness in delivering HOTS (Higher order thinking skill) teaching. Results show that teachers under
the age group of 31-40 years old consider creativity and innovation among their students in selecting their teaching
techniques thus agreeing to Alpaugh et. al (2018) that creativity across the adult life span indicates a decline in
creative activity with increasing age.
Table 8
Kruskal Wallis Test of Significance on the Perceived Assessment on the 21 st Century Skills when Grouped
According to Age
21st Century Kruskal- Assymp. Sig.

Groups (Age) Mean Rank Result Decision
Skills Wallis H (2 tailed)
20 years below
21-30 years old 32.85
Creativity and 31-40 years old 45.50 Reject Null
11.944 0.018 Significant
Innovation 41-50 years old 30.10 Hypothesis
51-60 years old 34.00
61 and above 5.50
20 years below
21-30 years old 36.17
Critical Thinking
31-40 years old 40.21 Not Accept Null
and Problem 5.443 0.245
41-50 years old 30.97 Significant Hypothesis
Solving
51-60 years old 48.13
61 and above 10.00
Collaboration 20 years below 7.284 0.122 Not Accept Null
21-30 years old 31.83
31-40 years old 39.60
51-60 years old 50.50
61 and above 8.00
20 years below
21-30 years old 35.71
31-40 years old 38.83 Not Accept Null
Communication 5.636 0.22
51-60 years old 51.00
61 and above 8.50
Above 0.050 – not significant; 0.011 to 0.050 – significant (at 5% level of significance)
learners when they are grouped according to sex. The table indicates that there is no significant difference in terms
of sex of the respondents to the 21st century skills of the learners the respondents consider in the selection of
teaching techniques. Comparing to the 5% level of significance, critical thinking and problem solving which
obtained an Asymp Sig. of 0.933, communication which obtained an Asymp. Sig. of 0.733, collaboration which
obtained an Asymp. Sig. of 0.390; and creativity and innovation which obtained an Asymp. Sig. of 0.307 were all
above to the level of significance indicated that yielded results of not significant.
The result indicates that there is no significant difference in terms of age of the respondents to the 21 st
century skills of the learners the respondents consider in the selection of teaching techniques when grouped
according to sex. According to Gordonas, A. (2018), there is no significant difference in the assessment of the
respondents on the teaching strategies in literature subjects when the respondents are grouped according to their
sex.
Table 9
Mann-Whitney U Test of Significance on the Perceived Assessment on the 21 st Century Skills when Grouped
According to Sex
Groups Mann – Assymp. Sig.

21st Century Skills Mean Rank Result Decision
(Sex) Whitney U (2 tailed)
creativity and Male 40.33 Not
498.500 0.307 Accept null hypothesis
innovation Female 35.47 Significant
critical thinking and Male 36.72 Not
problem solving Female 37.13 Significant
Male 34.28 Not
collaboration 512.500 0.390 Accept null hypothesis
Female 38.25 Significant
Male 35.91 Not
communication 550.00 0.733 Accept null hypothesis
Female 37.50 Significant
Table 10
According to Civil Status
Assymp.
Mean Kruskall -
st
21 Century Skills Groups (Civil Status) Sig. Result Decision
Rank Wallis H
(2 tailed)
Single 37.81
creativity and Married 36.49 Accept null
0.107 0.948 Not Significant
innovation Legally Separated hypothesis
Widower/d 32.95
Single 36.71
critical thinking
Married 36.40 Accept null
and problem 1.648 0.439 Not Significant
Legally Separated hypothesis
solving
Widower/d 54.50
Single 34.15
Married 37.88 Accept null
collaboration 1.778 0.411 Not Significant
Legally Separated hypothesis
Widower/d 50.50
Single 34.66
Married 37.65
Accept null
Legally Separated
communication 1.621 0.445 Not Significant hypothesis
Widower/d 51.00
learners when they are grouped according to civil status. The table indicates that there is no significant difference
in terms of civil status of the respondents to the 21 st century skills of the learners the respondents consider in the
selection of teaching techniques. Comparing to the 5% level of significance, creativity ang innovation which
obtained an Asymp Sig. of 0.948, communication which obtained an Asymp. Sig. of 0.445, critical thinking and
problem solving which obtained an Asymp. Sig. of 0.439; and collaboration which obtained an Asymp. Sig. of 0.411
were all above to the level of significance indicated that yielded results of not significant.
The result indicates that there is no significant difference in terms of civil status of the respondents to the
21st century skills of the learners the respondents consider in the selection of teaching. According to Gordonas, A.
(2018), there is no significant difference in the assessment of the respondents on the teaching strategies in
literature subjects when the respondents are grouped according to their civil status.
Table 11
According to Highest Educational Attainment
Assymp.
Kruskall- Sig.
21st Century Skills Groups (HEA) Mean Rank Result Decision
Wallis H (2
tailed)
Bachelor’s Degree 37.83
creativity and with Master’s units 35.64
Not Accept null
innovation Master’s Degree 35.63 2.186 0.535
Significant hypothesis
with Doctorate’s units 52.00
Doctorate Degree
critical thinking
with Master’s units 35.23
and problem Not Accept null
Master’s Degree 32.50 2.454 0.484
solving Significant hypothesis
Doctorate Degree
collaboration Not Accept null
Master’s Degree 28.58 4.866 0.182
Doctorate Degree
Not Accept null
communication Master’s Degree 38.17 1.194 0.754
Doctorate Degree
Above 0.050 - not significant; 0.011 to 0.050 - significant (at 5% level of significance)
learners when they are grouped according to highest educational attainment. The table indicates that there is no
significant difference in terms of highest educational atainment of the respondents to the 21 st century skills of the
learners the respondents consider in the selection of teaching techniques. Comparing to the 5% level of
significance, communication which obtained an Asymp Sig. of 0.754, creativity and innovation which obtained an
Asymp. Sig. of 0.535, critical thinking and problem solving which obtained an Asymp. Sig. of 0.484; and
collaboration which obtained an Asymp. Sig. of 0.182 were all above to the level of significance indicated that
yielded results of not significant.
Although teachers with Doctorate’s unit got the highest mean rank in considering the four 21 st century
skills among other highest educational attainment, it’s still indicated that there is no significant difference on the
perceived assessment on 21st century skills of the learners the respondents consider in the selection of teaching
techniques.
Table 12
Kruskal Wallis Test of Significance on the Perceived Assessment on the 21 st century skills when Grouped
According to Academic Rank
Assymp.
st
Groups Kruskall- Wallis
21 Century Skills Mean Rank Sig. Result Decision
(academic rank) H
(2 tailed)
creativity and Teacher 37.52
Not Accept null
innovation Master Teacher 28.75 1.831 0.400
Head Teacher 52.00
Teacher 37.55
critical thinking and Not Accept null
Master Teacher 28.00 2.121 0.346
problem solving Significant hypothesis
Head Teacher 54.50
Teacher 37.26
collaboration Not Accept null
Master Teacher 31.92 1.018 0.601
Head Teacher 50.50
Teacher 37.68
Not Accept null
communication Master Teacher 27.17 2.359 0.308
Head Teacher 51.00
learners when they are grouped according to highest educational attainment. The table indicates that there is no
significant difference in terms of highest educational attainment of the respondents to the 21 st century skills of the
learners the respondents consider in the selection of teaching techniques. Comparing to the 5% level of
significance, collaboration which obtained an Asymp Sig. of 0.601, creativity and innovation which obtained an
Asymp. Sig. of 0.400, critical thinking and problem solving which obtained an Asymp. Sig. of 0.346; and
communication which obtained an Asymp. Sig. of 0.308 were all above to the level of significance indicated that
yielded results of not significant.
Showing that head teacher obtained the highest mean rank and master teacher as the lowest in
considering the four 21st century skills among other academic ranks, it’s still indicated that there is no significant
difference on the perceived assessment on 21 st century skills of the learners the respondents consider in the
selection of teaching techniques.
Teaching Pedagogies Used by the Respondents in Teaching Mathematics
Table 13
Teaching Pedagogies Used by the Respondents in Teaching Mathematics
Teaching Pedagogies Mean Std. Verbal Interpretation

Deviation
Constructivist Approach 4.24 0.57 Evident
Collaborative Approach 4.27 0.79 Evident
Integrative Approach 4.22 0.65 Evident
Inquiry-Based Approach 4.39 0.68 Evident
Direct-Instruction Approach 4.54 0.57 Very Evident
Lecture Method Approach 4.32 0.71 Evident
Metacognitive Approach 4.16 0.69 Evident
Blended-Learning Approach 4.11 0.70 Evident
Cooperative Approach 4.19 0.72 Evident
Table 13 shows the average mean of teaching pedagogies used by the respondents in teaching
mathematics wherein the highest mean was obtained by direct-instruction approach with an average mean of
4.54. Next is inquiry-based approach with an average of 4.39, followed by lecture-method approach gained an
average of 4.32, collaborative approach gets an average of 4.27, constructivist approach has an average of 4.24,
cooperative approach gained an average of 4.19, metacognitive approach with an average of 4.16, and blended-
learning approach with the accumulated mean of 4.11. All were interpreted as evident except with the direct-
instruction approach which is very evident.
This result indicates that in the 21st century, direct instruction approach is one of the most effective
teaching strategies, and students who are taught using this approach can perform better in Math than those who
weren’t (Renard, 2019). However, according to Ewing B. (2011), characteristics of direct instruction are critiqued
and discussed to identify implications for teaching and learning Mathematics because of its focus on explicit and
highly directed instruction for learning.
One study was done by Aktamiş, Hįğde and Ӧzden in 2016 which determined that inquiry-based teaching,
associated with the conventional teaching methodology, had a “lot more positive effects on the assertiveness of
the students towards Science and Mathematics.” It was found that inquiry-based learning effectively trains
students’ metacognitive skill (Nunaki et. al., 2019).
Significant Difference on the Perceived Assessment on Pedagogies Used by the Respondents when grouped
according to Demographic Profile
Table 14
Kruskal Wallis Test of Significance on the Perceived Assessment on Teaching Pedagogies when Grouped
According to Age
Teaching Kruskall- Assymp. Sig.

Groups (Age) Mean Rank Result Decision
Pedagogies Wallis H (2 tailed)
20 years below
21-30 years old 40.29
Constructivist 31-40 years old 35.29 Accept Null
Approach 41-50 years old 32.97 Hypothesis
51-60 years old 48.50
61 and above 22.00
20 years below
21-30 years old 40.98
Collaborative 31-40 years old 32.60 Accept Null
51-60 years old 28.38
61 and above 59.00
20 years below
Integrative Accept Null
21-30 years old 36.40 0.736 0.947 Not Significant
Approach Hypothesis
31-40 years old 37.64
41-50 years old 36.33
51-60 years old 42.00
61 and above 23.00
20 years below
21-30 years old 36.58
Inquiry-Based 31-40 years old 34.21 Accept Null
51-60 years old 39.38
61 and above 19.00
20 years below
21-30 years old 32.44
Direct-Instruction 31-40 years old 36.36 Accept Null
51-60 years old 57.00
61 and above 14.00
20 years below
21-30 years old 34.13
Lecture Method 31-40 years old 37.48 Accept Null
51-60 years old 47.63
61 and above 22.00
20 years below
21-30 years old 38.35
Metacognitive 31-40 years old 34.71 Accept Null
51-60 years old 40.38
61 and above 28.00
20 years below
21-30 years old 40.71
Blended-Learning 31-40 years old 35.97 Accept Null
51-60 years old 41.00
61 and above 31.00
20 years below
21-30 years old 38.35
Cooperative 31-40 years old 35.53 Accept Null
51-60 years old 34.50
61 and above 26.50
Table 14 shows the significant difference of the perceived assessment on the teaching pedagogies when
they are grouped according to age. The table indicates that there is no significant difference in terms age of the
respondents to the teaching pedagogies they use. Comparing to the 5% level of significance, cooperative approach
which obtained an Asymp Sig. of 0.952, integrative approach which obtained an Asymp. Sig. of 0.947,
metacognitive approach which obtained an Asymp. Sig. of 0.926, blended-learning approach which obtained an
Asymp. Sig. of 0.774, lecture-method approach which obtained an Asymp. Sig. of 0.700, inquiry-based approach
which obtained an Asymp. Sig. of 0.562, constructivist approach which obtained an Asymp. Sig. of 0.549,
collaborative approach which obtained an Asymp. Sig. of 0.350, and direct-instruction approach which obtained an
Asymp. Sig. of 0.117 were all above to the level of significance indicated that yielded results of not significant.
According to Talikan (2021), there is no significant difference on the level of teachers’ instructional
competencies when they are group according to their sex and the school that they are teaching. In contrast,
teachers’ gender, length of teaching experience, and geographic location have significant differences with their
readiness to distance learning education (Alea et. al. 2020).
Table 15
Mann-Whitney U Test of Significance on the Perceived Assessment on the Teaching Pedagogies when Grouped
According to Sex
Teaching Groups Mann – Assymp. Sig.
Mean Rank Result Decision
Pedagogies (Sex) Whitney U (2 tailed)
Constructivist Male 40.00 Not
Approach Female 35.62 Significant
Collaborative Male 37.61 Not
Integrative Male 37.89 Not
Inquiry-Based Male 35.13 Not
Direct-Instruction Male 31.02 Not
Lecture Method Male 34.26 Not
Metacognitive Male 35.63 Not
Blended-Learning Male 36.78 Not
Cooperative Male 35.83 Not
they are grouped according to sex. The table indicates that there is no significant difference in terms sex of the
respondents to the teaching pedagogies they use. Comparing to the 5% level of significance, blended-learning
approach which obtained an Asymp Sig. of 0.952, collaborative approach which obtained an Asymp. Sig. of 0.863,
integrative approach which obtained an Asymp. Sig. of 0.805, cooperative approach which obtained an Asymp. Sig.
of 0.744, metacognitive approach which obtained an Asymp. Sig. of 0.701, inquiry-based approach which obtained
an Asymp. Sig. of 0.595, lecture-method approach which obtained an Asymp. Sig. of 0.441, constructivist approach
which obtained an Asymp. Sig. of 0.407, and direct-instruction approach which obtained an Asymp. Sig. of 0.085
were all above to the level of significance indicated that yielded results of not significant.
In contrast, teachers’ gender, length of teaching experience, and geographic location have significant
differences with their readiness to distance learning education (Alea et. al. 2020).
Table 16
Kruskal Wallis Test of Significance on the Perceived Assessment on the Teaching Pedagogies when Grouped
According to Civil Status
Assymp.
Teaching Mean Kruskall -
Groups (Civil Status) Sig. Result Decision
Pedagogies Rank Wallis H
(2 tailed)
Single 38.71
Constructivist Married 36.77 Accept null
Approach Legally Separated hypothesis
Widower/d 22.00
Single 40.85
Collaborative Married 35.19 Accept null
Widower/d 33.25
Single 34.46
Integrative Married 39.32 Accept null
Widower/d 13.00
Single 34.81
Inquiry-Based Married 38.53 Accept null
Widower/d 27.25
Single 38.31
Direct-Instruction Married 36.39 Accept null
Widower/d 35.50
Single 35.10
Lecture Method Married 38.91 Accept null
Widower/d 14.75
Single 40.81
Metacognitive Married 36.29 Accept null
Widower/d 8.00
Single 40.10
Blended-Learning Accept null
Married 36.05 1.665 0.435 Not Significant
Approach hypothesis
Legally Separated
Widower/d 22.00
Single 39.77
Cooperative Married 36.51 Accept null
Widower/d 15.25
they are grouped according to civil status. The table indicates that there is no significant difference in terms of civil
status of the respondents to the teaching pedagogies they use. Comparing to the 5% level of significance, direct-
instruction approach which obtained an Asymp Sig. of 0.925, inquiry-based approach which obtained an Asymp.
Sig. of 0.607, constructivist approach which obtained an Asymp. Sig. of 0.552, collaborative approach which
obtained an Asymp. Sig. of 0.525, blended-learning approach which obtained an Asymp. Sig. of 0.435, cooperative
approach which obtained an Asymp. Sig. of 0.269, lecture-method approach which obtained an Asymp. Sig. of
0.230, integrative approach which obtained an Asymp. Sig. of 0.169, and metacognitive approach which obtained
an Asymp. Sig. of 0.091 were all above to the level of significance indicated that yielded results of not significant.
This result revealing that there is no significant difference on perceived assessment on teaching
pedagogies when grouped according to marital status has its disagreement with the study of Vinnela (2016),
stating that marital status influences teacher’s job performances in Edo State, Nigeria.
Table 17
According to Highest Educational Attainment
Assymp.
Teaching Kruskall-
Groups (HEA) Mean Rank Sig. Result Decision
Pedagogies Wallis H
(2 tailed)
Constructivist Not Accept null
Master’s Degree 39.04 1.873 0.599
Approach Significant hypothesis
Doctorate Degree
Collaborative Not Accept null
Master’s Degree 41.38 4.776 0.189
Doctorate Degree
Integrative Not Accept null
Master’s Degree 37.83 0.968 0.809
Doctorate Degree
Inquiry-Based Bachelor’s Degree 34.09 Not Accept null
4.060 0.255
Approach with Master’s units 37.56 Significant hypothesis
Master’s Degree 35.46
Doctorate Degree
Direct-Instruction Not Accept null
Master’s Degree 33.50 3.360 0.339
Doctorate Degree
Lecture Method Not Accept null
Master’s Degree 35.88 2.364 0.500
Doctorate Degree
Metacognitive Not Accept null
Master’s Degree 40.13 4.240 0.237
Doctorate Degree
Blended-Learning Not Accept null
Master’s Degree 40.13 1.306 0.728
Doctorate Degree
Cooperative Not Accept null
Master’s Degree 36.42 3.091 0.378
Doctorate Degree
they are grouped according to highest educational attainment. The table indicates that there is no significant
difference in terms of highest educational attainment of the respondents to the teaching pedagogies they use.
Comparing to the 5% level of significance, integrative approach which obtained an Asymp Sig. of 0.809, blended-
learning approach which obtained an Asymp. Sig. of 0.728, constructivist approach which obtained an Asymp. Sig.
of 0.599, lecture-method approach which obtained an Asymp. Sig. of 0.500, cooperative approach which obtained
an Asymp. Sig. of 0.378, direct-instruction approach which obtained an Asymp. Sig. of 0.339, inquiry-based
approach which obtained an Asymp. Sig. of 0.255, metacognitive approach which obtained an Asymp. Sig. of 0.237,
and collaborative approach which obtained an Asymp. Sig. of 0.189 were all above to the level of significance
indicated that yielded results of not significant.
Although teachers with Doctorate’s units got the highest mean rank on the perceived assessment on
teaching pedagogies among other highest educational attainment, it’s still indicated that there is no significant
difference on the perceived assessment on teaching pedagogies when respondents are grouped according to
highest educational attainment.
Table 18
According to Academic Rank
Groups Assymp.
Teaching Kruskall- Wallis
(academic Mean Rank Sig. Result Decision
Pedagogies H
rank) (2 tailed)
Teacher 37.47
Constructivist Master Not Accept null
32.00 0.377 0.828
Approach Teacher Significant hypothesis
Head Teacher 36.00
Teacher 37.61
Collaborative Master Not Accept null
32.50 0.787 0.675
Head Teacher 23.50
Teacher 37.18
Integrative Master Not Accept null
30.17 2.559 0.278
Head Teacher 66.00
Teacher 37.00
Inquiry-Based Master Not Accept null
33.33 1.359 0.507
Head Teacher 59.00
Teacher 36.87
Direct-Instruction Master Not Accept null
35.08 1.049 0.592
Head Teacher 57.00
Teacher 36.80
Lecture Method Master Not Accept null
35.17 1.409 0.494
Head Teacher 61.00
Teacher 37.00
Metacognitive Master Not Accept null
32.42 2.059 0.357
Head Teacher 64.50
Teacher 36.85
Blended-Learning Master Not Accept null
33.83 2.077 0.354
Head Teacher 66.00
Cooperative Teacher 36.25 Not Accept null
1.903 0.386
Approach Master 40.83 Significant hypothesis
Teacher
Head Teacher 63.50
they are grouped according to academic rank. The table indicates that there is no significant difference in terms of
academic rank of the respondents to the teaching pedagogies they use. Comparing to the 5% level of significance,
constructivist approach which obtained an Asymp Sig. of 0.828, collaborative approach which obtained an Asymp.
Sig. of 0.675, direct-instruction approach which obtained an Asymp. Sig. of 0.592, inquiry-based approach which
obtained an Asymp. Sig. of 0.507, lecture-method approach which obtained an Asymp. Sig. of 0.494, cooperative
approach which obtained an Asymp. Sig. of 0.386, metacognitive approach which obtained an Asymp. Sig. of 0.357,
blended-learning approach which obtained an Asymp. Sig. of 0.354, and integrative approach which obtained an
Asymp. Sig. of 0.278 were all above to the level of significance indicated that yielded results of not significant.
Although there are changes in having the highest mean rank on the perceived assessment on teaching
pedagogies in terms of academic rank, it’s still indicated that there is no significant difference on the perceived
assessment on teaching pedagogies when respondents are grouped according to academic rank.
New Teaching Techniques Used by the Respondents in the New Normal

Qualitative Data via Thematic Analysis
Table 19 shows new teaching techniques used by the respondents in the new normal. This table
categorizes the new teaching techniques into four aspects which are: technology integration that includes usage of
educational applications, and video tutorials; game-based teaching techniques that includes brain teasers, online
games, and interactive games; flexibility teaching techniques for the teachers to know and understand the
learner’s ability and needs; and collaborative teaching techniques that includes peer teaching and creativity and
social thinking.
Technological application in the classroom have become more common in today’s education. It stimulates
innovative approaches in teaching and learning (Hwa, 2018). competence in technology approach in teaching is
regarded as core attributes for future math teachers. Using the tools of technology can help students develop an
understanding of mathematics and mathematics teaching method practices affect for teachers (Muhtadi, et. al.
2017). Second in new teaching techniques category is the game-based teaching techniques and it has become
quite a trend in this present times especially with the use of blended-learning approach. Mathematical game-
based design activities were an effective method to improve computational skills of the students (Rondina et.al.
2019). On the other hand, there are game-based teaching techniques which uses the digital platform and
according to Hwa (2018), digital game-based learning is more effective than the traditional class-based learning in
acquiring mathematical knowledge. Third, is the flexible teaching techniques, this can help promote easy, engaged,
and effective learning (Huang, 2020). Lastly, are the collaborative teaching techniques, collaboration can support
critical mathematical inquiry by promoting norms for equitable student engagement and mathematics identity
development (Harper,2019).
Table 19
New Teaching Techniques used by the Respondents in the New Normal
CATEGORY BEST PRACTICES SAMPLE RESPONSES FROM TEACHERS
• “Using educational apps in internet that can

• Educational application be downloaded in cellphone or laptop.”
Technology • “Provide videos through creating our fb
integration • Video tutorials groups and having a google meet to meet the
needs of our students.”
• “I use the brainteasers to make them awake

• Brain teaser all throughout the lesson.”
Game-based • Online games • “By integrating technology in my lesson thru
teaching technique game-based, just like a word wall and quizzes.
These are online games or quiz that you can
used in teaching math.”
• “I incorporate my lesson with interactive
• Interactive games
games for the students to enjoy the lessons.”
• Knowing and understanding learner’s • “Teaching mathematics depends on the ability

Flexible ability of the learners.”
teaching technique • “I tried each and every technique depending on
• Knowing and understanding learner’s the needs of the learners.”
needs
• Peer teaching • “I often used individualized and collaborative

Collaborative learning in my classes. But the technique
teaching technique • Creativity and social thinking usually depends on the topic as well as the need
of my students.”
• “I use collaborative approach. I let the students
work together for them to be cooperative and
produce better outputs.”
Proposed Intervention Plan
Objectives Intervention Plans Target Time Frame Person-In-Charge

Participants
What 21st What professional activities/ Who will be When do What office/ department/
century skills of strategies will the public JHS the recipient public JHS unit involved in the
the learners undertake to achieve the of the expect to implementation?
and teaching objectives activity/ have
pedagogies will strategy? accomplished
public JHS the
enhance? activities/
strategies?
To help Junior  Conduct Married, SY 2022-  School Head
High School webinars about male 2023  Mathematics
Mathematics the importance teacher with Head Teacher
teachers of critical master’s  Mathematics
consider thinking and degree Teachers
critical thinking problem-solving under the
and problem- skills in students’ age bracket
solving skills in learning in of 41-50
selecting Mathematics. years old.
teaching
techniques.
To help Junior  Conduct activities Single, male SY 2022-  School Head
High School explaining the teacher with 2023  Mathematics
Mathematics benefits of master’s Head Teacher
teachers communication units under  Mathematics
consider skills in students the age Teachers
communication learning in bracket of
skills in Mathematics. 41-50 years
selecting old.
teaching
techniques.
To help  Provide webinars Married, SY 2022-  School Head
teachers and trainings to male 2023  Mathematics
enhance their enhance and teacher with Head Teacher
teaching using inform the master’s  Mathematics
blended- respondents on units under Teachers
learning the proper usage the age
approach of blended- bracket of
learning 41-50 years
approach. old.
To help  Conduct activities Married, SY 2022-  School Head

teachers putting male 2023  Mathematics
enhance their metacognition teacher with Head Teacher
teaching using into practice of bachelor’s  Mathematics
metacognitive math teachers. degree Teachers
approach under the
age bracket
of 31-40
years old.
To help  Conduct online Married, SY 2022-  School Head
teachers educational male 2023  Mathematics
enhance their events requiring teacher with Head Teacher
teaching using Math teachers to bachelor’s  Mathematics
cooperative organize and degree Teachers
approach contribute ideas. under the
age bracket
of 51-60
years old.
To help  Conduct Single, SY 2022-  School Head
teachers webinars female 2023  Mathematics
enhance their demonstrating teacher with Head Teacher
teaching using the impact of bachelor’s  Mathematics
integrative integrating math degree Teachers
approach with other under the
subjects. age bracket
of 51-60
years old.
Conclusion:
In the light of the findings, the following statements are concluded:
1. Among the 21st century skills presented in the study, Mathematics teachers mostly consider the
creativity and innovation skills of the students for their selection of teaching techniques. In able for
students to learn effectively in Mathematics, the teacher should have his/her creative and innovative
teaching strategies.
2. When grouped according to sex, marital status, highest educational attainment, and academic rank, the
first hypothesis must be accepted, stating that there is no significant difference on the perceived
assessment on the 21st century skills of the learners the respondents consider in selecting their
teaching techniques. On the other hand, the hypothesis must be rejected when the respondents are
grouped according to age. It suggests that the age of every Mathematics teacher has an impact on their
consideration for creative and innovative teaching techniques. Those under 31-40 years old prefer
being creative and innovative ones.
3. Among the pedagogical approaches presented in the study, Mathematics teachers mostly use the
direct instruction approach as their way of teaching in the class. It is very evident that in Mathematics,
teachers usually transfer the knowledge and skills directly to the students through speaking and
explanation. In able for students to effectively understand lessons in Mathematics, teachers must use
the direct instruction approach.
4. The second hypothesis in this study must be accepted, stating that there is no significant difference on
the perceived assessment on pedagogies used by the respondents when grouped according to
demographic profile. Teachers' demographic profile has no impact with their choice of pedagogy in
5. Based on the results of data gathering, there exist four (4) modern teaching techniques used by
Mathematics teachers in the new normal namely technology integration, game-based teaching
technique, flexible teaching technique, and collaborative teaching technique. Within the scope of the
21st century, these strategies must be considered for creating new teaching techniques in
Mathematics.
Recommendations:
• Based on the result of the study, the researchers suggest that Mathematics teachers explore their
teaching pedagogies to become a more innovative 21 st century teachers. They must learn to expand their
knowledge with the different types of pedagogies and how they will integrate it in their lesson.
• The researchers suggest this study to be used in future studies in developing new teaching techniques in
the field of Mathematics.
• For the future researchers, they can use this intervention plan as their guide to develop their own
research related with the variables in this research.
References:
5 examples of Inquiry-based learning. (2021). Master of Arts in teaching guide. 5 Examples of Inquiry Based
Learning (masterofartsinteaching.net)
Adeleke, J. O., & Omotayo, S. A. (2017). The 5E instructional model: A constructivist approach for enhancing
students’ learning outcomes in mathematics JISTE, Vol. 21, No. 2, 2017. EJ1176946.pdf (ed.gov)
All about learning disabilities and ADHD: Using cooperative learning to teach mathematics to students with
learning disabilities. Retrieved from: Using Cooperative Learning to Teach Mathematics to Students with Learning
Disabilities | LD Topics | LD OnLine
Allen & Unwin, (2017). Teaching secondary school MATHEMATICS: Research and practice 21 st century. (2 nd ed.).
Routledge. Teaching Secondary School Mathematics: Research and practice for the 21st ... - Merrilyn Goos, Colleen
Vale, Gloria Stillman, Katie Makar, Sandra Herbert, Vince Geiger - Google Books
Alpaugh, P., Birren, J., & Renner, J. (1976) Age and Creativity: Implications for Education and Teachers, Educational
Gerontology, 1:1, 17-40, DOI: 10.1080/03601277.1976.12049514
https://doi.org/10.1080/03601277.1976.12049514
Asha, J., & Nagaraja, K. (2019). Teachers attitudes towards the use of general graphic aids in teaching of
mathematics: The influence of marital status in secondary schools of Narsipatnam mandal of Visakhapatnam
District. ZENITH International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research. 9 (7). Teachers attitudes towards the use of
general graphic aids in teaching of mathematics: the influence of marital status in secondary schools of
narsipatnam mandal Of Visakhapatnam District-Indian Journals
Bagade, S. (n.d.). Lecture Method of Teaching Mathematics å याÉ यान ͪवͬध pedagogy of mathematics. B. Ed. Sem II,
Paper VIIA. Microsoft PowerPoint - lecture method in english.pptx (graduatecollege.ac.in)
Blessing, O., Oselumese, I., & Vinnela, O. (2016). Marital status and teachers’ job performance in Public Schools in
Edo State. IJournals: International Journal of Social Relevance & Concern. 4(9), ISSN-2347-9698. 5.4902-
Blessing.compressed.pdf (ijournals.in)
Brown, T. (n.d). Hw to ensure students are engaged in the classroom. How to Ensure Students Are Engaged in the
Classroom (synonym.com)
Burns et al. (2017). Understanding Teachers’ Pedagogical Knowledge – Report on an International Pilot Study OECD
Education Working Paper No. 159 ANNEX III AND IV. EDU_WKP(2017)8.pdf (oecd.org)
Cash, R. (2017). Advancing differentiation: Thinking and learning for the 21 st century. Heacox, D. Foreword.
Advancing Differentiation: Thinking and Learning for the 21st Century - Richard M. Cash - Google Books
Characteristics of Public school teachers. (2021). IES>NCES National Center for Education Statistics. COE -
Characteristics of Public School Teachers (ed.gov)
Doecke, E., Lamb, S., & Maire, Q. (2017). Key Skills for the 21st Century: an evidence-based review. Future frontiers
analytical report. Key Skills for the 21st Century: an evidence-based review (vu.edu.au)
Dorier JL., Maass K. (2020) Inquiry-Based Mathematics Education. In: Lerman S. (eds) Encyclopedia of
Mathematics Education. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-15789-0_176
English, L.D., & Halford, G.S. (1995). Mathematics Education: Models and Processes (1st ed.). Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203052884
Ewing, Bronwyn (2011) "Direct Instruction In Mathematics: Issues For Schools With High Indigenous Enrolments: A
Literature Review," Australian Journal of Teacher Education: Vol. 36: Iss. 5, Article 6. Available at:
http://ro.ecu.edu.au/ajte/vol36/iss5/6
Flores, I. (2019). Mathematics teaching competencies of Senior High School teachers in the Lone Districts in the
Province of Batangas City, Philippines: Basis for direction on continuing education for the K to 12 Curriculum.
Journal of Asian Research 3(3): p 206. DOI:10.22158/jar.v3n3p206. (PDF) Mathematics Teaching Competencies of
Senior High School Teachers in the Lone Districts in the Province of Batangas City, Philippines: Basis for Direction
on Continuing Education for the K to 12 Curriculum (researchgate.net)
Francisco, A. (2020). Teachers’ Personal and Professional Demographic Characteristics as Predictors of Students’
Academic Performance in English. International Journal of Management, Technology, and Social Sciences (IJMTS),
5(2), 80-91. DOI: http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3997430
Gersten R, Jordan NC, Flojo JR. Early Identification and Interventions for Students With Mathematics
Difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities. 2005;38(4):293-304. doi:10.1177/00222194050380040301
Gordonas, A. (2018). Teaching strategies in literature subjects in PUP Taguig branch towards the development of
instructional modalities. 4th international research conference on Higher Education.
Harper, F. K. (2019). Collaboration and Critical Mathematical Inquiry: Negotiating Mathematics Engagement,
Identity, and Agency. Occasional Paper Series, 2019 (41). Retrieved from
https://educate.bankstreet.edu/occasional-paper-series/vol2019/iss41/5
Hixson, N., Ravitz, J., & Whisman, A. (2012). Extended professional development in project-based learning: Impacts
on 21st century teaching and student achievement. Charleston, WV: West Virginia Department of Education,
Division of Teaching and Learning, Office of Research. Retrieved from https://www.academia.edu/1999374/
Huang et al. (2020). Handbook on Facilitating Flexible Learning during Educational Disruption: The Chinese
Experience in Maintaining Undisrupted Learning in COVID-19 Outbreak. Beijing: Smart Learning Institute of Beijing
Normal University. 1-4-2.pdf (alecso.org)
Hwa, S. P. (2018). Pedagogical Change in Mathematics Learning: Harnessing the Power of Digital Game-Based
Learning. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 21(4), 259–276. http://www.jstor.org/stable/26511553.
Imms, W., Byers, T. Impact of classroom design on teacher pedagogy and student engagement and performance in
mathematics. Learning Environ Res 20, 139–152 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-016-9210-0
Ismail et al. (2020). Can teachers’ age and experience influence teacher effectiveness in HOTS? 4(1). Pp. 144-158.
DOI: 10.30690/ijassi.21.11. Can Teachers’ Age and Experience influence Teacher Effectiveness in HOTS?
(exeliqpublishing.com)
Kartasasmita et al. (2017). The Integration of technology in teaching mathematics. Journal of Physics: Conf. series
943 (2017) 012020. doi :10.1088/1742-6596/943/1/012020. pdf (iop.org)
Kaur B., Wong L.F. (2017) Professional Development of Mathematics Teachers in Singapore. In: Kaur B., Kwon
O., Leong Y. (eds) Professional Development of Mathematics Teachers. Mathematics Education – An Asian
Perspective. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-2598-3_8
Kim S, Raza M, Seidman E. Improving 21st-century teaching skills: The key to effective 21st-century
learners. Research in Comparative and International Education. 2019;14(1):99-117.
doi:10.1177/1745499919829214
Langer-Osuna, J. M. (2017). Authority, Identity, and Collaborative Mathematics, Journal for Research in

Mathematics Education JRME, 48(3), 237-247. Retrieved Dec 15, 2021,
from https://pubs.nctm.org/view/journals/jrme/48/3/article-p237.xml
Lanuza et al. (2020). Integrative Gamification Technique In Teaching Specialization Courses In Mathematics.
International journal of scientific & technology research. 9(4): 1275-1281. (PDF) Integrative Gamification
Technique In Teaching Specialization Courses In Mathematics (researchgate.net)
Liljedahl, P., Malaspina, M., & Bruder, R. (2016). Problem Solving in Mathematics Education. Kaiser, G. (Ed.).
1002262.pdf (oapen.org)
Mehmood, K., Parveen, Q., & Dahar, M. A. (2019). Effectiveness of Inquiry-Based Method for Teaching
Mathematics at the Secondary Level. DOI: 10.31703/gssr.2019(IV-III).23 (PDF) Effectiveness of Inquiry-Based
Method for Teaching Mathematics at the Secondary Level (researchgate.net)
Mevarech, Z., and B. Kramarski. (2014). Critical Maths for Innovative Societies: The roles of metacognitive
Pedagogies, OECD Publishing. Educational Research and Innovation Critical Maths for Innovative Societies ... -
Mevarech Zemira, Kramarski Bracha - Google Books
NAKANO, Tatiana de Cassia and WECHSLER, Solange Muglia Creativity and innovation: Skills for the 21 st Century.
Estudos de Psicologia (Campinas) [online]. 2018, v. 35, n. 3 [Accessed 15 December 2021]. Pp. 237-246. Available
from: https://doi.org/10.1590/1982-02752018000300002>.ISSN 1982-0275. https://doi.org/10.1590/1982-
02752018000300002.
Niess, M. (2008). Mathematics Teachers Developing Technology, Pedagogy and Content Knowledge (TPACK). In K.
McFerrin, R. Weber, R. Carlsen & D. Willis (Eds.), Proceedings of SITE 2008--Society for Information Technology &
Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 5297-5304). Las Vegas, Nevada, USA: Association for the
Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved December 15, 2021
from https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/28121/.
Nunaki et al. (2019). The Effectiveness of Inquiry-based Learning to Train the Students' Metacognitive Skills Based
on Gender Differences. http://repository.unipa.ac.id:8080/xmlui/handle/123456789/346
Panthi, K. R., & Belbase, S. (2017). Teaching and Learning Issues in Mathematics in the Context of Nepal.
ED573754.pdf
Pellegrino, J. (2017), "Teaching, learning and assessing 21st century skills", in Guerriero, S. (ed.), Pedagogical
Knowledge and the Changing Nature of the Teaching Profession, OECD Publishing,
Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264270695-12-en.
Quintero, A., & Rosario, H. (2016). Math makes sense! Constructivist approach to the teaching and learning of
mathematics. Math Makes Sense!: A Constructivist Approach To The Teaching And Learning Of ... - Ana Helvia
Quintero, Hector Rosario - Google Books
Ramli, ‘Izzat Syahir Mohd, Maat, S. M., & Khalid, F. (2020). Game-Based Learning and Student Motivation in
Mathematics. International Journal of Academic Research in Progressive Education and Development, 9(2), 449–
455. game-based-learning-and-student-motivation-in-mathematics.pdf (hrmars.com)
Renard, L. (2019, March 28). Direct instruction - A practical guide to effective teaching. Direct instruction - A
practical guide to effective teaching - BookWidgets
Rondına, J. & Roble, D. (2019). GAME-BASED DESIGN MATHEMATICS ACTIVITIES AND STUDENTS’ LEARNING GAINS.
Turkish Online Journal of Design Art and Communication, 9 (1), 1-7. Retrieved from
https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/tojdac/issue/41138/497254?publisher=deniz-
yengin&fbclid=IwAR1bWzsPx5rrDQILujBUkEop4P4HsQJeZqAyWY5xwU-jRhKXh_w-UdPQ9CI
Salna, L. (2012). Creativity as a 21st Century Skill: Training Teachers to Take it Beyond the Arts. Creative Studies
Graduate Student Master's Projects. 158. http://digitalcommons.buffalostate.edu/creativeprojects/158
Salvan, V. & Hambre, M. (2020). Teachers’ Demographic Profile on the Learners’ Performance Using K-12 Earth and
Space module. Journal of Education & Social Policy,7(4). doi:10.30845/jesp.v7n4p14. 14.pdf (jespnet.com)
Sanabria, J. C., & Arámburo-Lizárraga, J. (2017). Enhancing 21st Century Skills with AR: Using the Gradual
Immersion Method to develop Collaborative Creativity. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology
Education, 13(2), 487-501. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2017.00627a
Talikan, A. I. (2021). Exploring Instructional Competencies of Mindanao State University-Sulu Teachers in The Age
of COVID-19 Pandemic. Open Access Indonesia Journal of Social Sciences, 4(4), 305-322.
https://doi.org/10.37275/oaijss.v4i2.54
The Access Center: Improving Outcomes for All Students K8. Website: www.k8accesscenter.org
Unit 1: Teaching and Learning the Standards for Mathematical Practice: 1.3.4 21st Century Skills. Digital
Chalkboard. Log In :: Digital Chalkboard (mydigitalchalkboard.org)
Urbani et al. (2017). Developing and Modeling 21st-Century Skills with Preservice Teachers. Retrieved from:
TEQFall2017.pdf (ed.gov)
Vintere, A. (2018). A Constructivist Approach to the Teaching of Mathematics to Boost Competences Needed for
Sustainable Development. RURAL SUSTAINABILITY RESEARCH 39(334), 2018 ISSN – 2256-0939 [22560939 - Rural
Sustainability Research] A Constructivist Approach to the Teaching of Mathematics to Boost Competences Needed
for Sustainable Development.pdf (usp.br)
APPENDICES
I. Letter Approved by the Superintendent of the Division Officed of Binan City.
II. Certificate of Expert Validation of Research Instrument
III. Certificate of Reliability Testing
IV. Questionnaire
General Instructions: The researchers intend to use your answer in assessing the 21st century
techniques and pedagogies in Mathematics used in your school. Please be as honest as possible and feel
free to choose precisely what you feel. All information is confidential.
PART I: DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE
INSTRUCTIONS: Complete the following demographic information. Please note that all personal
information will be kept completely confidential and none of the responses you provide will be
connected to your name, email address, or other identifying information.
1. Name (optional):
2. Age:
o 20 and below
o 21-30 years old
o 31-40 years old
o 41-50 years old
o 51-60 years old
o 61 and above
3. Sex:
o Male
o Female
4. Civil Status:
o Single
o Married
o Legally Separated
o Widower/d
5. Highest educational attainment:
o Bachelor’s Degree
o With Master’s Units
o Master’s Degree
o With Doctoral Units
o Doctoral Degree
6. Position/ Academic Rank
o Teacher
o Master Teacher
o Head Teacher
PART II: 21ST CENTURY SKILLS OF THE LEARNERS
INSTRUCTIONS: This questionnaire is intended to identify the 21st century skills of the learners that you
consider in your selection of teaching techniques in Mathematics. Please read the following items very
carefully and click the space that are consistent with your observation, perception, and experiences.
Please do not leave any item unanswered.
LEGEND
4 – STRONGLY AGREE (SA); 3 – AGREE (A); 2 – DISAGREE (D); 1 – STRONGLY DISAGREE (SD)
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION SA A D SD
As a Mathematics teacher, I consider that… 4 3 2 1
1. Student should be able to think of new ways to define and solve
problems
2. Students should be able to design their own patterns or structures
using their creative skills.
3. Students should be willing to try new ideas and tweak to improve.

4. Students can use their talents and skills to present their outputs
creatively.
CRITICAL THINKING AND PROBLEM SOLVING
As a Mathematics teacher, I consider that…
1. Students should solve a word problem individually.
2. Student should answer logical reasoning.
3. Students should analyze mathematical equations, word problems and
other mathematical data.
4. Student should be able to draw conclusion critically.
COLLABORATION
1. Students should work together and share ideas as a group.
2. Students should complete shared task in a group.
3. Students should join group activities and/or games competitively.
4. Students should perform together as a group.
COMMUNICATION
1. Students should be able to explain their computation for a specific
mathematical equation.
2. Students should understand complex mathematical concepts through
different medium.
3. Students should express their mathematical ideas through oral and/or
written form.
4. Students should be able to justify their answer clearly and accurately.
PART III: TEACHING PEDAGOGIES
INSTRUCTIONS: This questionnaire is intended to identify the different pedagogies you use in teaching
Mathematics. Please read the following items very carefully and click the space that are consistent with
your observation, perception, and experiences. Please do not leave any item unanswered.
LEGEND
5 – Always true to me (A)

4 – Often true to me (O)
3 – Sometimes true to me (S)
2 – Rarely true to me (R)
1 – Never true to me (N)
CONSTRUCTIVIST APPROACH A O S R N
As a mathematics teacher; 5 4 3 2 1
1. I provide pre-test, informal interviews and small group
warm-up activities that require recall of prior knowledge.
2. I assign problems and activities that will challenge
students to revise existing schemas as they work
through the challenging problem.
3. I encourage students to evaluate new information and
modify existing knowledge.
4. I allow multiple interpretations and expressions of learning.
COLLABORATIVE APPROACH
As a Mathematics teacher;
1. I let my students work in pair or groups during math
activities.
2. I divide my students into groups to create a visual
presentation of their shared thoughts about a certain
topic in Mathematics.
3. I used to organize activities incorporating group
games related to Mathematics.
4. I encourage my students to perform creative
presentations during our math activities.
INTEGRATIVE APPROACH
1. I collaborate with my co-teachers to analyze what
subjects I can integrate with the curriculum.
2. I combine other subjects related to a specific topic in
Math lessons.
3. I create lesson plans for Mathematics showing
integrative style.
4. I connect my math lessons with real life situations to
help my students internalize relevant and meaningful
learning.
INQUIRY-BASED APPROACH
1. I let my students ask questions about process of
computation demonstrated during our discussion in
Mathematics.
2. I monitor my students while they are in a group
discussion to observe how they assist each other.
3. I help students organize and retrieve information
through demonstrating search skills and screening
strategies for selecting relevant information in
Mathematics.
4. I motivate my students to be creative involves
organizing information, putting concepts into one’s
own words and creating a suitable presentation in
Mathematics.
DIRECT-INSTRUCTION APPROACH
1. I stand in front of the class to discuss the lesson of the
day.
2. I give necessary feedback during class recitations.
3. I ask questions to make sure that my students
understood our lesson.
4. I provide my students with clear directions.
Illustrations and explanation of the knowledge and
skills being taught.
LECTURE METHOD APPROACH
1. I select effective audio-visual aids and instructional
materials when presenting the lesson.
2. I plan my motivational techniques to have my
students engage in my lesson while listening.
3. I let my students to take down notes during our
lecture.
4. I find suitable solution and alternatives to the barriers
to have a successful lecture.
METACOGNITIVE APPROACH
1. I monitor my students if they check whether their
problem-solving approach is working.
2. I provide my students with a list of questions to ask
themselves while they are in a problem-solving
process.
3. I let my student explain about the topic and reflect
what they know about it and connect it to new
information they have learned.
4. I encourage my students to write math journal entries
to think about what they learned and what they might
not yet understand.
BLENDED-LEARNING APPROACH
1. I incorporate digital technology into our classroom
along with the traditional method of instruction.
2. I use digital resources to assign homework to my
students to ensure continuous learning.
3. I make sure to use resources that have varying
degrees of difficulty to encourage students that need
it, while challenging those that have already mastered
the material.
4. I test out different models of blended learning to see
what fits best in your classroom.
COOPERATIVE APPROACH
1. I let my students study a specific topic and share the
information to his or her group or teammates.
2. I divide my students into heterogeneous groups, with
students of varying ability levels in each group.
3. I emphasize inter-group cooperation.
4. I evaluate my student’s efforts individually on a
criteria-reference basis.
PART IV: OTHER TECHNIQUES

1. What other 21st century techniques do you use in teaching mathematics? Please briefly discuss your answer.
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________

Final Paper 21st Century Techniques and Pedagogies in Mathematics

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Final Paper 21st Century Techniques and Pedagogies in Mathematics

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

21st Century Techniques and Pedagogies in Mathematics

Noriemel M. Bautista, Nathalie R. Cordial, John Carlo D. Gutierrez, Justine A. Salido

1. What is the demographic profile of the participants in terms of?

4. What are the pedagogies used by the participants in teaching Mathematics?

7. Based on the finding of the study, propose an intervention plan.

This study will test the following hypotheses:

Figure 1. Research Paradigm

21st Century competencies

Demographic profile of the

Dominant pedagogies and

Limitations of the Study

Benefits of the Study

Nereo Joaquin National High School 7 7% 5

Biñan National High School 18 19% 13

Likert Scale for the 21st Century Techniques

Response Scale Degree of Descriptive Mean Interval

Response Scale Degree of Intensity Descriptive Mean Interval

Data Gathering Procedure

1. Frequency and percentage

2. Mean and standard deviation

4. Mann Whitney U test

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Profile of the Respondents

Age Frequency Percentage

Civil Status Frequency Percentage

Educational Attainment Frequency Percentage

Position/Academic Rank Frequency Percentage

21st Century Skills Mean Std. Verbal Interpretation

21st Century Kruskal- Assymp. Sig.

Groups Mann – Assymp. Sig.

Teaching Pedagogies Used by the Respondents in Teaching Mathematics

Teaching Pedagogies Mean Std. Verbal Interpretation

Teaching Kruskall- Assymp. Sig.

New Teaching Techniques Used by the Respondents in the New Normal

CATEGORY BEST PRACTICES SAMPLE RESPONSES FROM TEACHERS

• “Using educational apps in internet that can

• “I use the brainteasers to make them awake

• Knowing and understanding learner’s • “Teaching mathematics depends on the ability

• Peer teaching • “I often used individualized and collaborative

Proposed Intervention Plan

Objectives Intervention Plans Target Time Frame Person-In-Charge

To help  Conduct activities Married, SY 2022-  School Head

In the light of the findings, the following statements are concluded:

Langer-Osuna, J. M. (2017). Authority, Identity, and Collaborative Mathematics, Journal for Research in

PART I: DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE

PART II: 21ST CENTURY SKILLS OF THE LEARNERS

3. Students should be willing to try new ideas and tweak to improve.

PART III: TEACHING PEDAGOGIES

5 – Always true to me (A)

PART IV: OTHER TECHNIQUES

You might also like