GRAPHING SOFTWARE APPLICATIONS

IN SOLVING BASIC CALCULUS

PROBLEMS

Philmarie E. Alforque
Vanessa L. Gumahad
Ryan Dave B. Gumop-as
Farina J. Magsalay
Riza P. Mananaong
JRMSU-Main Campus, Dapitan City
 21st century education requires the role of technology as an aid to
actuate educational transformation. Tachnology-based integration can be
the key to the improvement of Mathematics education in the country
(Villanueva, 2014)

 According to Dunham & Dick (1994) as cited by Syed (2008), the use
of graphing technology when teaching problem solving strategies led to
a significant increase in the achievement of the students.
 Graphing software aids to organize mathematical concepts by a limited
collection of important terms, objects and actions (Syed,2008)

 Graphing devices with graphing software enables to graph more

complicated functions and solve more complex problems that would
otherwise be possible. (Thomson,2007)

 Therefore, students utilizing graphing software can obtain better

performance than of those who don’t.
Objectives

This study aimed to investigate the use of graphing

software application in solving Basic Calculus
problems in STEM students in Jose Rizal Memorial
State University Main Campus during the second
semester of school year 2016-2017.
OBJECTIVES
Objectives
1. What is the pretest performance of the Grade XI STEM students in
the:
1.1 Control Group
1.2 Experimental Group?

2. Is there a significant difference among the pretest performance of the

STEM students in the control and experimental group?

3. What is the posttest performance of the STEM students in the:

3.1 Control Group?
3.2 Experimental Group?
Objectives
4. Is there a significant difference among the posttest performance of
the Grade XI STEM students in the control and experimental
group?

5. Is there a significant difference in the pretest and posttest

performance of students in the control group and experimental
group?

6. Is there a significant difference on the pre-post mean gain of the

control and experimental group?
Methodology
 Quasi-Experimental Method
 48 respondents
 Test paper (Pretest and Posttest)
 Mean ( Actual Mean, Hypothetical Mean)
 Standard Deviation
Results
Groups Pretest Posttest Mean Dif t-value d.f. c.v. Decision

Mean SD Mean SD

Control
3.23 4.96
10.43 3.09 15.39
𝑯𝒐
Experimental 𝒓𝒆𝒋𝒆𝒄𝒕𝒆𝒅
2.11 46 1.678

11.68 3.52 17.68 2.17 6

Results
 Table 10 presents the test of significant difference on the pre-post
mean gain between the students in the control and experimental groups.

 It discloses that the t-value of 2.11 exceeds the critical value of 1.678
at 0.05 confidence level with 46 degrees of freedom thus leading to the
rejection of the null hypothesis.

 This means that there exist a significant difference on the pre-post

mean gain between the control and the experimental groups.
 The pretest-posttest means difference of the experimental group (6) is
greater than that of the control group (4.96) implying that the use of
graphing software application in solving Basic Calculus problems really did
translate to better performance of the students in the experimental group
than those in the control group.
Results
Topics Group Pretest Posttest t-computed

1.Limits of Algebraic Control 3.09 4.17 5.60

Functions Experimental 3.56 5.28 2.78

2.Limits of Algebraic Control 3.39 5.17 6.18

Functions involving Infinities

Experimental 3.92 5.72 5.32

3.Limits of Exponential and Control 4.17 6.17 4.48

Trigonometric Function Experimental 4.36 6.64 3.85

Overall (20) Control 10.43 15.39 7.25

Experimental 11.68 17.68 5.32

Results
 The t-value of 7.25 and 5.32 were greater than the critical
value of 1.678 at 0.05 level of significance with 46 degrees of
freedom.This means that there is a significant difference
between the pretest and posttest performance of the control
group and experimental group.
 Results
Topics
No. of D
HM AM SD Z value
Items

Limits of Algebraic Function

6 4.5 3.09 1.24 -1.137 Good

Limits of Algebraic Function

Involving Infinity
6 4.5 3.39 1.20 -0.925 Good

Limits of Exponential and

Trigonometric Function
8 6 4.17 1.61 -1.137 Good

Total
20 15 10.65 3.09 -1.408 Good
Results
 Table 3 shows that, the group did not attain the 75% level of
performance on the three topics, with AMs 3.09, 3.39 and 4.17
respectively, which were all described as “Good” performance.

 Obtaining the overall AM of 10.65 and 3.09 SD, the z-computed

value of -1.408 did not exceed the critical value of 1.678 at 0.05
significance level with 22 degrees of freedom, which means that the
group did not attain the level of expectation to a significant degree.
The group’s AM of 10.65 was described as “Good” performance.
Results
No. of
Topics HM AM SD Z value D
Items

Limits of Algebraic
Function, 6 4.5 3.56 1.26 -0.746 Good

Limits of Algebraic
Function Involving Very
Infinity 6 4.5 3.92 1.32 -0.439
Good

Limits of Exponential
and Trigonometric
Function 8 6 4.36 2.04 -0.804 Good

Total 20 15 11.84 3.52 -0.898 Good

Results
 As shown on the table 4, the group did not exceed the 75 percent
level of performance on the three (3) topics, with AMs of 3.56, 3.92
and 4.36 respectively, all described as below the expected
performance level.

 Obtaining the AM of 11.84 and SD of 3.52, the z-value of -0.898 did

not exceed the expected mean of 15 at 0.05 significance level with
24 degrees of freedom. This means the group did not attain the level
of expectation to a significant degree. The groups AM of 11.84 were
described as "Good" performance.
Results
TOPICS Group Means SD t-computed
Limits of Algebraic
Function(6) Control 3.09 1.24

1.18
Experimental 3.56 1.29

Limits of Algebraic
Function Involving Control 3.39 1.20
Infinity(6) 1.46
Experimental 3.92 1.32

Limits of Exponential and Control 4.17 1.61

Trigonometric Function(8) 0.35

Experimental 4.36 2.04

Overall(20) Control 10.43 3.09

Results
 Table 5 presents the test of difference between the control and the
experimental group pretest performance. On the limits of Algebraic
functions, the t-value was 1.18 which is less than the critical value of
1.678 at 0.05 level of significance with the 46 degree of freedom.
This leads to the non-rejection of null hypothesis. Therefore, there is
no significant difference on the performance of the students in the
control and experimental group. It shows that the score obtained by
the experimental group were slightly higher than the control group.
Results
 As to the limits of Algebraic function involving infinity, the
computed t-value of 1.46 obtained did not exceed the critical
value of 1.678 at 0.05 level of significance with 46 degree of
freedom. This leads non-rejection of the null hypothesis.
Therefore, there is no significant difference in the performance
between the students in the control group and experimental
group as their level of performance during the pretest.
 On the limits of exponential and trigonometric functions, the
computed t-value was 0.35 obtained did not exceed the critical
value of 1.678 which is not significant at 0.05 level with 46
degrees of freedom. The computed value did not exceed the
critical value of 1.678 thus, it is safe to say that there is no
significant difference on the performance of the students in the
control group and experimental group during the pretest.
Results
 Finally, the overall performance of the control group and
experimental group obtained the means of 10.43 and 11.68
respectively. The computed t-value was 1.31 which did not
exceed the critical value of 1.678 at 0.05 level of significance
with the 46 degrees of freedom. This lead to non-rejection of
null hypothesis. Therefore, there is no significant difference on
the overall pretest performance between the control group and
experimental group. This indicates that there is no significant
difference in the performance of the two groups before the
intervention.
Results
No. of
Topics HM AM SD Z value D
Items
Limits of Algebraic
Function Very
6 4.5 4.17 1.40 -0.236
Good
Limits of Algebraic
Function Involving
6 4.5 5.17 1.70 0.394 Excellent
Infinity
Limits of Exponential
and Trigonometric Very
8 6 6.17 1.90 0.089
Function
good

Total Very
20 15 15.51 3.23 0.247
Good
Results
 A closer look at the table reveals that the students in the control
group obtained AMs of 4.17, 5.17 and 6.17 respectively, on the
three(3) topics, which were described as “very good”
performance . The AMs were below and above the 75 percent
level of expectation.
 Considerably, the data collated although revealed that the students
in the control group successfully attained the HM score of 15 in
the posttest. Their actual mean (AM) score of 15.51 with SD of
3.23 which was described as “very good” performance.
 The z-value of 0.247 did not exceed the critical value of 1.658 at
0.05 level of significance with the 22 degrees of freedom. This
means that the group did not attain the 75% expected
performance in a significant degree.
Results
No.
Topics HM AM SD Z value D
of Items

Limits of Algebraic
Function 6 4.5 5.28 0.89 0.876 Excellent

Limits of Algebraic
Function Involving 6 4.5 5.72 0.64 1.906 Excellent
Infinity
Limits of Exponential
and Trigonometric 8 6 6.64 1.52 0.421 Excellent
Function

TOTAL 20 15 17.64 2.18 1.211 Excellent

Results
 As shown on the table, students in the experimental group
obtained AMs of 5.28, 5.72 and 6.64 respectively on the
three(3) topics, which were described as “Excellent”
performance, which were all beyond the 75% level of
expectation in terms of mean scores.
 The students belonging to the experimental group passed the
expected mean score of 15 as they obtained the AM of 17.64
with SD 2.18 of which described as “Excellent” performance.
However, the z-value of 1.211 is less than the critical value of
1.678 having 24 degrees of freedom, implying that the group
did not achieve the 75 percent performance level to a
significant degree.
Results
TOPICS Group Means SD t-computed

Limits of Algebraic
Control 4.17 1.40
Function(6)
Experimental 5.28 0.89 3.23
Limits of Algebraic
Control 5.17 1.70
Function Involving
Infinity(6)
Experimental 5.72 0.64 2.14
Limits of Exponential
Control 6.17 1.90
and Trigonometric
Function(8)
Experimental 6.64 1.52 0.93

Overall(20) Control 15.39 3.23

Experimental 17.68 2.17 2.86

Results
 Table 8 reflects the test of significant difference on the posttest
performance between the control and experimental group. On
the first topic, limits of algebraic functions, the computed t-
value is 3.23 which is significant at 0.05 level and 46 degrees
of freedom as it has exceeded the critical value of 1.678. This
means that there is a significant difference between the control
group and the experimental group posttest performance on
topics relative to limits of algebraic functions. This implies
that the graphing utility software is effective in solving basic
calculus problems which was used by the students.
Results
 As to the topic limits of algebraic function involving infinity,
the computed t-value was 2.14 which exceeded the critical
value of 1.678 at 0.05 level of significance with 46 degrees of
freedom. This leads to the rejection of the null hypothesis.
There is therefore a significant difference on the posttest of
the control and experimental group on the limits of algebraic
function involving infinity.
 On the limits of exponential and trigonometric function, the
computed t-value was 0.93 which did not exceed the value of
1.678 at 0.05 level of significance with 46 degrees of freedom.
This leads to the non-rejection of the null hypothesis. There is
therefore no significant difference on the posttest performance
of the control group and experimental group on the limits of
exponential and trigonometric function.
Results

 The overall performance showed a computed t-value of 2.86 which is

greater than the critical value of 1.678 at 0.05 level of significance
with 46 degrees of freedom which leads to the rejection of the null
hypothesis. There is therefore a significant difference between the
control and experimental group of students’ performance difference
during the posttest.
Conclusion
Based on the findings of the study, the following conclusions
were drawn:

1. The performance of the students on the control and experimental

group on their pretest did not vary significantly. During the pretest,
the two groups showed difficulties on the test given.

2. The posttest performance of the students in the control and

experimental group did not vary significantly. The two groups of
students had similar level of development in the different areas of
Calculus covered in the study.
Conclusion
3. There exists a significant variation between the performances of
the students taught using graphing utility software in solving
Basic Calculus problems than those were taught without a
graphing utility software.

4. The use of graphing software is better in improving student’s

performance in Basic Calculus.
Recommendation
Based on the conclusion formulated, the researcher suggests
the following recommendations.

1. Calculus teachers are encouraged to apply in their classroom

situation the graphing utility software in solving Basic Calculus
problems.

2. Calculus teachers should be trained in the use of graphing utility

software.

3. School heads and administrators should conduct a seminar-

workshop on how to use graphing utility software especially on
Basic Calculus.
References
• Yerushalmy, M. (1999). Making Exploration Visible: On Software
Design and School Algebra Curriculum. International Journal of
Computers for mathematical Learning 4, 169-184.
• Dunham, P.H. & Dick, T.P.(1994). Research on Graphing
Calculators. Mathematics Teacher. 87, 440-445
• Villanueva, Richard (2014). Technology- Based Integration in
Teaching Mathematics. Jose Rizal Memorial State University,
Dapitan City.
• Syed, Sedia (2008). Graphing Software in Understanding Polynomial
Functions. California State University, Northridge.
http://www.csun.edu./eed60/porfolio/research_sadisyed.doc.
• Thomson (2007). Graphing Calcutors and Computers.
http://www.gooogle.com.ph/url/sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://
www.
Stewartcalculus.con/data/ESSENTIAL%2520CALCULUS%2520Ea
rly%2520Transcendentals/upfiles/
•Thank you!
•God bless!