BSED MATHEMATICS STUDENTS’ MATHEMATICAL PROFICIENCY: ASSESSING

STRATEGIC COMPETENCY ANDADAPTIVE REASONING DURING

THE SUPPORTED TEACHING IN SCHOOL 

CHAPTER 1 
Background of the Study 

Mathematics is one subject that is relevant in various situations and stages of life. Its
importance extends beyond the classroom and the institution. Therefore, it is crucial to learn
mathematics comprehensively and with a profound understanding. 

This addresses the importance of learning and being proficient in Mathematics as it can

be applied in every way possible. The students, as future educators, need to evaluate their
mathematical proficiency. As it is an essential aspect that needs to be assessed, especially during
supported teaching in schools. Assessing strategic competency and adaptive reasoning during
supported teaching can help teachers identify areas where students are struggling and develop
targeted interventions to address them.  This was based on the study of Dharwin, where
mathematics proficiency is partially used as a mathematics assessment towards colleges of
education students' strategic competency and adaptive reasoning during supported teaching in
schools.

In addition, assessing strategic competency and adaptive reasoning can improve teaching
and learning outcomes. It can help teachers identify gaps in students' understanding of
mathematical concepts and adjust their teaching to address these gaps. It can also help teachers
develop more effective lesson plans that incorporate problem-solving and adaptive reasoning
skills. 

The researchers decided to conduct this study to assess the mathematical proficiency of
the students, such as their strategic competency and adaptive reasoning, on the five content areas
in the curriculum through answering worded problem-solving. These content areas are Numbers
and Number Sense, Measurement, Geometry, Patterns and Algebra, and Probability and
Statistics. Among the Bachelor of Secondary Education Major in Mathematics students of
Pangasinan State University Sta. Maria Campus which is officially enrolled in the Second
Semester of the School Year 2022 – 2023. There are twenty-nine (29) first year and thirty (30)
second year, totaling fifty-nine (59). Having many aspiring future educators, soon to serve and
provide knowledge to different schools with various kinds of students, it is necessary to assess
their skills and knowledge in mathematics for they must possess a high level of mathematical
proficiency as future educators. They are expected to be proficient in teaching mathematics to
their future students and to help them develop a positive attitude toward the subject. Therefore,
assessing their mathematical proficiency during supported teaching in schools can help
determine their effectiveness in teaching mathematics to students and provide insights into areas
where they may need further support. 

In conclusion, this study aims to provide a comprehensive evaluation of the students'

mathematical proficiency through their answers on the worded problem-solving. Assessing the
strategic competency and adaptive reasoning during supported teaching of Bachelor of
Secondary Education major in Mathematics students. It helps identify areas where students are
struggling and provides targeted interventions to improve their problem-solving and transferable
skills. Furthermore, it can improve teaching and learning outcomes by identifying gaps in
understanding and adjusting teaching accordingly. By focusing on these competencies, we can
help ensure that BSEd Mathematics students are well-prepared to teach mathematics effectively. 
 Conceptual Framework
This study will be focused on the college teacher education students’ mathematics
proficiency, assessing the strategic competency and adaptive reasoning during the supported
teaching in school. 
The flow of this research study is to determine the level of mathematical proficiency of
the BSEd Mathematics students in terms of strategic competency and adaptive reasoning, and the
strategies and adaptive reasoning employed by the students in their mathematics subjects. 
Once the data is gathered, it will be tabulated, statistically analyze, and interpreted to
determine the significant relationship between the level of mathematics proficiency and the
strategies employed by the students, and the level of mathematics proficiency and the adaptive
reasoning employed by the students. 
Furthermore, once the data has been validated and interpreted, the conclusions will be
drawn accordingly. The findings will serve as the basis for these conclusions.  
The expected result of the study is to assess the mathematical proficiency of college
teacher education students by assessing their strategic competency and adaptive reasoning during
supported teaching in schools. A conceptual paradigm, depicted in Figure 1, will be developed to
illustrate the conceptual framework of the study. 

INPUT PROCESS OUTPUT

 The strategies employed

by the students in their
mathematics subjects.
 The level of mathematical
proficiency of the student
in terms of strategic
competency and adaptive
reasoning.
 The adaptive reasoning
employed by the students
in their mathematics
subject.
a) administering of the
questionnaires and
mathematics proficiency
test (problem solving).
b) tabulation of student’s
responses
c) statistical analysis of
data and interpretation.
Bachelor of Secondary
Education Major in
Mathematics Students’
Mathematical Proficiency:
Assessing Strategic
Competency and Adaptive
Reasoning During the
Supported Teaching in School

Figure 1. Conceptual Paradigm of the Study

Statement of the Problem 
This study aims to determine the college of teacher education students' mathematical
proficiency by assessing strategic competency and adaptive reasoning during the supported
teaching in school particularly, the 1st and 2nd year BSEd Mathematics students of Pangasinan
State University Sta. Maria Campus. 
Specifically, it seeks to answer the following questions: 
1. What are the strategies employed by the students in their mathematics subjects?
2. What are the adaptive reasonings employed by the students in their mathematics
subjects?
3. What is the level of Mathematical Proficiency of the students in terms of:
a. Strategic Competency; and
b. Adaptive Reasoning?
4. Is there a significant relationship between the level of mathematics proficiency and the
strategic employed by the students?
5. Is there a significant relationship between the level of mathematics proficiency and the
adaptive reasonings by the students?

Research Hypothesis 
The following hypothesis will be statistically tested at 0.05 level of significance. 
1. There is no significant relationship between the level of mathematical proficiency
and the strategies employed by the students. 
2. There is no significant relationship between the level of mathematical proficiency
and the adaptive reasoning employed by the students.

Scope and Delimitation 

This study aims to determine the college of teacher education students’ mathematical
proficiency: assessing their strategic competency and adaptive reasoning during the supported
teaching in school. 
The researchers will limit this research to the 1st year and 2nd year BSEd Mathematics,
both male and female students, who are officially enrolled during the 2 nd semester, A.Y. 2022-
2023 at Pangasinan State University Sta. Maria Campus, Sta. Maria, Pangasinan.  

Significance of the Study 

The researchers believe that when this study will be successful, it will be able to help the
following: 
Students. The result of this study will be beneficial to the students, the college of education
students or future educators, for them to be proficient enough to teach mathematics in the future.
It will give them ideas on how they can improve their skills and performance. By knowing this,
the students will be motivated to do what can change their practices to have a better performance
inside and outside the school. 
Teachers. As the second parents of the students, they will now know how they can better help
and guide the students in being proficient in mathematics. They are the ones who will educate
and push them more to their limits to mold the best in them. They will teach the students how to
conquer the possible challenges they may face within the process and in the future. 
School. If the school knows how they can produce mathematically proficient students, it can help
and encourage them to implement more effective ways on how they educate them. They can
conduct seminars regarding the topic. If students perform well, it will show that the school also
performs well. 
Future Researchers. This will serve as a guide which will help them to have an idea of their
future research. 
 
Definition of Terms  
The following terms are defined with their conceptual and operational definitions to
better understand this research study.   
1. Adaptive Reasoning. Refers to students' ability to use mathematical reasoning and problem-
solving skills in novel and challenging situations. It involves the ability to analyze and synthesize
information and apply mathematical principles to solve complex problems.  
2. Assessing. Refers to the evaluation of the mathematical proficiency of the college of teacher
education students.  
3. BSEd Mathematics. Refers to a four-year undergraduate degree program that aims to provide
students with the knowledge and abilities needed to become licensed mathematics teachers in
grades K-12. 
4. College of Teacher Education. Refers to the institution that prepares individuals to become
qualified teachers.  
5. DepEd Mathematics Curriculum. Refers to the set of learning standards, processes, and
approaches developed by the Philippine government to guide the teaching and learning of
mathematics in schools. 
6. Geometry. This refers to the use of specific and observable actions or measurements to define
and understand the concepts associated with the study of shapes, sizes, positions, and dimensions
of objects. 
7. Mathematical Proficiency. The overall ability of students to use mathematical concepts,
skills, and strategies to solve a wide range of mathematical problems in real world context.  
8. Mathematical Proficiency Scale. The scoring system used to categorize an individual’s level
of proficiency in mathematics. 
9. Mathematical Proficiency Test (MPT). Refers to an assessment tool designed to measure an
individual’s level of mathematical competency in terms of strategic competency and adaptive
reasoning. 
10. Measurement. This involves the use of specific and quantifiable methods to determine and
describe the size, quantity, quality or degree of an object or phenomenon. 
11. Number and Number Sense. This refers to the ability to understand, conceptualize, and
apply numerical concepts and operations in various situations, and to identify patterns and
relationships among numbers. 
12. Pattern and Algebra. This involves understanding and using the principles of patterns in
various mathematical contexts and the ability to apply algebraic concepts to solve problems and
analyze relationships between quantities. 
13. School. The educational institution where college students are assigned to teach and assess
their mathematical proficiency to be precise, Pangasinan State University Sta. Maria Campus. 
14. Statistics and Probability. This involves the use of mathematical tools and concepts to
analyze and interpret data, as well as the ability to make predictions and draw conclusions based
on probability and statistical analysis. 
15. Strategic Competency. Refers to a student's ability to develop and use mathematical
strategies to solve problems, identify patterns, make connections between concepts, and explain
their reasoning.  
16. Student. A person who is studying at college or university specifically, the 1st and 2nd year
BSEd Mathematics students at PSU Sta. Maria Campus. 
 CHAPTER 2
Review of Related Literature
This study will focus on determining the BSEd Mathematics students’ mathematical
proficiency by assessing their mathematical proficiency during the supported teaching in the
school particularly, the 1st and 2nd year BSEd Mathematics students of Pangasinan State
University Sta. Maria Campus.
According to Kilpatrick et al. (2001), there are a strong organic relationship between the
five mathematical competence levels, where each stance depends on the others. These threads are
both interconnected and separate. It is thought that in order to concentrate on strategic
competency and adaptive thinking, one must have naturally formed conceptual comprehension
and procedural fluency that reflect an effort to cover all areas of mathematics. This emerges
when students grow more adept at studying and applying mathematics and as they obtain a
deeper grasp of mathematics. Mathematical competence takes time to develop. Students need to
advance along each of the aforementioned strands since they are all crucial and intertwined with
one another at each level of studying mathematics.
The introduction of Mathematics Framework for Philippine Basic Education aimed at
improving students critical thinking and problem solving that can help them to become
mathematically competent. A mathematically competent student does not only know how to
compute and perform algorithms but is also able to pose and solve mathematical problems and
apply mathematical skills and reasoning in other subjects and everyday experiences. The student
is able to see patterns in diverse phenomena and connect Mathematics to other learning by
understanding the interrelationships of mathematical ideas and the uses of math in other areas
( SEI-DOST & MATHTED, 2011). Therefore, assessing mathematical proficiencies can help
teachers provide targeted interventions to help students improve their skills.
In connection, Schoenfeld’s study (2007A) demonstrates that mathematics education
researchers have a full knowledge of what mathematical thinking and comprehension entail, and
as a result, they tend to advocate for assessment procedures that are comprehensive in terms of
content and processes. When students mindlessly practice mathematical procedures, they are
becoming proficient at utilizing a procedure without understanding the ideas that underline the
procedure (Schoenfeld, 2007A). Ramaley (2007) indicates that, according to a National Research
Council’s report on assessment, it is recommended that classroom assessments should: “(a) share
a common model of student learning, (b) focus on what is most highly valued rather than what is
easy to measure, (c) signal to teachers and students what is important for them to teach and
learn” (p.18). This view emphasizes assessment as more than just a mechanism for reporting on
students’ progress, but as a tool to inform students’ learning processes.
On the other hand, many researchers do not directly address the five strands of
mathematical proficiency in terms of assessment, a few highlights important teaching and
assessing strategies towards this goal (Pai, 2018; Straumberger, 2018; Swan & Foster, 2018).
Assessing BSED math students' mathematics proficiency is an extremely powerful role in
teacher education. But testing proficiency raises myriad of questions that may include what kind
understanding do the test assess? Does the test capture all kind of mathematical thinking? Are
the test focus area equitable? Can these tests raise the attention towards improved standards of
mathematics instruction?
Although many research does not directly address the five strands of mathematical
proficiency in terms of assessment, there has been some evidence that highlights important
teaching and assessing strategies that address the holistic development of mathematical
knowledge. Foster, Noyce, and Spiegel (2007) discuss the ways that the Mathematics
Assessment Collaborative (MAC) – a program that replaces standardized tests with a
“coordinated program of support and learning for teachers based on a common set of
assessments given to students” (p.138) – impacted student success. This assessment considered
five main ideas about mathematics per grade level, and, in place of tests, students had five tasks
to complete. These tasks “require students to evaluate, optimize, design, plan, model, transform,
generalize, justify, interpret, represent, estimate, and calculate their solutions” (Foster et al.,
2007, p.139) through open, problem-based tasks. This exam was given to students in grades
three, five, seven, and in algebra classes in 24 school districts. The teachers evaluated each exam
after receiving training on the assessment rubric. The training involved in the assessment of the
tasks was a professional development exercise as teachers were taught to consider all aspects of
the math task that they were assessing, and then they were expected to find evidence of that in
the students’ work. The students’ exams received a grade in 4 levels, where Level 1 showed
limited success and Level 4 showed success at an increased level. The exams were returned to
the schools for teachers to reflect on and use in future teaching scenarios. The test was also used
as “valuable information for professional development, district policy, and instruction” (Foster,
Noyce, & Spiegel, 2007, p.141). For instance, if a school has shown an unsuccessful trend in a
strand of mathematics, the teachers would receive professional development sessions targeting
the core ideas of the strand, and later, the students would be reassessed to evaluate any changes.
In addition, assessing students via traditional and procedural approach when it comes to
mathematics may create the impression that a procedure-based course is enough to build
students’ mathematical knowledge. When students mindlessly practice mathematical procedures,
they are becoming proficient at utilizing only procedures without understanding the ideas that
underline the procedure. Students may think they are competent at that specific skill, they might
fail if they have to deal with a slightly different problem or procedure. Schoenfeld (2007A) calls
that an ‘Illusion of Competence’ (p.10).
Although classroom assessments should focus on what is valued than what is easy to
measure, share a common model of student learning, signal to teachers and students what is
important for them to teach and learn, Burkhardt (2007) argues that assessing mathematics
proficiency should foster developing thinkers by emphasizing on mathematics that often
focus on the ‘solve phase,’ ‘formulate,’ ‘evaluate’ or ‘interpret’ phases (p.86). When
working with students and assessing their mathematical proficiency, teachers often focus on the
final product of the students’ work rather than the complex mathematical thinking that leads to
that product (the process). Suurtamm (2018) adds to the discussion, claiming that mathematics
assessment intentions need to be visible in all aspects of teaching (planning, instruction, and
assessment). The practices that teachers engage in while teaching and assessing provide students
with the grounds needed to deepen their mathematics understanding. Mathematics assessment
practices must have a relationship with the tasks used to evaluate student learning.
Khairani and Nordin (2011) used test items to assess conceptual understanding,
procedural fluency, and strategic competence of 588 14-year-old students. According to their
study these three strands were chosen because the excluded strands (productive disposition and
adaptive reasoning) are not yet mature enough to assess at that level. In this current study
participants already exhibit moderate performance on conceptual understanding and procedural
fluency via standardized tests constructed, organized and conducted by Affiliate University.
Therefore, much attention is given to assessing participants’ strategic competency and adaptive
reasoning at this time of teaching practice during supported teaching in schools.
Hence, this study will focus on mathematical proficiency, which can be a strong ally in
the development of students' mathematical skills and knowledge. Understanding students’
learning processes through assessments that investigate mathematical proficiency can effectively
inform teachers’ practice in the direction of holistic mathematical proficiency development.
In implication, assessing the mathematical proficiency of the students is essential for the
development of teacher education programs that can help produce effective and proficient
teachers in mathematics. It can also provide insights into the challenges that teachers face in
teaching mathematics that can lead to better teaching practices, particularly in schools where
students may have varying levels of mathematical proficiency.
 Chapter 3
Methodology
This chapter presents the research design, population and locale of the study, research
instrument, data gathering procedure, and treatment of data. The detailed discussion on the
research process will be conducted to obtain the objectives of this research study.

3.1 Research Design

The researcher utilized descriptive – correlation research design wherein the researcher
administers the questionnaire checklist and Mathematical Proficiency Test (MPT) to the
respondent. Moreover, the researcher will design hypothesis for the study and it will be
statistically tested. It includes how the data was collected, what would be the sample size and
how it to be analyzed.
According to Bhat, A. (2018), descriptive research, this type of study uses behavior
observation to describe attributes systematically and objectively. Correlational research is a
method that describes and predicts how variables are naturally related in the real world, without
any attempt by the researcher to alter them or assign causation between them.
3.2 Population and Locale of the Study
This study will be conducted at Pangasinan State University – Santa Maria, Pangasinan.
The respondent will be the first year and second year BSEd Mathematics enrolled in the 2nd
semester A. Y 2022-2023.
The researcher will utilize probability sampling, specially, simple random sampling and
this type of probability sampling uses a pure chance of selection process. The researcher will
choose aids through a pure chance of selection.
The researcher will use random sampling formula to select the sample size. There are
twenty-nine (29) total first-year students and thirty (30) second-year students BSEd Mathematics
students with the total of fithty-nine (59) but the researcher with computed based on the
population size, the sampling confidence level of 95% and the region of error is 5% after the
computation due to get the sample respondent.
N = Population size
e = Margin of error (Percentage in decimal form)
z = z – score
p = the number of standard deviations that would include all possible values in the range = 2

z 2 p (1− p)
e
2
=51.14 or 51
Sample ¿( Random Sampling formula¿)=
1+¿ ¿ ¿

The result of the sample calculation is 51.14. The sample comes up with 51 respondents
and is divided into 27 per year levels. After finding the sample size, the researcher will use
simple random sampling per year level.

Table 1. Number of participants from year level.

 Respondents Population Percentage Sample Size
First-year BSEd Mathematics 29 49% 25
Second year BSEd Mathematics 30 51% 26
Total 59 100% 51

Desired Confidence z-score

80% 1.28
85% 1.44
90% 1.65
95% 1.96
99% 2.58

3.3 Research Instrument

The researcher will utilize a survey questionnaire checklist and constructed problem-
solving items for BSEd Mathematics students. The questionnaire and exam are research made
instrument that devised to determine the relationship between the strategies and adaptive
reasoning that employed by the students and their mathematical proficiency. The survey
questionnaire will be conducted during their vacant hours in their face-to-face classes. Part 1 will
be the level of mathematical proficiency test (MPT) that categories of the two (2) strands of
mathematical proficiency that has ten (5) content that found in DEPed mathematics curriculum
which, number and number sense, measurement, geometry, pattern and algebra, and statistics and
probability. The exam is consisting with twenty (20) items equally distributed by content. Part
two (2), the researcher will use survey questionnaire to determine the strategies and adaptive
reasoning employed by the students in their mathematics subjects. The survey questionnaire
consists with ten (10) for the strategies and (10) for the adaptive reasoning.
Table 2. Percentage Distribution of Mathematics Content Dimensions
DepEd Mathematics Curriculum Items Distributions
Content Strategic competency Adaptive reasoning
Number and number sense 20% 20%
Measurement 20% 20%
Geometry 20% 20%
Pattern and Algebra 20% 20%
Statistics and Probability 20% 20%

3.4 Data Gathering Produce

In gathering relevant data on the study, the researcher will be guided by the following
procedures:
In order to conduct a research questionnaire and problem-solving test with the student’s
respondent, the researchers must first obtain approval from the campus executive director (CED),
the campus dean, and the BSEd Chairman. And then, the researcher will also provide a
permission letter to the first- and second-year students' advisers, along with the letter of
respondent and a copy of the questionnaire. When the researcher received approval for the
required permission. The researcher will personally hand out the survey questionnaires to the
students in their vacant time. Lastly, the researcher will make sure that all the students will
respond, and the researcher will check if all of them have already responded.

3.5 Treatment of Data

 The study focuses on the level of mathematical proficiency and the strategies adaptive
reasoning employed by the students in their mathematics subjects. To come up with a valid and
reliable result, appropriate statistical tools will be used. The SPSS will be used for Statistical
analysis, the average weighted mean, frequency count, standard deviation, and Pearson’s
correlation.
In order to determine the sub-problem #1, the level of mathematical proficiency, the
researcher will use the test scores of the respondent to determine weighted average mean and
standard deviation and interpret it in the mathematical proficiency scale. Below is the
mathematical proficiency Scale and Score Average Scale will use in mathematical proficiency
test.
Table 3. Mathematical Proficiency Scale (MPS)
Mathematical Proficiency Scale

Scale Description
Score: 3.1 – 4.0 I have a deep understanding of the standard and can demonstrate it in
Highly complex ways.
Proficient
Score: 2.1-3.0 I meet the expectations described in the standard and can do them
Proficient independently
Score 1.0 – 2.0 I am getting close to meeting expectations, and I can do the simpler parts of
Approaching the standard independently
proficiency

Score: <1.0 I still need help and support from my teacher to do the simpler parts of the
Below standard
proficiency

Table 4. Mathematical Proficiency Test Scale

Score (AVERAGE) Percentages Equivalent
18-20 90% - 100% Highly proficient
15-17 75%-89% Proficient
10-14 50%-74% Approaching Proficient
0-9 below 45% Below proficient

In order to determine the sub-problem #2 and 3 the strategic and adaptive reasoning that
employed by the students, the researcher will use the weighted average mean and standard
deviation. And the scale below will be used.

Table 5. Mathematical Proficiency Employed by the Students.

SCALE RANGE REMARK DESSCRIPTIVE VALUE
4 3.25 – 4.00 Always Always
3 2.5 – 3.24 Very often Very often
2 1.75 – 2.4 Rarely Rarely
1 1.00 - 1.74 Never Never

To determine if there is a significant relationship between the level of mathematical

proficiency and the mathematics employed by the students of the first year and second-year
students, Pearson’s Correlation Coefficient will be used.
 r =n ¿ ¿

Where: r = Pearson r
x and y = paired raw scores and
n = number of pairs of X and Y scores
Testing for the significance of Pearson correlation coefficient (r)
According to statistical solutions (2021), Pearson’s correlation coefficient is a test
statistic used to determine the statistical link, or association, between two continuous variables.
Because it is based on the concept of correlation, it is recognized as the best approach to
quantifying the relationship between variables of interest.

Chapter 4
 Presentation, Analysis of Data, and Interpretation of Data
This chapter presents the gathered and analyzed data according to the presented specific
problems. The findings were also interpreted based on the results.
Mathematics Proficiency of BSE Math Students 
In this chapter, the researchers will examine and analyze the mathematical proficiency of
Bachelor of Secondary Education (BSE) Math students. Mathematics competence is critical in
the education of future math teachers because it not only enhances their personal comprehension
of math ideas but also provides them with the required abilities to effectively convey this
information to their future students. The goal is to evaluate BSE math students’ mathematical
ability by considering a variety of characteristics such as their mathematical skills, problem-
solving abilities, critical thinking, and conceptual knowledge. 
The chapter will begin with an overview of the theoretical framework that will be used to
guide the assessment of mathematics proficiency. To provide a comprehensive and structured
examination of the data, this framework will draw on recognized theories and models in the field
of mathematics education. This section presents the mathematical proficiency of the BSE Math
students by assessing their strategic competence and adaptive reasoning during the supported
teaching in school. 
Table 6. Strategies Employed by the Students in their Mathematics Subjects

Statement Weighted Mean Description

1. In studying math class materials, I analyze 3.33 Always
again and again.
2. I memorize the important and key math 3.29 Always
formula to remind me the important part of my
math class.
3. I check my answer again after I finish the 3.47 Always
question.
4. I reorganize and clarify the confused points 3.04 Very Often
after class.
5. I compare the difference between the 2.86 Very Often
teacher’s explanation and textbook content.
6. I try to find out other efficient way to solve 3.14 Very Often
problem when I hear some idea or some
solution.
7. I read through the class notes and mark up 3.24 Very Often
the important parts.
8. I go over the formula and important concepts 3.18 Very Often
by myself.
9. I combine my known knowledge with 3.18 Very Often
learning materials.
10. I ask question to myself to make sure that I 3.22 Very often
understand the math materials content.
Average Weighted Mean 3.19 Very Often

Table 6 shows the Strategies employed by the students in their mathematics subject. It
was indicated that students always practiced the indicator “I check my answer again after I finish
the question,” with a weighted mean of 3.47. On the other hand, the indicator “I compare the
difference between the teacher’s explanation and textbook content” scored lowest with a
weighted mean of 2.86, which means that students very often employed this strategy.
 This finding backed up by the study of Cai and Brook, extends Pólya’s thoughts on
Looking Back, that students who check their answers after solving problems help students
acquire mathematical knowledge as well as develop their ability to solve problems.
Table 6.1. Adaptive Reasonings Employed by the Students in their Mathematics Subjects

Statement Weighted Mean Description

1. In solving mathematics problems, I justify 3.14 Very Often
the strategy that I’ve used.
2. I explain my answer when solving a 2.90 Very Often
mathematical problem.
3. I provide a reason for a solution. 2.78 Very Often
4. I find patterns in a problem. 3.06 Very Often
5. I draw a conclusion from every figure that 2.76 Very Often
has been presented.
6. I formulate all possible solutions based on 3.16 Very Often
the knowledge I currently I have.
7. In studying mathematics, I check the validity 2.90 Very Often
of every argument.
8. In proving mathematical concept. I defend
my mathematical claims and make them clear 2.86 Very Often
to others.
9. I explain every step of my solution when 3.18 Very Often
solving math problems.
10. In proving the mathematical theorems, I 2.98 Very Often
draw a figure to prove what need to be proved.
Average Weighted Mean 2.97 Very Often

Table 6.1 shows the Adaptive Reasoning employed by the students in their mathematics
subject. Results shows that the indicator, “I explain every step of my solution when solving math
problems” was very often as it scored the highest with a weighted mean of 3.18. On the other
hand, the indicator, “I draw a conclusion from every figure that has been presented” scored
lowest with a weighted mean of 2.76 which still very often. Therefore, the first year and second
year students are very often uses an adaptive reasoning in their mathematics subjects.
Often, students can recite facts but struggle to grasp underlying mathematics concept or
apply a math concept to a problem in any mathematics. This finding backed up by the study of
Dr. Joseph Jay Williams, a researcher at the University of California, Berkely, that students who
can verbally explain how they arrived at a particular conclusion are better able to identify their
own false assumptions and generalize what they learn to related mathematics subjects (Sparks,
S.D. 2021).
Table 7. Level of Mathematical Proficiency of 1st year and 2nd Year BSEd Mathematics

Mean Score Mean SD Equivalent

(Percentage)
Overall MPT Score 8.2549 41% 3.9590 Below Proficient
1st year 6.76 33% 3.1784 Below Proficient
2nd year 9.2307 46% 4.2994 Below Proficient
Strategic Competency 9.1 45% 6.5719 Below Proficient
Adaptive Reasoning 11.7 58% 6.5888 Approaching Proficient
Table 7 Summary of Participants’ Scores on Mathematical Proficiency Test
 Table 7 shows an overall performance (mean=4 1 % , SD=3.9 590) which suggests that
the first year and second year BSEd Mathematics at Pangasinan State University are below
proficient. The Second year BSEd Mathematics attained higher (mean=46 % , SD=4.2994) than
the first year BSEd Mathematics (mean=33 % , SD=3.1784). It was revealed that participants
performed higher in Adaptive Reasoning problems (mean=58 % , SD=6.5888) than Strategic
Competency problems (mean=45 % , SD=6.5719).
In 2018, the Philippines ranked second to the last in math proficiency among the 79 other
countries who participated in PISA, with 80.3% of the Filipino students not meeting the
minimum standard of the assessment (Frias, 2022). Due to these transitions from their native
language to English, Filipino students frequently encounter some difficulties when learning and
solving mathematics problems. (Yushau, 2015). This indicates that it's critical that students
acquire solid English foundation and mathematical skills by the end of their high school.
Table 8. Significant Relationship Between the Level of Mathematics Proficiency and the
Strategies Employed by the Students
Level of Mathematics Proficiency
Strategic Competency 0.012

Table 8.1. Significant Relationship Between the Level of Mathematics Proficiency and the
Adaptive Reasoning Employed by the Students
Level of Mathematics Proficiency
Adaptive Reasoning −0.207

References:
Awofala, A.O.A. (2017). Assessing senior secondary school students‟ mathematical proficiency
as related to gender and performance in mathematics in Nigeria. International Journal of
Research in Education and Science (IJRES), 3(2), 488-502. DOI: 10.21890/ijres.327908

Bhat, A. (2018). Descriptive Research vs Correlational Research. QuestionPro.

https://www.questionpro.com/blog/descriptive-research-vs-correlational-research/
Burkhardt, H. (2007). Mathematical Proficiency: What is important? How can it be measured? In
A. H. Schoenfeld (Ed.), Assessing Mathematical Proficiency (pp.77-97). New York:
Cambridge University Press.

Corrêa, D., & Haslam, D. (2020). Mathematical Proficiency as the Basis for Assessment: A
Literature  Review and its Potentialities. MATHEMATICS TEACHING RESEARCH
JOURNAL, 12(4), 1–18.
https://commons.hostos.cuny.edu/mtrj/wp-content/uploads/sites/30/2021/01/v12n4-
Mathematical-Proficiency-as-the-Basis-for-Assessment.pdf

Duodu, S., John, E. H., Amoaddai, S., Gyamfi, M. A., & Ndamenenu, D. K. (2022). Colleges of
Education Students’ Mathematics Proficiency: Assessing Strategic Competency and
Adaptive Reasoning during Supported Teaching in Schools. International Journal of
Innovative Research and Development, 11(3).
https://doi.org/10.24940/ijird/2022/v11/i3/mar22030
Faustino, J. A. (2022). MATHEMATICS TEACHING PRACTICES ON THE
MATHEMATICAL PROFICIENCY OF JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS. 1–17.
https://ijrp.org/filePermission/fileDownlaod/4/c82d41d059cee3fb239f3e34f72beeca/2

Foster, D., Noyce, P., & Spiegel, S. (2007). When assessment guides instruction Silicon Valley's
mathematics assessment collaborative. In A. H. Schoenfeld (Ed.), Assessing
Mathematical Proficiency (pp.137-154), New York: Cambridge University Press.

Frias, H. O., Gernandiso, C. C., & Villamor, C. M. A. S. (2022). Factors distinguishing high-
performing students from low-performing students in math using PISA 2018 in the
Philippines.

Khairani, A. Z. & Nordin, M. N. (2011). The development and construct validation of the
mathematics proficiency test for 14-year-old students. Asia Pacific Journal of Educators
and Education, 26(1), 33-50.

Kilpatrick, J., & Swafford, J., & Findell, B. (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn
mathematics. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Pai. (2018). Observations and conversations as assessment in secondary mathematics. In D. R.

Thompso Burton, A. Cusi. & D. Wright (Eds). Classroom Assessment in Mathematics:
Perspectives from Around the (pp.25-44). Cham. CH: Springer International Publishing
AG

Ramaley, J., (2007). "Crucial Contemporary Social, Political, and Cultural Issues in
Mathematical Assessment in the United States" (p. 17 – 21) Assessing Mathematical
Proficiency

Schoenfeld. A. H. (2007A) Issues and tensions in the assessment of mathematical proficiency. In

H. Schoenfeld (Ed.). Assessing Mathematical Proficiency (pp.3-15). New York
Cambridge University Press

Sparks, S. D. (2021, July 12). Students Can Learn by Explaining, Studies Say. Education Week.
https://www.edweek.org/leadership/students-can-learn-by-explaining-studies-say/
2013/05#:~:text=Students%20who%20can%20verbally%20explain%20why%20they
%20arrived,generating%20explanations%20leads%20to%20better%20educational
%20outcomes%20generally.
Statistics Solutions. (2021, June 9). Pearson’s Correlation Coefficient - Statistics Solutions.
https://www.statisticssolutions.com/free-resources/directory-of-statistical-analyses/
pearsons-correlation-coefficient/

Straumberger, W. (2018). Using self-assessment for individual practice in math classes in D. R.

Thompson, M. Burton, A. Cusi, & D. Wright (Eds), Classroom Assessment in
Mathematics: Perspectives from Around the Globe (pp 45-60) Cham. CH: Springer
International Publishing AG

Suurtamm, C. (2018). Enhancing Mathematics teaching and learning through sound assessment
practices. In A. Kajander, J. Holm, & E. J. Chernoff (Eds.), Teaching and Learning
Secondary School Mathematics (pp.473-482). Cham, CH: Springer International
Publishing AG.

Swan, M. & Foster, C. (2018) Formative assessment lessons. In D. R. Thompson, M. Burton, A.

Cusi, & D. Wright (Eds.), Classroom Assessment in Mathematics: Perspectives from
Around the Globe (pp.11-24). Cham, CH: Springer International Publishing AG.

Yushau, B., & Omar, M. H. (2015). Mathematics performance and its relation to English
language proficiency level of bilingual Arab university students. Indian Journal of
Science and Technology, 8(13), 1-15.