GAME-ORIENTED ACTIVITY AND LECTURE (G.O.A.

L): A TUTORIAL TO
IMPROVE STUDENTS’ SKILLS IN FUNDAMENTAL OPERATIONS FOR
SOLVING BASIC MATHEMATICS

An Action Research Presented to the Institute of Teacher Education

Davao del Norte State College

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree

Bachelor of Secondary Education

Ambat, Clieh Ann P.

Amenci, Jenefer J.
Brandino, Chrislyn P.
Cagadas, Stephen Jade M.
Cuerda, Jame Paul S.
Cuerda, Rosenda S.
Gardose, Shella Mae
Jadulco, Richard Lu T.
Lacia, Arcel H.
Manangan, Jingol P.
Mapili, Angelica O.
Minta, Jennica G.
Mohinog, Kimberly Jen V.
Paulo. Carlito Jr. V.
Quaresma, Devie S.
Surigao, Lynette Jane M.
Recla, Roy A.
Sasil, Rheanna Jane G.
Talandron, Julie Ann S.
Talotalo, Rowena H.
Tapales, Sweet Jonie V.

May 2023
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The researchers would like to thank those who contributed for the completion

of this action research.

First, to Prof. Samsel Rhys A. Pampilon, the researchers’ thesis adviser and

internship supervisor, for providing invaluable guidance, support, advises, comments,

suggestions, and provisions that helps in the completion and success of this study.

It was a great privilege and honor to work and study under her guidance.

Second, to Ma’am Nancy Gonzales, the principal II of La Filipina National

High School, thank you so much for the warm welcome and for allowing us to

conduct this study. Truly, your approval helps us realize the importance of this study.

Third, to our beloved Grade 7 participants for their active participation and

engagement all throughout this study.

We would also like to express our greatest gratitude towards our parents for

their endless love, prayers, support, and sacrifices. This would not have been

possible without their unselfish love and support given to us at all times.

Lastly, to our Almighty God or giving us the strength, knowledge, ability and

opportunity to undertake this research study. Without His guidance and mercy, we

would not be able to accomplish this research and all of our daily endeavors. To God

be the Glory!

The Researchers
 ABSTRACT

This study evaluated the effects of implementing the game-oriented activity and
lecture as a tutorial to improve students’ skills in fundamental operations for solving
basic mathematics. Moreover, pretest results reveal that one of the weaknesses of
the students is mastery and computational fluency in solving basic mathematics
problems. The study aimed to compare the pretest and post-test as a tool to master
concepts involving fractions. This was made through the pre- and post-tests of the
students’ performance before and after being exposed to final problem-solving. The
respondents came from Grade 7, and there were 84 students identified as
respondents for the experimental group from the Grade 7 department. Comparative
analysis is used to determine if there is a significant difference between the means of
two groups. The results revealed that the students in both group did not meet
expectations in the pretest but manifested a significant difference in the actual mean
in the post-test. Both groups displayed significant improvement in solving
fundamental operations in basic problem-solving. Further, the tutorial of students
significantly improved their mastery of the fundamental operations of mathematics.
The paper concludes that game-oriented activities as tutorials have a positive impact
on students’ mastery and have shown improvement in their study habits as tested
often.

Keywords: tutorial, game oriented, students’ performance, problem solving, mastery

 CHAPTER I

THE RESEARCH PROBLEM

RATIONALE

Mathematics plays a very significant role in people's everyday lives. The use

of mathematics is visible in education and practically in every other aspect people

could think of, such as planning monthly budgets and scheduling time, and even in

the infrastructure they see outside. Mathematics emerged as a subject of study

along with civilization. In the present scenario, mathematics is an essential subject

for living. This importance was evident in the school curriculum and mathematics

education (Gafoor and Abidha, 2015). Mathematics was often considered a

challenge, not because of students’ lack of ability but because the study of

mathematics was usually deemed boring or irrelevant, which lent insufficient focus

and limited engagement. One reason why studying mathematics was perceived as

such by students was that the language of mathematics took years to develop, and

even then, mathematics was difficult to discuss as a narrative, unlike nearly all other

academic subjects (Medoff, 2013). The teaching and learning of mathematics, like

any other subject, requires the teacher and learner to communicate effectively.

Producing highly skilled people requires students to achieve excellently in

three core subjects: mathematics, English, and science. Learning in the 21st century

requires a solid fundamental background in these subjects. One of the examples that

a 21st-century learner must master is the basic arithmetic operations such as

addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division. To master this fundamental

background, there is a need to understand conceptual knowledge. Students should

know how to add, subtract, multiply, and divide numbers. In these early stages,
students should be able to connect the relationships between addition and

subtraction, addition and multiplication, and multiplication and division. Students are

expected to learn how to evaluate numbers with various operations independently

since elementary school. In the context of Brunei, mixed operations in arithmetic

have been taught since Year 4 of their primary schooling. Meanwhile, the order of

operations, including brackets and exponents, was introduced at the secondary level

(Bautista, 2012).

Mathematics has played a vital role in the scientific and technological

development of the modern world, as well as in the evolution of humanity as a whole.

The respondents in a study that looked at why students in Turkish secondary

schools struggle in mathematics claimed that their mathematics instructor did not

teach effectively, employ the essential methods and approaches, or boost their

interest in mathematics. In addition, they stated that they did not put in sufficient

effort to study, that their foundational mathematical understanding was lacking, and

that students struggled because they did not comprehend the subject (Yayla &

Bangir-Alpan, 2019). According to another survey, seventh graders found

mathematics to be a challenging and uninteresting topic, and they felt that

mathematics teachers should improve both the way they taught classes and how

they interacted with their pupils (Memnun & Akkaya, 2010).

In the Philippines, according to a study conducted by Dela Cruz and Lapinid

(2014), 40% of respondents are below the satisfactory level in translating worded

problems due to carelessness, lack of comprehension, exchanging values, and

unfamiliar words. According to Lee – Chua (2012), mathematics was feared in the

Philippines for the following reasons: terror teachers, learned helplessness,

neglectful or pressure-inducing parents, society's denigration of deep thought, instant

gratification, a lack of motivation, and examination failure.

In the local context, Tugbok, Davao City, was shown in the study of Galabo,

Abellanosa, and Gembes (2018) entitled “The Level of Readiness in Mathematics of

First Year High School Students of Cluster 6 Tugbok Secondary Schools: Basis

Intervention Program”. Using the Grade 6 Test, the level of mathematics readiness

of freshmen high school students was very low. This indicated that the respondents

performed poorly in mathematics. The learning competencies for fractions, decimals,

percentages, geometry, and measurements in 6th grade are very low. The results

indicated that respondents have not mastered the sixth-grade math competencies.

Consequently, freshman year is a pivotal time for mathematics education, as it

prepares students for rigorous high school mathematics and science courses –

essentials for college admission and success in the workforce (Madayag, 2011).

Despite the Philippines' education system's emphasis on mathematics,

several issues and challenges were still associated with teaching and learning the

subject. This is aligned with Alkan's (2013) statement that since the introduction of

mathematics into the curriculum, mathematics has been viewed as a problem area

for students.

In this study, the researchers used a variety of game-oriented tutorials and

lectures as a strategy for enhancing the skills of Grade 7 students in fundamental

operations and understanding basic mathematics. This study contributed significantly

to ways in which mathematics teachers can improve their students' proficiency in

fundamental operations. Hence, the purpose of this study was to incorporate tutorials

that could improve students' understanding of fundamental mathematical operations

Statement of the Problem

The main objective of this action research is to determine if the Goal-Oriented

Activity and Lecture (G.O.A.L) as a method of tutorial will improve students'

mathematics skills in fundamental operations used to solved basic mathematical

problems.

Specifically, this study sought to answer the following questions:

1. What is the student's level of knowledge on the basic fundamental operation

before the intervention?

2. What is the students' level of knowledge on the basic fundamental operation

after the intervention?

3. Is there a significant difference between the students' level of knowledge on

the basic fundamental operation before and after the intervention?

Hypothesis

There is no significant difference in students' level of knowledge on the basic

fundamental operations with the application of Goal-Oriented Activity and Lecture.

Significance of the Study

Mathematics education research continually seeks innovative approaches to

enhance teaching and learning outcomes. The significance of this study, for both

teachers and students, lies in several key areas:

Teacher Professional Development: The findings of this study have direct

implications for teacher professional development in mathematics education. By

evaluating the effectiveness of a game-oriented activity and lecture approach, the

research aims to provide evidence-based insights and recommendations to

educators. These recommendations can guide teachers in designing and

implementing engaging instructional strategies that promote deep understanding and

procedural fluency in fundamental operations. By enhancing teachers' pedagogical

practices and instructional techniques, the study contributes to their professional

growth and capacity to deliver effective mathematics instruction.

Student Engagement and Achievement: Engaging students and promoting

academic achievement are primary concerns for educators. Traditional instructional

methods often struggle to captivate students' attention and sustain their interest in

mathematics. The incorporation of game-oriented activities offers a novel and

engaging learning experience that can pique students' curiosity and motivation. By

employing interactive and stimulating educational games in conjunction with lectures,

this study aims to promote active participation, critical thinking, and problem-solving

skills among students.

Differentiated Instruction: Each student has distinct learning

preferences and needs. The proposed game-oriented activity and lecture

approach allow for differentiated instruction, enabling teachers to cater to diverse

learning styles and abilities. By incorporating interactive games, teachers can

provide hands-on experiences and accommodate varying levels of difficulty to meet

individual student requirements. This approach fosters a supportive and inclusive

learning environment where students can progress at their own pace and experience

success in fundamental operations.

Student Motivation and Confidence: Student motivation and confidence

play a crucial role in learning mathematics. Game-oriented activities provide an

opportunity for students to actively engage with mathematical concepts, apply their

knowledge, and experience a sense of accomplishment. By participating in enjoyable

and challenging activities, students can develop a positive attitude toward

mathematics, boost their self-confidence, and perceive mathematics as a meaningful

and relevant subject.

Definition of Terms

The following terms are conceptually and operationally defined in this study.

Game-Oriented Activity and Lecture. In the context of this action research, a

game-oriented activity is an interactive and structured educational task. It includes

quizzes, puzzles, group challenges, or any other form of gamified learning

experience designed to engage Grade 7 students through problem-solving and

collaboration. Moreover, a lecture was conducted by the researcher to deliver

foundational knowledge and theoretical concepts related to the research topic. The

lecture consists of a structured presentation using multimedia aids, slides, visual

materials, and handouts in enhancing the skills of Grade 7 students for fundamental

operations in understanding the basics of Mathematics.

Fundamental Operations of Mathematics. The fundamental operations of

mathematics were conceptually defined within the scope of this action research, as a

set of essential mathematical procedures that serve as the building blocks for

problem-solving, and analysis. These operations include addition, subtraction,

multiplication, and division, which are fundamental tools to be used in analyzing

mathematical problems and data.

Differentiated Instruction. It is conceptually defined as instructional approach that

involves tailoring teaching methods, materials, and assessments to accommodate

the diverse learning needs, abilities, interests, and preferences of individual students.

In this study, these refers to the varying teaching strategies which could be

employed by teachers for students who have varying readiness levels, learning

styles, and strengths, and aims to provide appropriate support and challenge to each

learner, specifically the Grade 7 learners of La Filipina National High School.

CHAPTER II

METHODS AND PROCEDURE

This chapter presents the various methods used in this study which include
the research design, research respondent, research instrument, data collection
procedure, and the statistical treatment of data.

Research Design

This study used a quantitative design utilizing descriptive and comparative

approaches. As stated by McCombes (2019), descriptive research is a quantitative
study that aims to collect measurable data from a population sample for statistical
analysis. It tries to characterize a population, circumstance, or phenomenon
methodically and precisely. And, descriptive research, according to Dr. YP Aggarwal
(2008), is focused on acquiring data regarding current circumstances or conditions in
order to describe and interpret them. This form of research methodology includes
accurate analysis, interpretation, comparisons, trend, and relationship discovery, and
more than just gathering and tabulating facts. Moreover, comparative approaches
are conducted primarily to explain and better understand the causal processes
involved in creating an event, feature, or relationship (Adiya & Ashton, 2017).
Otherwise, the comparative technique enables systematic and empirical
investigation of proposed correlations between variables (Keman and Pennings,
2014).
 Moreover, this design was utilized by the researchers to collect numerical
data to test the existing differences between the two variables of this study.
Specifically, it aimed to investigate the difference between pre-test and post-test
scores of the control and experimented group among grade seven (7) students of La
Filipina National High School.

Research Participants

The selected participants of this study were the 84 students who are
considered less knowledgeable about the fundamental operation of mathematics
subject of La Filipina Nation High School for School Year 2022-2023. They are the
learners that need assistance to gain more knowledge about the topic, which failed
to understand as based on the result of the assessment that the teacher given to
them during the first quarter period. A total of 84 students divided from the 13
sections (42 students will be considered as the controlled group and 42 students will
be considered as the experimented group) will be chosen through a stratified random
sampling method.

Stratified random sampling is a probability sampling technique by which the

researchers will choose participants of the research study out of a population based
on shared characteristics.

Research Instrument

The instrument used in this research was tests. According to Ary et al

(2006:201) test is a set of stimuli presented to individual in order to elicit responses
on the basis of which a numerical score can be assigned.

The researcher used test questionnaire as instrument to get the data. To

collect the data, the researchers gave students twice tests, those are follows:

a. Pre-test. The pre-test was aimed at measuring the students’ preliminary their
knowledge about basic mathematics and achievement before they entered
the tutorial. In this pre-test, the researchers give the students 30 items
questionnaire which includes addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division.
b. Post-test. The post-test was aimed at finding out the data needed to evaluate
after they got the experiment. Post-test was given to all students’ participants
 after the tutorial. In this post-test, the researchers give the students 30 items
questionnaire which includes addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division.

For interpretation of the data, the following grading scale, descriptor, and
remarks were used.

DESCRIPTOR GRADING SCALE REMARKS

Outstanding 90-100 PASSED
Very Satisfactory 85-89 PASSED
Satisfactory 80-84 PASSED
Fairly Satisfactory 75-79 PASSED
Did Not Meet Expectations Below 75 FAILED

Data Collection Procedure

The necessary data were gathered in a systematic procedure, which involves

the following:

Seeking permission to conduct the study. The researchers asked

permission to perform the study through a letter to the Dean of the institute of
education and principal of La Filipina National High School. It should be mentioned
that all communication letters were sent in accordance with the respective
authorities' safety and health procedures.

General orientation and seeking of consent from research respondents.

Before the conduct of data gathering, informed consent and parent was secured
from the participants. All the forms were signed as proofs of voluntary participation.
To avoid any potential risks to the participants, the collected data was treated with
the utmost confidentially.

Administration and retrieval of questionnaire. The study was conducted in

School Year 2022-2023. Before distributing the questionnaire, the researchers have
first elaborated the objectives of the activity for the respondents to understand its
purpose entirely. The respondents were given enough time to answer the
questionnaires. Also, the researchers spent time with the respondents during the
administration. Questionnaires and responses were retrieved right after the
respondent had answered them.
 Checking, collating, and processing the data. Finally, the gathered data
from the respondents were checked and consolidate in excel form. After that, the
researchers interpreted the results and gave further discussions.

Statistical Treatment of the Data

For a more comprehensive interpretation and analysis of the data, the

following statistical tool were utilized.

Mean. This was used to determine the level of students’ knowledge during the
pre-test and post-test.

Sample T-test. This was utilized to determine the difference between the pre-
test and post-test scores of the control and experimented group.

CHAPTER III

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

This chapter presents the results, analysis, and interpretation of the findings
of the study. The data are presented in both tabular and textual forms. The findings
relate to the research questions that guided the study.

Pre-test and Post-test Scores of Students in the Control Group

Table 1 presents the scores in pre-test and post-test of students in the control
group. As shown in the table below, the highest score obtained in the pre-test was
28, while 0 was the lowest. On the other hand, the highest score obtained in the
post-test was 30 and 4 being the lowest.

Table 1
Score of Students in Pre-test and Post Test (Control Group)

Student Pre-Test Post Test

S1 17 20
S2 17 25
S3 14 20
S4 14 20
S5 12 15
S6 15 21
S7 15 25
S8 22 21
S9 27 30
S10 27 30
S11 24 30
S12 28 30
S13 12 20
S14 10 15
S15 14 20
S16 4 18
S17 0 4
S18 0 11
S19 12 20
S20 12 20
S21 13 20
S22 13 20
S23 13 21
S24 25 30
S25 17 14
S26 17 14
S27 17 21
S28 17 21
S29 7 18
S30 20 30
S31 5 14
S32 17 22
S33 0 10
S34 9 21
S35 9 21
S36 13 20
S37 17 20
S38 17 20
S39 12 12
S40 12 12
S41 12 13
S42 12 11
Means 14.05 19.52

The result indicates that the students in control group obtained a total mean
score of 14.05 in the pre-test, while 19.52 in the post-test, which is a little higher.

Pre-test and Post-test Scores of Students in the Experimented Group

Table 2 presents the scores in pre-test and post-test of students in the

experimented group. As shown in the table below, the highest score obtained in the
pre-test was 25, while 0 was the lowest. On the other hand, the highest score
obtained in the post-test was 30 and 18 being the lowest.

Table 2
Score of students in Pre-test and Post-test (Experimented Group)

Student Pre-Test Post Test

R1 21 30
R2 13 30
R3 12 30
R4 13 26
R5 15 28
R6 24 30
R7 10 24
R8 10 25
R9 13 25
R10 14 25
R11 14 26
R12 15 28
R13 10 21
R14 15 29
R15 15 28
R16 16 21
R17 16 21
R18 14 21
R19 16 21
R20 16 21
R21 15 19
R22 25 30
R23 25 30
R24 13 27
R25 19 20
R26 0 20
R27 2 20
R28 23 29
R29 23 30
R30 16 30
R31 20 25
R32 21 25
R33 4 20
R34 15 30
R35 22 30
R36 21 30
R37 11 25
R38 10 29
R39 12 29
R40 10 24
R41 20 30
R42 7 18
Mean 14.90 25.71

The result indicates that the experimental group of students who were
exposed to the intervention, which is the game-oriented activities and lecture
obtained a total mean score of 14.90 in the pre-test, and 25.71 in the post-test.
Moreover, the result showed that the scores of the experimental group were
remarkably better as compared to those students in the control group.

Level of Students’ Knowledge in the Experimented Group during the Pre-test

Table 3 summarizes the level of knowledge of students in the experimented

group during the pre-test. Among all the fundamental operations, the subtraction
obtained the highest mean of 4.95 with a standard deviation of 2.21, and a
percentage score of 50%. The addition on the other hand obtained the highest
percentage score with 51%. It is followed by the addition, multiplication, and division,
having the mean arrange in decreasing manner: 3.57, 3.5, and 2.88, with the
corresponding standard deviation of 1.98, 1.58, and 1.45, and percentage score of
51%, 50% and 48%, respectively. All the areas have a descriptive equivalent of did
not meet expectations.

Table 3
Level of student knowledge during Pre-Test (Experimented)
Percentage
SD Mean Descriptive Equivalent
Score
Addition 1.98 3.57 51% Did not meet expectations
Subtraction 2.21 4.95 50% Did not meet expectations
Multiplication 1.58 3.5 50% Did not meet expectations
Division 1.45 2.88 48% Did not meet expectations
Overall 5.83 14.9 50% Did not meet expectations

The overall result indicates that the level of students’ knowledge during the
pre-test in the experimented group did not meet the expectations, having a mean
score of 14.9, a standard deviation of 5.83, and a percentage score of 50%. This
indicates that the students during pre-test obtained a failed remark.
Level of Students’ Knowledge in the Experimented Group during the Post-test

Table 4 presents that level of students’ knowledge in the experimented group

during the post-test. As presented in the table below, the fundamental operation with
the highest mean of 8.38, with a standard deviation of 1.62 and a percentage score
of 84% is the subtraction, with a descriptive equivalent of very satisfactory. It is
followed by the addition with a mean of 6.55, a standard deviation of 0.80, and have
the highest percentage score of 94% with a descriptive equivalent of outstanding.
The same goes with the two remaining operations, multiplication, and division,
having a mean of 6.33 and 4.45, a standard deviation of 1.10 and 1.52, and a
percentage score of 90% and 74%, with a descriptive equivalent of outstanding and
did not meet expectations, respectively.

Table 4
Level of student knowledge during Post Test (Experimented)
Percentage
SD Mean Descriptive Equivalent
Score
Addition 0.80 6.55 94% Outstanding
Subtraction 1.62 8.38 84% Very Satisfactory
Multiplication 1.10 6.33 90% Outstanding
Division 1.52 4.45 74% Did not meet expectations
Overall 4.01 25.71 86% Very Satisfactory

The overall shows that the level of students’ knowledge during the post-test in
the experimented group is very satisfactory, with a total mean of 25.71, a standard
deviation of 4.01, and a percentage score of 86%. This indicates that after the
intervention was conducted, the students have remarkable performance, except in
the division area, which they performed poorly. The rest of the operations, the
students obtained a passed remark.

Level of Students’ Knowledge in Control Group during the Pre-test

Table 5 summarizes the level of students’ knowledge during the pre-test. As

presented in the table below, the fundamental operation obtained the highest mean
of 4.67 is the subtraction, having a standard deviation of 2.6. While the addition
obtained the highest percentage score of 50%, having a mean of 3.52 with a
standard deviation of 1.66. The same goes to the other operations, multiplication,
and division, having a mean arrange in decreasing manner: 3.26 and 2.6, and a
standard deviation of 1.74 and 1.62, and a percentage score of 47% and 43%. All
the operations have a descriptive equivalent of did not meet expectations.

Table 5
Level of student knowledge during Pre-Test (Control)
Percentage
SD Mean Descriptive Equivalent
Score
Addition 1.66 3.52 50% Did Not Meet Expectations
Subtraction 2.6 4.67 47% Did Not Meet Expectations
Multiplication 1.74 3.26 47% Did Not Meet Expectations
Division 1.61 2.6 43% Did Not Meet Expectations
Overall 6.73 14.05 47% Did Not Meet Expectations

The overall result shows that the level of students’ knowledge in the control
group during the pre-test did not meet expectations, having a total mean of 14.05
with a standard deviation of 6.73, and a percentage score of 47%. This indicates that
the students performed poorly and obtained a failed remark.

Level of Students’ Knowledge in the Control Group during the Post-test

Table 6 presents the level of students’ knowledge during the post-test. As
shown in the table below, among the fundamental operations, the subtraction
obtained the highest mean of 6.36, with a standard deviation of 2.45 and a
percentage score of 64%. It is followed by the addition, multiplication, and division,
having a mean arrange in decreasing manner: 5.62, 4.55, and 3.00, with a standard
deviation of 1.29, 1.95, and 1.59, and a percentage score of 80%, 65%, and 50%.
The result indicates that the addition obtained the highest percentage score. The
three operations, subtraction, multiplication, and division have a descriptive
equivalent of did not meet expectations, while the addition was found to be
satisfactory.

Table 6
Level of student knowledge during Post Test (Control)

Percentage
SD Mean Descriptive Equivalent
Score
Addition 1.29 5.62 80% Satisfactory
Subtraction 2.45 6.36 64% Did Not Meet Expectations
Multiplication 1.95 4.55 65% Did Not Meet Expectations
Division 1.59 3.00 50% Did Not Meet Expectations
Overall 6.07 19.52 65% Did Not Meet Expectations

The overall result shows that the level of students’ knowledge during the post-
test in the control group did not meet expectations, having mean score of 19.52, with
a standard deviation of 6.07, and a percentage score of 65%. The result indicates
that the students’ performance has little improvement as compared to their
performance in the pre-test, while they performed better in the addition. The results
enable students to obtain a failed remark.

Significant difference between Pre-Test and Post-Test of Control Group

Table 7 presents the result of the significant difference between the pre-test
and post-test scores of the control group.

Table 7
Significant difference between Pre-test and Post Test of Control Group

N Mean T Stat P-value Decision Decision on

on Ho Difference
Pre-test 42 14.04
Control Group -8.61 9.76E-11 Rejected Significant
Post-test 42 19.52

Based on the result of the significant difference of the pre-test and post-test
scores of the students in the control group, the T stat of -8.61 and p-value of 9.76E-
11<0.05 indicates that the null hypothesis will be rejected, since the p-value is less
than 0.05 level of significance.

Significant difference between Pre-test and Post-test of Experimented Group

Table 8 summarizes the results of the significant difference between pre-test

and post-test scores of the experimented group.

Table 8
Significant Difference between Pre-Test and Posttest of experimented group

N Mean T Stat P-value Decision on Decision on

Ho Difference
Pre Test 42 14.9
Control Group -14.24 1.82E-17 Rejected Significant
Post Test 42 25.71
 Based on the result of the significant difference of the pre-test and post-test
scores of the students in the experimented group, the T stat of -14.24 and p-value of
1.82E-17<0.05 implies that the null hypothesis will be rejected, since the p-value is
less than 0.05 level of significance.

Significant difference between the Control and Experimented Group

Table 9 presents the significant difference between the Control and

Experimented group. It can be seen from the table below that the mean difference
between the pre-test and post-test scores of the control and experimented group is -
5.48 and -10.80, respectively. The f-ratio is 29.00 with the p-value of 6.75E-07.

Table 9
Significant Difference between Control and experimented group

N Mean difference F P-value Decision on Decision on

between pre-test Ho Difference
and post test
Control Group 42 -5.48
29.00 6.75E-07 Rejected Significant
Experimented Group 42 -10.80

Based on the result, since the p-value of 6.75E-07 is less than 0.05 level of
significance, this implies that the null hypothesis will be rejected.
 CHAPTER IV

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This chapter summarizes the findings of this study. Recommendations are

also included in this chapter.

Summary of Findings

The following are the results from the data analysis and interpretations:

1. The data indicates that the level of knowledge in the control group during the pre-

test with a total mean of 14.05, a standard deviation of 6.73, and a percentage score

of 47% which still means that the students during the pre-test obtained a failed

remark and with the descriptive equivalent of did not meet the expectations. On the

other hand, the level of knowledge in the experimented group during the pre-test got

a descriptive equivalent of did not meet the expectations having a mean score of

14.9, a standard deviation of 5.83, and a percentage score of 50% means that they

obtained failed remark. The findings shows that both the controlled and

experimented group got a failed remark during the pre-test.

2. Furthermore, the result of the post-test of the controlled group got a descriptive

equivalent of 65% indicating that the student’s performance has little improvement as

compared to their performance in the pre-test and results still shows that students

obtain a failed remark. Meanwhile, the level of knowledge of the students in

experimented group after the post-test was very satisfactory with a total mean of

25.71, a standard deviation of 4.01, and a percentage score of 86% means that

students improve their level of knowledge in basic mathematics.

3. It revealed that there is a significant difference between the pre-test and post-test

of the control group indicating that the null hypothesis is rejected since the p-value

9.76E-11<0.05 is less than 0.05 level of significance meanwhile, the pre-test and

post-test of the experimented group imply that the null hypothesis is rejected since

the p-value 1.82E-17<0.05 is less than 0.05 level of significance therefore there is

significant difference.

Conclusion

Based on the presented results of this study, the researchers conclude

that:

1. The findings show that both the controlled and experimented group got a failed

remark during the pre-test. This indicates that there is a need to conduct an

intervention on experimented groups of students which is the game-oriented

activities and lecture on fundamental mathematics operation.

2. The findings indicate that the experimented groups of students after the

intervention was conducted, have a noticeable positive impact on their performance

in basic mathematics operations, with significant improvements observed based on

the different areas except on division which they poorly performed. Nonetheless, the

overall performance of the learners in the experimented group signifies that the

intervention is effective. In the meantime, the student’s knowledge in the controlled

group still did not meet the expectations after the conduct of the post-test.

3. Based on the findings, there is a significant difference between the students’ level

of knowledge on the basic fundamental operation before and after the intervention.

The majority of the post-test scores appear to be higher than the pre-test, indicating
that the students have indeed made improvement on the basic fundamental

operations.

Recommendation

The researcher suggests the following recommendations in light of the

aforementioned information and findings;

First and foremost, Department of Education (DepEd), they have the power to

help students in their studies by proposing more seminars, and trainings that will

help teachers to be fully equipped and knowledgeable in integrating interactive and

constructed educational task.

Secondly, teachers, they should incorporate gamified learning activities that

can certainly aid students in improving their abilities to comprehend the fundamental

operations of basic mathematics. In order to accommodate the students' varied

learning needs, abilities, and preferences, they should also tailor differentiated

instruction, which includes teaching methods, materials, and assessments.

As for the students, they are recommended to explore more about the

foundational concepts of basic mathematics. Practice and explore proper processes

and correction methods to reduce calculation errors. Lastly, they should participate in

various math-related school activities to hone skills in basic mathematical problem-

solving.
 References

Adiyia, M., & Ashton, M. (2017). RDI Comparative Research.

https://www.brandonu.ca/rdi/publication/rdicomparativeresearch2017/?fbclid=I
wAR0C2boo5X5iKjpc2fuLTnRoUL6saFjKWlUqGCUb63c8Omwh4Lv4i42GY
Alkan, V. (2013). Reducing Mathematics Anxiety: The Ways Implemented by
Teachers at Primary Schools. International J. Soc. Sci. & Education, 3, 3, 795
– 807.
http://ijsse.com/sites/default/files/issues/2013/v3i3/Paper-25.pdf
Bautista, G. (2012). PEMDAS and the Common Errors in the Order of Operations.
http://mathandmultimedia.com/2012/08/26/pemdas-common-errors/
Dela Cruz, J. K. B. & Lapinid, M. R. C. (2014, March). Students’ Difficulties in
Translating Worded Problems into Mathematical Symbols. DLSU Research
Congress 2014.
http://www.dlsu.edu.ph/conferences/dlsu_research_congress/2014/_pdf/pr
oceedings/LLI-I009-FT.pdf
Gafoor, A. K. & Abidha, K. (2015). Learner and Teacher Perception on Difficulties in
Learning and Teaching Mathematics: Some Implications. National Conference
on Mathematics Teaching- Approaches and Challenges, p234.
http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED568368.pdf
Galabo, N., Abellanosa, G. & Gembes, G. (2018). Mathematical Readiness of
Secondary School Students.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/327105911_Mathematical_Readines
s_of_Secondary_School_Student
Lee – Chua, Q. N. (2012, August 26). Even scientists suffer from math anxiety.
Philippine Daily Inquirer. http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/258226/even-scientists
suffer-frommath-anxiety
Madayag, A. (2011). Skillbook in Mathematics I (Master’s thesis). Osias Educational
Foundation, Balaoan, La Union.
McCombes, S. (2019). Descriptive Research. Scribbr
https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/descriptive-research
Medoff, L. (2013). Getting beyond "I Hate Math!". Educational Leadership, 44–49.
https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5961&cont
ext=etd
Memnun, D. S., & Akkaya, R. (2010). Primary school seventh grade students'
opinions about the mathematics course. Theoretical Pedagogy/ Kuramsal
Egitimbilim, 3(2), 100-117.
Snedecor, George W. and Cochran, William G. (1989). Statistical Methods, Eighth
Edition, Lowa State University Press.
Yayla, O., & Bangir-Alpan, G. (2019). Teachers' and students' opinions on the
causes of student difficulties with mathematics. Journal of Research in
Education and Society, 6(2), 401-425
APPENDICES
 APPENDIX A

VALIDATION SHEET FOR THE RESEARCH QUESTIONNAIRES

 APPENDIX B

Test Questionnaires
 APPENDIX C

PARENT’S CONSENT AND STUDENT’S ASSENT FORM