Master's Thesis (Jo Marie Garcia) - 015022

1
CHAPTER I
THE PROBLEM AND ITS SCOPE
Introduction
Education plays a significant role in the lives of men. It has been the
platform of change to gain achievement and prosperity. In this contemporary
society, individuals should be educated enough to face challenges and
endeavors to stay alive with peace and harmony. Consequently, most
countries pay high regard to education. Philippines, for instance, has been
allocating the biggest budget for education. This urges Philippines to extend
its full commitment to develop its educational system to attain progress.
Basically, the Philippine educational system gives more emphasis on
mathematics needs. The Philippine Basic Education Act of 2001 clearly stated
that Filipino learners should be equipped with basic competencies in
numeracy, critical thinking and learning skills. With this, schools should equip
students with the relevant knowledge and skills in mathematics and provide
activities which would hone their problem solving skills, communicating and
reasoning ability for them to be globally competitive in nature.
However, it is sad to note that the quality of Philippines’ education
concerning mathematics is declining. It is evident in the results of national and
even international examinations all over the world. For example, Trends in
International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS, 2010) survey showed

2
that the Philippines were at the bottom three with an average lower than the
median. This shows that Filipino students know little in mathematics compared
to students in other countries. Also, National Achievement Tests (NAT) show
test results which were disappointing and alarming. Even the National Career
Assessment Examinations (NCAE) indicate that there is a large number of
students having low mathematical ability. Hence, fewer students were inclined
to fields related to mathematics. This confirms that many students find
mathematics as a difficult subject and leads them to be uncomfortable and
gives little effort in studying the said subject matter.
Several studies were conducted to resolve this problem. Probably, one
of the biggest transformations done by the government to resolve this problem
is changing the curriculum from 2002 Basic Education Curriculum (BEC) to
K+12 Basic Education Curriculum Program – a curriculum program patterned
in other developing countries. In reality, the curriculum in both Basic and
Higher Education is changing. However, this issue is also attributed to several
factors. Teacher factor is one of the most seen factors that affect the quality of
education. The quality of learning depends on how teachers develop
instructional practices for them to contribute to the optimum learning of
students. Meanwhile, the government is doing its best to maintain its
objectives of improving quality personnel in the teaching profession. This also
implies that the Philippine government recognizes the fact that the quality of
education depends on the instructional practices done by teachers.

3
Instructional practices are those applications that fuel effective and
efficient classroom interaction to drive students on their journey of discovery in
a learning experience. Instructional practices also depend on what the teacher
brings to the classroom. Professional competence is believed to be a crucial
factor in classroom and school practices (Campbell et at., 2004; Baumert and
Kunter, 2006).
Improvement of students’ achievement is a combination of several
factors. Teachers equipped with precise instructional practices promotes
critical thinking and problem solving skills among students and considered the
most influential factor that would help them not just in their academic
performance but also in deciding the course they would take in college.
Exposure of students to problems which apply real world situations, including
those problems they would encounter in the specific courses they would take
in college would help them in deciding what they want to pursue.
Hence, it is considered essential to determine the degree of how
teachers’ profile affects their instructional practices in teaching mathematics. It
is also important to understand how the dimensions of instructional practices
the teachers use relate with each other.
This inspires the researcher to undertake this research study primarily
to assess the instructional practices used among the public secondary school
teachers of Talibon II district, Bohol in teaching mathematics. The researcher

4
is also motivated to study this research to help develop the quality of teaching
mathematics and to give significant knowledge and valuable understandings in
creating learning more meaningful to students.
Theoretical Background
This study is anchored on the following theories.
Robert M. Gagne’s Theory of Instruction. This theory stresses that
instruction consists of a set of events external to the learner designed to
support the internal process of learning. Gagne (1985) states that the events
of instruction are designed to make it possible for learners to proceed from
where they are to the achievement on the capability identified as the target
objective. Gagne formulated the Nine Events of Instruction (1992) namely:
gaining attention, informing students of the objectives, stimulating recall of the
prior learning, presenting content, providing learning guidance, eliciting
performance, providing feedback about performance, assessing performance,
and enhancing retention and transfer of learning.
With this, instructional practices in teaching mathematics may mean
offering support for the development of learning mathematics such as
articulating what mathematical ideas that the students are expected to learn,
incorporating tasks, roles and interactions consistent with investigative
mathematics in lessons, and making appropriate connections to other areas of
mathematics, other disciplines and to the real world contexts.

5
Lev Vygotsky’s Sociocultural Cognitive Theory. This theory states
that cognitive development is dependent on one’s interaction with those
around him or her. Vygostsky believed that activities take place in human
settings and cannot be understood apart from it. He added that individual
learns or acquires new skills and information through scaffolding. This is the
process wherein an adult (parents or teachers) facilitates and gradually
allowing students to do more on their own. He called this area of learning as
zone of proximal development (ZPD).
Albert Bandura’s Social Learning Theory. According to Bandura
(1993), individual learns specific cognitive structures or acquire social
behaviors from observing the behavior of others. It also embodies the
principles of vicarious reinforcements where reinforcement obtained by the
model is sufficient to reinforce behavior. This implies that when teacher
demonstrates a skill or solves a mathematics problem in front of the students,
the latter will likely to learn from the demonstration shown by their teacher.
Jerome Bruner’s Discovery Learning Theory (1915). This theory
asserts that learning is effective when it progresses through three stages of
intellectual development namely: enactive, iconic and symbolic. Enactive
means that one learns through actions on objects, iconic means one learn
through model and pictures, and symbolic means one learns through abstract
terms. This theory also states that teachers assist the students, see the
6
problem as the learners see it, and provide information consistent with the
learners’ perspectives.
This theory suggests that teachers should provide instructional
practices that would help make an independent learner who makes
corrections and adjustments in his mathematics problem-solving strategy as a
result of errors perceived and to be able to defend his mathematical ideas or
procedures.
John Dewey’s Theory of Experiential Learning. This is a philosophy
and methodology in which educators purposefully engage with students in
direct experience and focused reflection in order to increase knowledge,
develop skills and clarify values. Experiential learning also referred to as
learning through action, learning by doing, learning through experience and
learning through discovery and exploration. This theory also states that
experience is the best source of learning.
Accordingly, Greeno (2003) viewed learning mathematics as an active
process. He recognized that students construct their learning through
experience by engaging in meaningful and purposeful activities.
Therefore, there is a need for teachers to provide various instructional
practices in teaching mathematics in order to produce worthwhile learning
experiences to students. This could be possible through giving tasks which
stimulate complex and non-algorithmic thinking, encouraging students to

7
search for multiple solution strategies and employ multiple representations
and tools, and letting them think beyond the immediate problem.
Legal Bases
To ensure the rights and welfare of every Filipino, several laws are
being regulated in the country. Every citizen is given equal privilege to claim
licit security and authority they are allowed to have. The 1987 Philippine
Constitution Article XVI, Sections 1 and 2 state that:
The State shall protect and promote the right of all citizens to quality
education at all levels and shall take appropriate steps to make such
education accessible to all.
The State shall establish, maintain and support a complete, adequate,

and integrated system of education relevant to the needs of the people
and society.
The above stated sections of the constitution mandate quality education
for all in line with the current needs of the citizens and the country. It clearly
stipulates that the State shall provide the necessary equipment in order to
offer education to every individual and that educational institutions play a
significant role in the development of every learner. The Department of
Education reinforces the above stated sections with their mission: to protect
and promote the right of every Filipino to quality, equitable, culture-based, and
complete basic education.” Therefore, schools must provide learning

8
opportunities that will develop one person as a whole and ensure that learning
conditions must contribute to individual’s optimum learning.
According to Education Act of 1982, Section 2, the students in schools
have the rights to receive, primarily through competent instruction, relevant
quality education with national goals and conducive to their full development
as a person with human dignity. In relation to this, the objective of all
academes should be directed to providing the learners with the relevant
knowledge, skills and attitude that will make them morally upright, intellectual,
skilful and productive citizens. Moreover, mathematics teachers should
carefully plan suitable instructional practices since students will likely develop
their mathematical abilities and skills if they receive competent instruction and
support from their teachers.
In addition to this, Section 16 of Education Act of 1982 states that:
Every teacher shall be accountable for the efficient and effective

attainment of specified learning objectives pursuance of national
development goals within the limits of available resources.
In relation to this, the teacher is obliged to select the ways and
practices of instruction corresponding to the requirements and objectives for
each learner entrusted to his care. The teacher plays a vital role in attaining
quality education since he is seen to be the one who is responsible for
effective and proficient realization of the teaching-learning process. Thus,

9
teachers need to be innovative and resourceful by using the materials at hand
or present in his community.
Article III, Section 1 of the Code of Ethics for Professional
Teachers emphasizes that a teacher is a facilitator of learning and of the
development of the youth; he shall, therefore, render the best service by
providing an environment conducive to such learning growth. In a
mathematics class, teachers must provide the students with a nurturing
learning environment to help them gain more learning. Likewise, students
must feel that their answers are valued and their opinions about certain
mathematical ideas are considered.
Related Literature
Mathematics is a form of reasoning. Thinking mathematically consists
of thinking in a logical manner, formulating and testing conjectures, making
sense of things, and forming or justifying judgments, inferences, and
conclusions. We demonstrate mathematical behavior when we recognize and
describe patterns, construct physical and conceptual models of phenomena,
create symbol systems to help us represent, manipulate, and reflect on ideas,
and invent procedures to solve problems (Battista, 1999).
Concurrently, mathematics is foundational in many ways that informs
our decisions in areas of our lives. Teaching and learning mathematics is at
the heart of education. Learning mathematics aims to link school to everyday

10
life, provide skill acquisition, prepare students for the workforce, and foster
mathematical thinking. Mathematics involves learning to solve problems,
investigate, represent, and communicate mathematical concepts and ideas,
and making connections to everyday life (Ontario Ministry of Education, 2005).
Every individual needs mathematics regardless of gender, socio-
economic status, cultural background or religion. It is clear that mathematical
knowledge is used in dealing with most of our daily activities like buying,
selling, cooking, measuring distances, calculating time and a range of daily
tasks. Thus, it makes our lives organized and prevents chaos.
Mathematics can be noted to be the cradle of all creations, without
which, the world cannot move an inch. Be it a farmer, a carpenter, or a
mechanic, a shopkeeper, a doctor, an engineer or a scientist, a musician or a
magician, everyone needs mathematics in their day-to-day life. Moreover,
there are qualities which are nurtured by mathematics such as power of
reasoning, creativity, abstract or spatial thinking, critical thinking, problem-
solving ability and even effective communication skills (Guwani News, August
2015).
In today’s driven world, educational institutions continuously adopt with
the change of technology and the needs of society in their everyday living. In
the Philippines, it was reported that there is a high demand of jobs waiting for
graduates who would be pursuing careers such as mathematics but only half
11
of the demand were produced as graduates in this field. The low performance
of Philippines in the Trends in Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) in
2003 and 2010 strengthen the need to attend to the problem in the
performance in mathematics (IJSBAR, 2014).
To address the need to develop mathematics performance of students,
the Philippine government encourages schools to improve mathematics
instruction. Employment of teaching strategy is one of the factors seen to be of
great help in the students’ learning process.
Instructional Practices in Teaching Mathematics
Student-centered instructional practices in teaching are employed in a
mathematics class more than the traditional, chalk-board method of teaching.
It was mentioned by the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM)
in 2000 that mathematics education needs to be employed by reformed
teacher instructional practices. It was stated that the use of logical and
mathematical evidence to verify results must be encouraged rather than
relying on teacher as authority during classroom instructions. Also, the
implementation of emphasizing mathematical reasoning, focusing on
conjecture, inventing, problem solving, and making connections among ideas
and applications of mathematics must be preferred rather than memorizing
procedures, mechanical answer finding, and seeing mathematics as isolated

12
concepts and procedures (Journal for Research in Mathematics Education,
2010).
Teachers’ competency in employing variety of instructional practices in
teaching is one of the key factors to achieve the aims of education (Tindugan,
Delia T., 2005). According to Prisciliano Bauzon (2009) in attaining the
objectives of educational experience, greater attention must be given to
higher-level knowledge outcomes such as understanding of concepts and
principles, problem solving, interpreting data and the ability to use tools of
inquiry. Mathematics teacher should use cooperative learning to develop and
enhance both basic and integrated mathematical process skills among
students (IJSBAR, 2014). Thus, it is important that schools see to it that
mathematics teachers are equipped and well trained to execute using variety
of instructional practices effectively in their classes.
Robert Gagne (1992) proposed a series of events which follow a
systematic instructional design process that share the behaviourist approach
to learning, with a focus on the outcomes or behaviors of instruction or
training. Each of the nine events of instruction is highlighted to help implement
the events in teacher’s instruction. These nine events of instruction are in
conjunction with Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy to design engaging and
meaningful instruction.
13
The following nine steps have been adapted from Gagne, Briggs and
Wager (1992).
1. Gain attention of the students. Guarantee that the learners are ready
to learn and participate in activities by presenting an incitement to gain their
responsiveness.
2. Inform students of the objectives. This is needed in order to help
students understand and appreciate what they are to learn during the class.
Teachers should provide objectives before the instruction begins.
3. Stimulate recall of prior learning. Help students comprehend and
understand new information by relating it to something they already know or
something they are already experienced.
4. Present the content. Use methods to present and cue lesson content
to provide more effective, efficient instruction. Organize and classify content in
a meaningful way. Provide explanations after demonstrations.
5. Provide learning guidance. Advise students of strategies to aid them
in learning content and of resources available.
6. Elicit performance (practice). Activate student to help them
internalize new skills and knowledge and confirm correct understanding of
these concepts.
14
7. Provide feedback. Providing immediate feedback of students’
performance evaluates and simplifies learning.
8. Assess performance. In order to appraise the effectiveness of the
instructional events, you must test whether the expected learning outcomes
have been achieved. Performance should be based on previously stated
objectives.
9. Enhance retention and transfer to the job. To assist in helping
students develop expertise, they must be able to internalize new knowledge
and apply skills.
Gagne’s Nine Events of Instruction can aid in building the foundation in
preparing and delivering instructional content. Preferably, one should prepare
course goals and learning objectives before implementing the nine events.
These nine events of instruction can then be modified to fit both the content to
be presented and students’ level of knowledge.
Many studies have described aspects of instructional practices which
are related to effective classroom learning and student outcomes (Brophy and
Good, 1986; Wang, Haertel and Walberg, 1993). Close monitoring, adequate
pacing and classroom management as well as clarity of presentation, well-
structured lessons and informative and encouraging feedback (known as key
aspects of direct instruction) have generally been shown to have a positive
impact on student achievement.

15
Accordingly, another factor considered in the success of curriculum is
the availability of instructional materials used in teaching. The aim of
education is to determine the curriculum, the kind of teaching procedure and
instructional materials that should be used in the classroom. The curriculum
has to mean all the experience of the child in and out of the school for which
the school is responsible (Bauzon, Prisciliano, 2009).
It has been demonstrated that quality of instruction is fundamental to
student learning. For instance, Wang, Haertel and Warburg (1993) showed
that the classroom management and classroom interactions had effects similar
in size to students’ cognitive competencies and their home environment.
Likewise, when reviewing contemporary research on school effectiveness,
Scheerens and Bosker (1997) concluded that the characteristics of instruction
have a greater effect on student achievement than those of the school
environment. However, researchers agree that there is no single, well-defined
best way of teaching. The effectiveness of classroom practice is domain-
specific as well as goal-specific; it depends on the cultural context and
professional traditions.
Research shows that the link between classroom behavior and
instruction is a powerful one. Certain instructional practices are associated
with increased task-appropriate behaviour. Effective instructional practices are
the key to achieving desired student outcomes for developmental programs
(Student Achievement Division, 2011).

16
In a study made by Dr.Yasemin Copur Gencturk (2012) of the
University of Illinois for her doctorate degree, she mentioned four different
dimensions of instructional practices in teaching mathematics. Below are the
following dimensions:
1. Lesson Design and Implementation. This dimension includes what
level the teacher carefully plans and organizes lessons, incorporates tasks or
roles and interactions consistent with investigative math, creates lessons with
problem-centered structure, and clearly articulates what mathematical ideas
and procedures that the students were expected to learn. Similarly, it identifies
what level the teacher appears confident in his ability to teach and applies
connection to other areas of mathematics, to other disciplines, or to the real
world context.
2. Mathematical Discourse and Sense Making. This dimension
focuses more on students’ behaviour during their class. This aspect comprises
what level the students ask questions to clarify their learning of mathematical
ideas or procedures, listen intently and actively to the ideas of others,
challenge ideas which seems to be invalid, defend mathematical ideas or
procedures, and draw upon variety of method (verbal, visual, numerical,
algebraic or graphical) to represent and communicate their mathematical
ideas or procedures. Likewise, it aims to identify what level teacher and
students engage in meaning making at the end of the activity or instruction

17
and what level does the teacher productively probe mathematics in students’
responses.
3. Task Implementation. This dimension gives attention to the tasks
given by the teacher to students. It includes knowing on what level the teacher
give tasks which focus on understanding important and relevant mathematical
concepts and relationships, stimulate complex, non-algorithmic thinking,
create mathematical productivity among students and encourage them to
search for multiple solutions to problems. Equally, it determines on what level
the teacher gives tasks which encourage students to think beyond the
immediate problem and make connections to other related mathematical
concepts.
4. Classroom Culture. This dimension focuses on the learning
environment of the students. This context identifies what level do active
participation is being encouraged and valued, respect for students’ ideas,
questions, and contributions are displayed, and interactions reflect a
productive working relationship between teacher and the students. It also
emphasizes on what level the teachers treated wrong answers as worthwhile
learning opportunities, the willingness of students to discuss their thinking and
reasoning skills.
In the study of Dr. Gencturk, he found out that teachers created more
positive response when their mathematical knowledge increased.

18
Mathematical knowledge can be increased through teachers’ development,
such as certification, years in teaching, professional development activities,
and completing mathematics content and method courses (Borko et al., 1992;
Hill et al., 2008).
In a research study conducted by Havat Mohamed Abdalla Al Hosani
(2015) of the United Arab Emirates University, he gives recommendations
related to teachers’ instructional practices. He stated that teachers should
stimulate students towards production and innovation by having them involved
in producing useful projects such as creating educational boards or performing
scientific experiments to be used in other subjects to enhance the correlation
between the different subjects which is definitely a positive way to use different
thinking skills. Teachers should design activities and tasks that require
students to make effective use of higher-order thinking skills such as finding a
solution to a specific problem or thinking deeply about what they have
implemented in class. He added that teachers should encourage students to
express themselves freely and discuss the most important issues by
organizing debates and seminars.
Sabean and Bavaria (2005) have synthesized a list of the most
significant principles related to mathematics teaching and learning. This list
includes the expectations that teachers know what students need to learn
based on what they know, teachers ask questions focused on developing
conceptual understanding, experiences and prior knowledge provide the basis

19
for learning mathematics with understanding, students provide written
justification for problem solving strategies, problem based activities focus on
concepts and skills, and that the mathematics curriculum emphasizes
conceptual understanding. Concurrently, best practices for implementing
effective standards-based math lessons should be followed according to
Sabean and Bavaria (2005). These include students’ engagement is at a high
level, tasks are built on students’ prior knowledge, scaffolding takes place,
making connections to concepts, procedures, and understanding, high-level
performance is modelled, students are expected to explain thinking and
meaning, students self-monitor their progress, and appropriate amount of time
is devoted to tasks (Teaching Today, 2005).
Friend (2006) conducted a study and found that the teacher’s sex did
not have a significant impact on their instructional practices. Johannesson
(2004) argued that there is no evidence that male teachers did any better than
female teacher in regards to their instructional practices specifically in
administering discipline. This finding is also in line with Kong (2008) who
declared that there is no relationship between teachers’ sex and their
effectiveness as teachers.
However, the studies of Arbuckle and Williams (2003) declared that
male teachers perform better than female teachers in their instructional
practices especially in areas asserting authority and using meaningful voice
tones during teaching. This is still in contrast with the study conducted by
20
Mwamwenda and Mwamwenda (2002). For them female teachers performed
better than their male counterparts.
In a study conducted by Shirley M. Yates (2006) of the Flinders
University, Adeliade, Australia, she found out that teacher’s age, qualifications
and length of mathematics teaching experience were not significantly related
to their teaching practices.
Kong (2005) discovered that unmarried and married teachers have
higher effectiveness on their instructional practices compared to those
separated and divorced. He added on the year 2009 that single teachers who
do not have any family issues are more dedicated and committed to their jobs.
For Ayeop (2003), married teachers have higher job satisfaction compared to
single teachers, separated or divorced.
Goldhaber and Brewer (2000) found a weak positive association
between high school achievement gains in mathematics and teachers with a
master'’ degree in mathematics versus those without a master’s degree or a
mathematics-related bachelor’s degree. A similar study found no ignificant
evidence of an impact of advanced degrees on achievement gains (Rowan,
Correnti, and Miller, 2002).
Figure 1 shows how the researcher will go through the whole study.
21
Theories
Legal Bases
 Instructional Theory
(Robert M. Gagne)  1987 Philippine Constitution
Article XIV,
 Constructivist Theory Sections 1 and 2
(Jean Piaget)
 Discovery Learning Theory  Education Act of 1982
(Jerome Bruner) (Batas Pambansa 232)
Sections 2 and 16
 Experiential Learning Theory
(John Dewey)  Code of Ethics for Professional
 Social Learning Theory Teachers Article III, Section1
(Albert Bandura)
INPUT
Data on:
INPUT
 Profile of Mathematics Teachers
a. Age d. Highest Educational Attainment
b. Sex e. Number of Years in Teaching
c. Civil Status f. School Assignment
 Teachers’ Instructional Practices in Teaching Mathematics in the
Dimensions of Lesson Design and Implementation, Mathematical
Discourse and Sense Making, Task Implementation, and Classroom
Culture
PROCESS
Statistical Treatment of Data

 Frequency
 Percentage
 Weighted Mean
 Composite Mean
 Chi-square
 Analysis of Variance
 Scheffe’s Test
Analysis and Interpretation of Data, Summary of Findings,
Conclusions and Recommendations
PROC
Recommendations
22
ESS
OUTPUT
Figure 1: Research Flow

THE PROBLEM
Statement of the Problem
The main purpose of the study is to determine the instructional
practices in teaching mathematics among the public secondary schools of
Talibon II district, Talibon, Bohol during the school year 2016-2017. The
findings of the study will serve as the basis of formulating recommendations to
address the phenomenon.
Specifically, it sought to answer the following sub-problems:
1. What is the profile of the teachers in terms of:
1.1. age;
1.2. sex;
1.3. civil status;
1.4. highest educational attainment;
1.5. number of years in teaching; and
1.5. school assignment?

23
2. What are the instructional practices in teaching mathematics among the
respondents in the following dimensions:
2.1. lesson design and implementation;
2.2. mathematical discourse and sense making;
2.3. task implementation; and
2.4. classroom culture?
3. Is there a significant degree of relationship between the profile of the
respondents and instructional practices in teaching mathematics?
4. Is there a significant degree of variance on the instructional practices in
teaching mathematics when the respondents are grouped together
according to their school assignment?
5. Is there a significant degree of variance in the different dimensions of
instructional practices in teaching mathematics?
6. What recommendations can be offered based on the findings of the
study?
Null Hypotheses
This study sought to either accept or reject the following null
hypotheses to be tested at 0.05 level of significance.

24
Ho1: There is no significant degree of relationship between the profile of the
teachers and instructional practices in teaching mathematics.
Ho2: There is no significant degree variance on the instructional practices in
according to their school assignment.
Ho3: There is no significant degree of variance in the different dimensions of
instructional practices in teaching mathematics.
Significance of the Study
The researcher looks forward that the data collected and results of this
study will give some benefits to the following group of people:
Department of Education (DepEd). The findings of this study will
provide valuable inputs to the department which will serve as an instrument to
continue improving mathematics education and will contribute to the effective
and efficient learning of students.
School Administrators. This study will give them awareness about the
instructional practices of their teachers in teaching mathematics. This study
will also contribute meaningful ideas to formulate and implement plans in
addressing concerns and dilemma for the improvement of mathematics
teachers’ instructional practices.

25
Mathematics Teachers. This study will inspire teachers to undertake
significant adjustments to be more effective in their instruction to continuously
help students improve their mathematics performance. This will also help them
on how to develop and be equipped with effective instructional practices in
teaching, and this will serve as their guide or reference for the improvement of
their classroom instruction.
Students. The students will gain more achievements when the
teachers are efficient in various aspects of the teaching-learning process. This
will also guide them to have better performance in mathematics and develop
profound appreciation towards the subject.
Parents. This study will help the parents to establish more support and
guidance in alliance with the teachers to gratify the desires of the students in
attaining more learning and better performance in mathematics.
Future Researchers. This study will motivate future researchers to
expand or replicate this study and undergo further research on the
instructional practices in a bigger scope. This will also help them to conduct
further studies that create more avenues for the improvement of quality
education.
26
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Design
This study utilized the descriptive normative survey method of research
in data gathering. It employed the universal purposive sampling technique.
The method is purposive since it intentionally chose public secondary school
teachers who are teaching mathematics subject. It is universal because all
public secondary school teachers of Talibon II district, Talibon, Bohol handling
mathematics subject were considered as respondents. It utilized descriptive
survey questionnaires which determined the respondents’ profile and their
instructional practices.
Environment
The Municipality of Talibon is a progressive town on the northern coast
of the island of Bohol in the Philippines, 114.8 kilometers via Tagbilaran North
Road, 149.55 kilometers via Tagbilaran East Road, 108.83 kilometers via
Loay Interior Road. Before it was established into an independent municipality
in 1830, the town was part of Inabanga.
(http://www.bohol-philippines.com/talibon.html).
27
The locales of the study are the six public secondary schools in the
second district of Talibon, Bohol namely: Calituban High School (CHS),
Cataban Integrated School (CIS), Mayor Catalino Y. Casoyla Memorial High
School (MCYCMHS), Ponciana E. Leoligao High School (PELHS), San Jose
National High School (SJNHS) and Zosimo A. Gulle Memorial National High
School (ZAGMNHS). CHS, CIS and MCYCMHS are located in three different
islands of Talibon, Bohol while the other three schools PELHS, SJNHS and
ZAGMNHS are located in the mainland of Talibon.
Calituban High School (CHS) is one of the six public secondary schools
of Talibon. Calituban is an island in Talibon, approximately 12 kilometers
away from Talibon port. The school is reachable by a pump boat which could
travel 45 minutes to 1 hour depending on the weather condition. The school
was founded on 1999 and has a total land area of 592 sq. m. At present, the
school offers only junior high school since it’s not a recipient of senior high
school due to its limited area. There are a total of 18 teachers including the
school in-charge, Mr. Cecilio M. Albios, with 512 students.
Cataban Integrated School (CIS) is the only school located in the island
of Cataban, Talibon, Bohol 9.5 kilometers away from the town proper. The
school offers only junior high school since it has a limited area and population.
The school is headed by its elementary school principal, Mrs. Ana Marie F.
Valmoria. There are a total of 13 high school teachers in the said school, 4 of
28
them are mathematics teachers who became the respondents of the study.
The total number of students in the high school department is 315.
Mayor Catalino Y. Casoyla Memorial High School (MCYCMHS) is
located near the seaside of Suba, Talibon, Bohol which is the center of Jao
island. The school is 7.5 kilometers away from the town proper and can be
reached by a pump boat around 30 minutes depending on the weather
condition. Now, the school has a population of 776 students with 30 teachers
and 1 principal. The school has a total of 5 building including senior high
school building with 6 classrooms. Senior high is being offered in the school
with different tracks. It specializes Home Economics (HE), Agri-Fishery Arts,
and Communications Technology (ICT) as strands in the Technical Vocational
Livelihood (TVL) track.
Ponciana E. LEoligao High School (PELHS) was founded on 2008 with
Mr. Artiaga as its school in-charge having 99 students and 3 teachers. The
school is located in San Francisco, Talibon, Bohol which is approximately 3
kilometers away from the town proper. It is accessible only to vehicles with up
to 4 wheels such as cars and vans since the road 500 meters from the
barangay road is narrow and not cemented. Now, the school is being
managed by its school head, Mr. Julius I. Maestre, with 25 teachers, 5 of
which became the respondents of the study, and 724 enrolees in junior and
senior high school. The school offers academic and technical vocational
29
livelihood tracks. They offer General Academic Strand (GAS), Home
Economics (HE), and Information and Communications Technology (ICT).
One of the locales of the study is the biggest public school outside
Tagbilaran City – the San Jose National High School (SJNHS) in Talibon,
Bohol. The school is accessible by all public and private vehicles which is
approximately 2 km away from the town proper. The school currently has 120
teaching staff and 1 principal, Mrs. Marcela R. Bautista. The school offers
senior high school which focuses on almost all tracks. It has a total of 12
buildings with 46 classrooms. The school has complete facilities and
equipment which contribute to students’ learning, no wonder why SJNHS
became the only independent school in Talibon. Bohol. The school has a total
of 2,525 students; 2,104 in the junior high school and 421 in the senior high
school.
Zosimo A. Gulle Memorial National High School was founded on 1977
in honor of Hon. Zosimo A. Gulle. It is located in Bagacay, Talibon, Bohol
which is 13 kilometers away from the town proper and the third barangay
before the town of Getafe, Bohol. It is reachable to all kinds of public and
private vehicles. The school is being managed by Mr. Edwin S. Corbita, its
Principal I, with a total of 45 teachers, 5 of these became the respondents of
the study. There are a total of 888 students in the junior and senior high
school. The school offers General Academic Strand (GAS), Wellnes Massage
(NC II), and Information and Communications Technology (ICT) strands.

30
(MAP OF TALIBON)
31
Respondents
The respondents of this study were all the teachers of district II of
Talibon, Bohol handling mathematics subject during the school year 2016-
2017. The teachers handling mathematics subject in the whole district of
Talibon II were chosen because there is a limited number of teachers
assigned in each school of the said district. The nine (9) male and twenty five
(25) female teachers from the six (6) public secondary schools in Talibon II
district became the respondents of this study.
Table I
Respondents of the Study
Respondents / School F % Rank

CHS 6 17.65 2
CIS 4 11.76 5
MCYCMHS 3 8.82 6
PELMHS 5 14.71 3.5
SJNHS 11 32.35 1
ZAGMNHS 5 14.71 3.5
Total 34 100.00
Instrument
32
This study made use of an instrument patterned from a questionnaire
on teachers’ instructional practices in teaching mathematics – the
Mathematics Instructional Practices Questionnaire (MIPQ) by Dr. Yasemin
Copur Gencturk (2012) of the University of Ilinois about teachers’
mathematical knowledge for teaching, instructional practices and student
outcomes. It is composed of thirty nine (39) items divided into four (4)
dimensions namely: lesson design and implementation which has fourteen
(14) items, mathematical discourse and sense making which has twelve (12)
items, task implementation which has six (6) items, and classroom culture
which has seven (7) items. The researcher used a modified four (4) – point
Likert scale.
The following are the parameters for the instructional practices in
teaching mathematics.
Parameters / Interpretation
Symbol Description Meaning Weight
Scale Symbol Description
A Always The condition is felt all the time. 4 3.25 – 4.00 HP Highly Practiced
The condition is felt at certain Moderately

S Sometimes 3 2.50 – 3.24 MP
times. Practiced
Slightly
R Rarely The condition is seldom felt. 2 1.75 – 2.49 SP
Practiced
N Never The condition is never felt. 1 1.00 – 1.74 NP Never Practiced
Gathering Data Procedures

33
Phase I: Preliminary
The researcher secured permission from the principals or school heads
of the different public secondary schools of Talibon II district to conduct the
study through formal letter signed by the researcher, thesis adviser, and the
director of graduate school and professional studies.
Phase II: Distribution
After the permission was granted, the researcher then requested the
school heads to distribute the questionnaire forms to the intended
respondents.
Phase III: Retrieval
Each respondent was given enough time to answer the questionnaire.
After which, the accomplished questionnaires were retrieved immediately for
tabulation and analysis.
Statistical Treatment of Data
This study made use of the following statistical tools:
Percentage
To determine the profile of the respondents in terms of age, sex, civil
status, highest educational attainment, and number of years in service, the
percentage equivalent of each frequency was computed using the formula:

34
F
P= x 100
N
where P=¿Percentage
F=¿ Frequency
N=¿ Number of Respondents
Weighted Mean
For statistical purposes, the responses on instructional practices in
teaching mathematics were categorized into Highly Practiced, Moderately
Practiced, Slightly Practiced and Never Practiced. Hence, the weighted mean
was used.
WM=
∑ FX
N
where WM=¿ Weighted Mean
∑ FX=¿ Summation of Frequency
N=¿ Number of Respondents
To interpret the weighted mean the following scale was used:
Scale Symbol Description

3.25 – 4.00 HP Highly Practiced
2.50 – 3.24 MP Moderately Practiced
1.75 – 2.49 SP Slightly Practiced
1.00 – 1.74 NP Never Practiced
Composite Mean
35
To determine the over-all level of instructional practices of teachers, the
composite mean was used. The same scale above will be used in interpreting
the composite mean bearing the formula:
CM =
∑ WX
N
where CM =¿ Composite mean
∑ WX =¿ Summation of Weighted Means
N=¿ Number of Items
Chi-Square Test
To determine the relationship between teachers’ profile and
instructional practices in teaching mathematics, the Chi-square test was
employed by using the formula:

2
( f 0−f e )
x =∑
2
fe
2
where x =¿ Chi-square
f 0=¿ observed frequency
f e =¿ expected frequency
The obtained chi-square value was compared against the tabular value
at 0.05 level of significance.
Analysis of Variance (One-Way ANOVA)

36
To test if there is a significant degree of variance among the different
dimensions of instructional practices in teaching mathematics, and
when the teachers are grouped according to their school assignment,
the Analysis of Variance was utilized.
Scheffe’s Test
To further test as to where the difference lies when there is a significant
degree of variance, Scheffe’s test was employed. It shows multiple
comparisons of the differences between means.
DEFINITION OF TERMS
The terms were operationally defined to place the researcher and the
readers in the same paradigm.
Instructional Practices
These refer to those applications that fuel effective and efficient
classroom interaction used by Mathematics teachers of Talibon II district,
Talibon, Bohol in terms of lesson design and implementation, mathematical
discourse and sense making, task implementation and classroom culture.
Mathematics Teachers
37
They are the teachers who are presently teaching mathematics subject
in a public secondary school regardless of their specialization taken up in
college.
Profile
It refers to the age, sex, civil status, highest educational attainment,
number of years in teaching, and school assignment of the Mathematics
teachers of the second district of Talibon during the school year 2016-2017.
Public Secondary Schools of Talibon II
These refer to all the public high schools in the second district of
Talibon, Bohol namely: Calituban High School, Cataban Integrated School,
Mayor Catalino Y. Casoyla Memorial High School, Ponciana E. Leoligao High
School, San Jose National High School and Zosimo A. Gulle Memorial
National High School.

38
CHAPTER II
PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS, AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA
This chapter presents the data gathered from the Mathematics teachers
of Talibon II district, Talibon, Bohol during the school year 2016-2017. The
data are collated and presented in tables, subjected to statistical analysis, and
interpretation.
Profile of the Mathematics Teachers
Table II presents the profile of the Mathematics teachers in terms of
age, sex, civil status, highest educational attainment, number of years in
teaching, and school assignment.
Table II
Profile of the Mathematics Teachers
N=34
39
Items F % Rank
Age (in years)
21-25 13 38.24 1
26-30 9 26.47 2
31-35 2 5.88 5.5
36-40 3 8.82 3.5
41-45 3 8.82 3.5
46-50 2 5.88 5.5
51-55 1 2.94 7.5
56 and above 1 2.94 7.5
Sex
Male 9 26.47 2
Female 25 73.53 1
Civil Status
Single 19 55.88 1
Married 13 38.24 2
Separated 1 2.94 3.5
Widowed 1 2.94 3.5
Highest Educational Attainment
Bachelor's Degree 10 29.41 2
Acquired Master’s Units 13 38.24 1
Master's Degree 9 26.47 3
Acquired Doctoral Units 1 2.94 4.5
Doctor's Degree 1 2.94 4.5
Number of Years in Teaching
Less than 1 year 4 11.76 2
1 to 5 19 55.88 1
Age.
6 to 10 2 5.88 5.5
Of 11 to 15 3 8.82 3.5 the
16 to 20 2 5.88 5.5
thirty four
21 to 25 3 8.82 3.5
26 to 30 1 2.94 7
School Assignment
CHS 6 17.65 2
CIS 4 11.76 5
MCYCMHS 3 8.82 6
PELHS 5 14.71 3.5
SJNHS 11 32.35 1
ZAGMNHS 5 14.71 3.5
40
Mathematics teachers, thirteen teachers (38.24%) aged 21-25. It is then
followed by nine teachers (26.47%) who aged 26-30, three teachers (8.82%)
who aged 36-40 and another three (8.82%) who aged 41-45. There are two
teachers (5.88%) who aged 31-35 and another two (5.88%) who aged 46-50,
one teacher (2.94%) who aged 51-55, and another one (2.94%) who aged 56
and above.
Sex. Of the thirty four Mathematics teachers, twenty five (73.53%) are
females and nine (26.47%) are males.
Civil Status. Of the thirty four teachers, nineteen (55.88%) are single,
thirteen (38.24%) are married, one teacher (2.94%) is widowed and another
one teacher (2.94%) is separated.
Highest Educational Attainment. Among the thirty four teachers,
thirteen teachers (38.24%) have acquired master’s units while eleven teachers
(26.47%) got their master’s degree. It is then followed by ten teachers (29.41)
who have bachelor’s degree. Lastly, there is one teacher (2.94%) who
acquired doctoral units and additional one teacher (2.94%) who gained
doctor’s degree.
Number of Years in Teaching. Out of thirty four teachers, nineteen
teachers (55.88%) are teaching around one to five years, four teachers
(11.76%) are teaching less than a year, three teachers (8.82%) are teaching
around eleven to fifteen years and another three (8.82%) are teaching around
41
twenty one to twenty five years. It is followed by two teachers (5.88%) who are
teaching for six to ten years and another two teachers (5.88%) who are
teaching for sixteen to twenty years. Lastly there is only one teacher (2.94%)
who is teaching for twenty six to thirty years.
School Assignment. Of the thirty four teachers, eleven teachers
(32.35%) are assigned in San Jose National High School, there are six
teachers (17.65%) assigned in Calituban High School. There is equal number
of teachers in Ponciana E. Leoligao High School and Zosimo A. Gulle
Memorial National High School which have five Mathematics teachers
(14.71%). It is then followed by Cataban Integrated School which has four
Mathematics teachers (11.76%) and Mayor Catalino Y. Casoyla Memorial
High School which has only three Mathematics teachers (8.82%).
Teachers’ Level of Lesson Design and Implementation (First Dimension
of Instructional Practices)
Table III
Teachers’ Level of Lesson Design and Implementation
N=34
A S R N
Lesson Design and Implementation Items WM DV Rank
(4) (3) (2) (1)
1. The design of my lesson reflected careful

21 13 0 0 3.62 HP 5.5
planning and organization.
2. The design of my lesson incorporated
12 19 3 0 3.26 HP 14
tasks, roles, and interactions consistent with
42
investigative mathematics.
3. My lesson had a problem/investigation-
centered structure (e.g. I launched a
12 20 2 0 3.29 HP 13
problem/investigation and I led a
synthesizing discussion).
4. The instructional objectives of my lesson
were clear and I was able to clearly articulate
26 8 0 0 3.76 HP 3
what mathematical ideas and/or procedures
that students were expected to learn.
5. My lesson design provided opportunities
for student discourse around important 21 12 1 0 3.59 HP 7
concepts in mathematics.
6. I portrayed mathematics as a dynamic
body of knowledge continually enriched by
15 18 1 0 3.41 HP 10
conjecture, investigation analysis, and/or
proof/justification.
7. I appeared confident in my ability to teach
30 4 0 0 3.88 HP 1
mathematics.
8. My instructional strategies were consistent
15 18 1 0 3.41 HP 10
with investigative mathematics.
9. My questioning strategies for eliciting
student thinking promoted discourse around 19 14 1 0 3.53 HP 8
important concepts in mathematics.
10. The pace of my lesson was appropriate
for the developmental level/needs of the 12 22 0 0 3.35 HP 12
students and the purpose of the lesson.
11. I am flexible and able to take advantage
of “teachable moments,” (including building
27 7 0 0 3.79 HP 2
from students’ ideas – both mathematical
and non-mathematical).
12. My classroom management
style/strategies enhanced the quality of the 22 12 0 0 3.65 HP 4
lesson.
13. The vast majority of my students were
engaged in the lesson and remained on 14 20 0 0 3.41 HP 10
task.
14. I create appropriate connections to other
areas of mathematics, to other disciplines, 21 13 0 0 3.62 HP 5.5
and/or to real-world contexts.
Composite Mean 3.54 HP
Parameters:
1.00 - 1.74 NP Never Practiced
1.75 - 2.49 SP Slightly Practiced
2.50 - 3.24 MP Moderately Practiced
3.25 - 4.00 HP Highly Practiced
43
Table III shows the Mathematics teachers’ level of lesson design and
implementation. Based on the table, the teachers’ lesson design and
implementation has a composite mean of 3.54 which is interpreted as Highly
Practiced. It is very remarkable to say that all the items in this dimension of
instructional practices have weighted means which are interpreted as Highly
Practiced. Items 7, 11 and 4 have the highest weighted means of 3.88, 3.79
and 3.76 respectively. Item 7 which has the highest weighted mean indicates
that the teachers appeared confident in their ability to teach mathematics.
Items 11 and 4 imply that the teachers are flexible and able to take advantage
of teachable moments during discussion and the instructional objectives of
their lesson were clear and they are able to clearly articulate what
mathematical ideas and/or procedures that students were expected to learn.
In contrast, items 10, 3 and 2 have the lowest weighted means of 3.35,
3.29 and 3.26 respectively but still understood as Highly Practiced. This
means that the pace of teachers’ lesson is appropriate for the developmental
level/needs of the students and the lesson’s purpose. This also suggests that
the teachers’ lesson has a problem/investigation-centered structure and the
design of their lesson incorporates tasks, roles, and interactions consistent
The composite mean of 3.54 in the first dimension of instructional
practices which is interpreted as Highly Practiced implies that the teachers are
careful in planning the lesson by making the instructional objectives clear thus
44
making them confident and flexible in teaching mathematics to the students.
Furthermore, teachers were able to create a problem-centered instruction and
make appropriate connections to other areas of mathematics.
Teachers’ Level of Mathematical Discourse and Sense Making (Second
Dimension of Instructional Practices)
Table IV
Teachers' Level of Mathematical Discourse and Sense Making
N=34
Mathematical Discourse and Sense A S R N

WM DV Rank
Making Items (4) (3) (2) (1)
1. My students asked questions to clarify
their understanding of mathematical
ideas or procedures. Logistical 5 16 10 3 2.68 MP 12
questions – “may I sharpen my pencil?”
don’t count.
2. My students shared their
8 14 12 0 2.88 MP 9
observations.
3. My students explained mathematical
5 21 8 0 2.91 MP 7.5
ideas and/or procedures.
4. My students justified mathematical
5 21 8 0 2.91 MP 7.5
5. My students listened intently and
actively to the ideas and/or procedures
of others for the purpose of 16 16 2 0 3.41 HP 3
understanding someone’s methods or
reasoning.
6. My students challenged each other’s
and their own ideas that did not seem 5 17 11 1 2.76 MP 11
valid.
7. My students defended their
5 17 12 0 2.79 MP 10
mathematical ideas and/or procedures.
8. My students determine the
correctness/sensibility of an idea and/or
9 16 9 0 3.00 MP 5.5
procedure based on the reasoning
presented.
9. My students made generalizations, or
made generalized conjectures regarding 12 17 5 0 3.21 MP 4
mathematical ideas and procedures.
45
10. My students drew upon a variety of

methods (verbal, visual, numerical,
algebraic, graphical, etc.) to represent 7 20 7 0 3.00 MP 5.5
and communicate their mathematical
11. I and my students engaged in
meaning making at the end of the
activity/instruction. (There was a
19 15 0 0 3.56 HP 1
synthesis or discussion about what was
intended to be learned from doing the
activity.)
12. I productively probed/“pushed on”
the mathematics in students’ responses
17 17 0 0 3.50 HP 2
(including both correct and incorrect
responses).
Composite Mean 3.05 MP
Parameters:
1.00 - 1.74 NP Never Practiced Revealed
in the table 2.50 - 3.24 MP Moderately Practiced is the
teachers’
mathematical discourse and sense making composite mean of 3.05 which is
taken as Moderately Practiced. Based on the indicators, items 11, 12 and 5
have the highest weighted means of 3.56, 3.50 and 3.41 respectively, which
are all interpreted as Highly Practiced. This means that the teachers engage
their students in meaning making at the end of the instruction, they are able to
productively review mathematics in students’ responses, their students share
observations and students listened intently and actively to the ideas and/or
procedures of others for the purpose of understanding someone’s method of
reasoning.
46
The three least rated items are 7, 6 and 1 which have weighted means
of 2.79, 2.76 and 2.68 respectively, which are all interpreted as Moderately
Practiced. This indicates that students occasionally defend their mathematical
ideas and/or procedures, habitually drew upon variety of methods to represent
and communicate their mathematical ideas and/or procedures, and they
customarily ask questions to clarify their understandings of mathematical ideas
and/or procedures.
The interpretation of Moderately Practiced on the composite mean of
the Mathematics teachers’ level of mathematical discourse and sense making
entails that the students are able to evaluate their learning on mathematical
ideas and procedures thus allowing them to be more engaged in meaning
making at the end of the activity/instruction.
Teachers’ Level of Task Implementation (Third Dimension of
Instructional Practices)
The table on the next page manifests the teachers’ level of task
implementation which has a composite mean of 3.22, interpreted as
Moderately Practiced. Based on the factors, items 1, 6 and 5 have the biggest
weighted means of 3.71, 3.59 and 3.44 respectively, which are all interpreted
as Highly Practiced. This means that the teachers give tasks which are
focused on understanding of important and relevant mathematical concepts,
processes and relationship. It is motivating to note that teachers give tasks

47
which encourage students to think beyond the immediate problem and make
connections to other related mathematical concepts, and they encouraged
students to employ multiple representations and tools to support their learning,
Table V
Teachers' Level of Task Implementation
N=34
A S R N
Task Implementation Items WM DV Rank
(4) (3) (2) (1)
1. I give tasks which are focused on
understanding of important and
24 10 0 0 3.71 HP 1
relevant mathematical concepts,
processes, and relationship.
2. I give tasks which stimulated
2 15 14 3 2.47 SP 6
complex, non-algorithmic thinking.
3. I give tasks which successfully
created mathematically productive 5 23 5 1 2.94 MP 5
disequilibrium among students.
4. I give tasks which encouraged
students to search for multiple solution
strategies and to recognize task 6 27 1 0 3.15 MP 4
constraints that may limit solution
possibilities.
students to employ multiple
representation and tools to support 16 17 1 0 3.44 HP 3
their learning, ideas and/or
procedures.
students to think beyond the
immediate problem and make 21 12 1 0 3.59 HP 2
connections to other related
mathematical concepts.
Composite Mean 3.22 MP
Parameters:
48
The three smallest rated factors are items 4, 3 and 2 which have
composite means of 3.15, 2.94 and 2.47. Items 4 and 3 are interpreted as
Moderately Practiced while item 2 is construed to be Slightly Practiced. This
means that the teachers often give tasks which encouraged students to
search for multiple solution strategies and which successfully created
mathematically productive disequilibrium among students. In addition to that,
the teachers rarely give tasks which stimulate complex, non-algorithmic
thinking.
the teachers’ level of task implementation implies that teachers provide tasks
that would develop students’ critical thinking skills and enhance students
understanding of mathematical concepts and processes.
Teachers’ Level of Classroom Culture (Fourth Dimension of Instructional
Practices)
The table on the next page displays the classroom culture composite
mean of 3.45 which is interpreted as Highly Practiced. Based on the
indicators, items 5, 1 and 2 have the highest weighted means of 3.82, 3.79
and 3.74 correspondingly, which are all interpreted as Highly Practiced. This
means that teachers treated wrong answers as worthwhile learning
opportunities, active participation of their students was encouraged and valued
and they respect students’ ideas, questions and contributions.

49
Table VI
Teachers' Level of Classroom Culture
N=34
A S R N
Classroom Culture Items WM DV Rank
(4) (3) (2) (1)
1. Active participation of all my
students was encouraged and 27 7 0 0 3.79 HP 2
valued.
2. I displayed respect for students’
25 9 0 0 3.74 HP 3
ideas, questions, and contributions.
3. Interactions reflected a
productive working relationship 14 19 1 0 3.38 HP 5
among my students.
collaborative working relationship 16 18 0 0 3.47 HP 4
between me and the students.
5. I treated wrong answers as
28 6 0 0 3.82 HP 1
worthwhile learning opportunities.
6. My students were willing to
openly discuss their thinking and 3 20 10 1 2.74 MP 7
reasoning.
7. The classroom climate
encouraged my students to engage 9 24 1 0 3.24 MP 6
in mathematical discourse.
Composite Mean 3.45 HP
Parameters:
The three lowest valued items are 3, 7 and 6 which are interpreted as
Highly Practiced and Moderately Practiced. This result recommended that
interactions frequently reflected a productive working relationship among their
students, there is a pleasant classroom climate which encouraged students to

50
engage in a mathematical discourse and students are often willing to openly
discuss there thinking and reasoning.
The interpretation of Highly Practiced on the composite mean of the
mathematics teachers’ level of classroom culture denotes that there is
productive interaction inside the classroom since active participation is
encouraged and students are engage to mathematical discourse. However, it
is important to note that students were occasionally open to discuss their
thinking and reasoning.
Summary of the Four Dimensions of Instructional Practices in Teaching
Mathematics
Table VII depicts the summary of the results of the different dimensions
of instructional practices in teaching mathematics.
Table VII
Summary of the Four Dimensions of Instructional Practices in Teaching
Mathematics
N=34
Dimensions Weighted Mean Interpretation Rank
A. Lesson Design and
3.54 Highly Practiced 1
Implementation
B. Mathematical Discourse
3.05 Moderately Practiced 4
and Sense Making
C. Task Implementation 3.22 Moderately Practiced 3
D. Classroom Culture 3.45 Highly Practiced 2
Composite Mean 3.32 Highly Practiced
51
The table above shows the different instructional practices in teaching
mathematics namely: lesson design and implementation, mathematical
discourse and sense making, task implementation, and classroom culture with
weighted means of 3.54, 3.05, 3.22, and 3.45 respectively.
The interpretation of Highly Practiced in the first dimension implies that
the teachers are careful in planning the lesson by making the instructional
objectives clear thus making them confident and flexible in teaching
mathematics to the students. Also, teachers were regularly able to create a
problem-centered instruction and make appropriate connections to other areas
of mathematics.
Furthermore, the interpretation of Moderately Practiced on the
composite mean of mathematical discourse and sense making entails that the
students habitually evaluate their learning on mathematical ideas and
procedures thus allowing them to be more engaged in meaning making at the
end of the activity/instruction.
In addition, the interpretation of Moderately Practiced on the composite
mean of the teachers’ level of task implementation implies that teachers
frequently provide tasks that would develop students’ critical thinking skills and
enhance students understanding of mathematical concepts and processes.
Lastly, the interpretation of Highly Practiced on the composite mean of
the teachers’ level of classroom culture denotes that there is productive

52
interaction inside the classroom since active participation is encouraged and
students are engage to mathematical discourse. However, it is important to
note that students were occasionally open to discuss their thinking and
reasoning.
Teachers’ Level of Instructional Practices in Teaching Mathematics
The table below reveals the teachers’ level of instructional practices in

Table VIII
Teachers’ Level of Instructional Practices in Teaching Mathematics
N=34
Instructional Mathematical
Lesson Design
Practices Discourse Task Classroom
and CM DV Rank
and Sense Implementation Culture
Implementation
Teacher Making
1 3.29 3.00 3.33 3.57 3.30 HP 16
2 3.29 2.67 3.33 3.71 3.25 HP 20.5
3 3.86 3.50 3.50 3.71 3.64 HP 7
4 3.93 2.75 3.67 3.71 3.51 HP 11
5 3.57 3.17 3.17 3.00 3.23 MP 22.5
6 3.79 2.75 2.33 2.86 2.93 MP 32
7 3.29 3.17 3.17 3.43 3.26 HP 18
8 3.71 3.33 3.67 3.14 3.46 HP 13.5
9 3.50 2.42 2.83 3.43 3.04 MP 26.5
10 3.36 2.92 3.33 3.43 3.26 HP 18
11 3.79 3.08 3.17 3.86 3.47 HP 12
12 3.21 2.50 3.00 3.14 2.96 MP 31
13 3.07 2.75 3.33 3.86 3.25 HP 20.5
14 3.79 3.33 3.67 3.71 3.62 HP 8.5
15 3.93 3.75 3.83 3.86 3.84 HP 2
16 3.64 3.17 3.33 3.71 3.46 HP 13.5
17 3.36 2.58 3.33 3.57 3.21 MP 24
18 2.93 2.25 3.00 3.29 2.87 MP 33
19 3.36 2.83 2.83 3.00 3.01 MP 29
20 3.43 3.00 3.17 3.43 3.26 HP 18
21 3.93 3.25 3.33 3.71 3.56 HP 10
22 3.43 3.00 2.50 3.00 2.98 MP 30
23 3.86 3.67 3.50 3.71 3.68 HP 4
24 3.93 3.83 4.00 3.86 3.90 HP 1
25 3.57 3.08 3.00 3.71 3.34 HP 15
26 3.43 2.92 2.67 3.14 3.04 MP 26.5
53
27 4.00 3.42 3.50 3.57 3.62 HP 8.5

28 4.00 3.67 3.50 3.43 3.65 HP 5.5
29 3.79 3.58 3.67 3.57 3.65 HP 5.5
30 3.07 2.92 3.00 3.14 3.03 MP 28
31 3.50 3.00 3.00 3.43 3.23 MP 22.5
32 2.64 2.25 2.17 2.57 2.41 SP 34
33 3.36 2.83 2.83 3.43 3.11 MP 25
34 3.86 3.75 3.50 3.71 3.71 HP 3
Composite
3.54 3.05 3.22 3.45 3.32 HP
Mean
Parameters:
Based on the list, teacher 24, 15 and 34 have the greatest composite
means of 3.90, 3.84 and 3.71 respectively which are all understood as Highly
Practiced. This means that the teachers effectively and efficiently present the
lesson to the class; students are engaged in meaning making and understand
mathematical ideas and procedures which lead them to justify their learning.
This result also assumes that the teachers give tasks which encouraged
students to search for multiple solution strategies and think beyond the
immediate problem and there is a conducive classroom climate where
students’ participation is encouraged.
Teacher 6, 18 and 32 got the least composite means of 2.93, 2.87 and
2.41 respectively which are taken as Moderately Practiced and Slightly
Practiced. This signifies that the teachers repeatedly incorporate tasks, roles
and interactions consistent with investigative mathematics; they often probe

54
mathematics in students’ responses and occasionally give tasks which
encourage students to employ multiple representations and tools to support
their learning. Likewise students’ participation is regularly encouraged which
leads to discussing their thinking and reasoning habitually.
The over-all composite mean of 3.32 which is taken as Highly Practiced
entails that teachers are confident and flexible in teaching mathematics to their
students, able to create a problem-centered instruction, and can make
appropriate connections to other areas of mathematics. It also implies that
teachers were able to let their students evaluate their learning on
mathematical ideas and procedures thus allowing them to be more engaged in
meaning making at the end of the activity. Moreover, teachers provide tasks
understanding of mathematical concepts and processes. When it comes to
classroom, there is usually a productive interaction since active participation is
encouraged and students are engage to mathematical discourse.
Summary of Teachers’ Level of Instructional Practices in Teaching
Mathematics
Table IX exhibits the summary of teachers’ level of instructional
practices in teaching mathematics.
Table IX
Summary of Teachers’ Level of Instructional Practices in Teaching
Mathematics
N=34
55
Interpretation Frequency Rank

Highly Practiced 21 1
Moderately Practiced 12 2
Slightly Practiced 1 3
Never Practiced 0 4
Sum 34
It can be seen on the table in the preceding page that there are 21
teachers who have highly practiced instructional practices, 12 teachers have
moderately practiced instructional practices, 1 teacher has slightly practiced
instructional practiced, and no teacher in the never practiced category.
It was revealed on the table that highly practiced and moderately
practiced ranked first and second respectively. This means that most of the
teachers were able to apply frequently all the instructional practices in the
dimensions of lesson design and implementation, mathematical discourse and
sense making, task implementation, and classroom culture.
Relationship Between Teachers’ Age and Level of Instructional Practices
in Teaching Mathematics
Table X reveals the relationship between teachers’ age and level of
Shown in the table is the computed chi-square value of 13.5197 which
is lesser than the chi-square critical value of 23.685 at 14 df (0.05). This
explains that there is no significant relationship between teachers’ age and
level of instructional practices. The null hypothesis is therefore accepted. This

56
result infers that teachers’ age does not affect their level of instructional
Table X
Relationship Between Teachers’ Age and Level of Instructional
Practices in Teaching Mathematics
N=34
Instructional
Practices Moderately
Highly Practiced Slightly Practiced Total
Practiced
Age
8.0294 4.5882 0.3824
21-25 4 8 1 13
2.0221 2.5370 0.9977
5.5588 3.1765 0.2647
26-30 5 4 0 9
0.0562 0.2135 0.2647
1.2353 0.7059 0.0588
31-35 2 0 0 2
0.4734 0.7059 0.0588
1.8529 1.0588 0.0882
36-40 3 0 0
3
0.7101 1.0588 0.0882
1.8529 1.0588 0.0882
41-45 3 0 0 3
0.7101 1.0588 0.0882
1.2353 0.7059 0.0588
46-50 2 0 0 2
0.4734 0.7059 0.0588
0.6176 0.3529 0.0294
1 0 0 1
51-55 0.2367 0.3529 0.0294
0.6176 0.3529 0.0294
56-60 1 0 0
1
0.2367 0.3529 0.0294
Grand Total 21 12 1 34
Chi-square 4.9186 6.9858 1.6154 13.5197
Chi-square = 13.5197
critical value of Chi-square at 14 df (0.05) = 23.685

57
Result: Insignificant
Decision: Accept Ho
Relationship Between Teacher’s Sex and Level of Instructional Practices
in Teaching Mathematics
Table XI presents the relationship between teachers’ sex and level of
Table XI
Relationship Between Teacher’s Sex and Level of Instructional
N=34
Instructional
Practices Moderately Slightly
Highly Practiced Total
Practiced Practiced
Sex
5.5588 3.1765 0.2647

7 2 0 9
Male 0.3736 0.4357 0.2647
15.4412 8.8235 0.7353
Female 14 1 1 25
0.1345 0 0.1569 0.0953
Chi-square 0.5081 0.5926 0.3600 1.4607
Chi-square = 1.4607
Decision: Accept Ho
58
The table displays that the computed chi-square value of 1.4607 is
lesser than the chi-square critical value of 5.991 at 2 df (0.05). This leads to
the acceptance of the null hypothesis which means that there is no significant
relationship between teachers’ sex and level of instructional practice in
teaching mathematics. It indicates that sex has no bearing on the teachers’
level of instructional practices in teaching mathematics.
Relationship Between Teachers’ Civil Status and Level of Instructional
Table XII reveals the relationship between teachers’ civil status and
Table XII
Relationship Between Teacher’s Civil Status and Level of Instructional
N=34
Instructional
Practiced Practiced
Civil Status
11.7353 6.7059 0.5588
Single 8 10 1 19
1.1889 1.6182 0.3483
8.0294 4.5882 0.3824
Married 11 2 0 13
1.0990 1.4600 0.3824
0.6176 0.3529 0.0294
Widowed 1 0 0 1
0.2367 0.3529 0.0294
Separated 0.6176 0.3529 0.0294
1 0 0 1
59
0.2367 0.3529 0.0294

Chi-square 2.7613 3.7841 0.7895 7.3349
Chi-square = 7.3349
Decision: Accept Ho
Based on the table, the computed chi-square value of 7.3349 is lesser
than the chi-square critical value of 12.592 at 6 df (0.05). This leads to the
approval of the null hypothesis which means that there is no significant
relationship between civil status and level of instructional practices in teaching
mathematics. It entails that teachers’ civil status does not affect their
Relationship Between Teachers’ Highest Educational Attainment and
Level of Instructional Practices in Teaching Mathematics
Table XIII presents the relationship between teachers’ highest
educational attainment and the level of instructional practices in teaching
mathematics.
Table XIII
Level of Instructional Practices in Teaching Mathematics
N=34
Instructional
Highest Highly Practiced Total
Practiced Practiced
Educational
Attainment
6.1765 3.5294 0.2941
Bachelor’s
3 6 1 10
Degree
1.6336 1.7294 1.6941
60
8.0294 4.5882 0.3824

\Acquired
8 5 0 13
Master’s Units
0.0001 0.0370 0.3824
5.5588 3.8824 0.3235
Master’s Degree 8 1 0 9
1.5127 2.1399 0.3235
0.6176 0.3529 0.0294
Acquired
1 0 0 1
Doctoral Units
0.2367 0.3529 0.0294
0.6176 0.3529 0.0294
Doctor’s Degree 1 0 0 1
0.2367 0.3529 0.0294
Chi-square 3.1792 3.9635 2.4000 9.5427
Chi-square = 9.5427
Decision: Accept Ho
Replicated in the table on the preceding page is the computed chi-
square value of 9.5427 which is lesser than the chi-square critical value of
15.507 at 8 df (0.05). This leads to the acceptance of the null hypothesis
which means that there is an insignificant relationship between teachers’
highest educational attainment and level of instructional practices in teaching
mathematics. It suggests that the teachers’ highest educational attainment
does affect their instructional practices in teaching mathematics.
Relationship Between Teachers’ Number of Years in Teaching and Level
of Instructional Practices in Teaching Mathematics
Table XIV presents the relationship between teachers’ number of years
in teaching and the level of instructional practices in teaching mathematics.

61
Based on the table, the computed chi-square value of 10.0663 is lesser
than the chi-square critical value of 18.307 at 10 df (0.05). This leads to the
recognition of the null hypothesis which means that there is no significant
correlation between teachers’ number of years in teaching and level of
instructional practices in teaching mathematics. It infers that the number of
years in teaching has no bearing on teachers’ level of instructional practices in
Table XIV
of Instructional Practices in Teaching Mathematics
N=34
Instructional
Number Highly Practiced Total
Practiced Practiced
of Years
in Teaching
14.2059 8.1176 0.6765
5 years and
10 12 1 23
below
1.2452 1.8568 0.1547
1.2353 0.7059 0.0588
6 to 10 2 0 0 2
0.4734 0.7059 0.0588
1.8529 1.0588 0.0882
11 to 15 3 0 0 3
0.7101 1.0588 0.0882
1.2353 0.7059 0.0588
16 to 20 2 0 0 2
0.4734 0.7059 0.0588
21 to 25 1.8529 1.0588 0.0882 3
62
3 0 0
0.4734 1.0588 0.0882
0.6176 0.3529 0.0294
26 to 30 1 0 0 1
0.2367 0.3529 0.0294
Chi-square 3.8489 5.7391 0.4783 10.0663
Chi-square = 10.0663
Decision: Accept Ho
Relationship Between Teachers’ School Assignment and Level of
Table XV presents the relationship between teachers’ school
assignment and the level of instructional practices in teaching mathematics.
Table XV
N=34
Instructional
School Practiced Practiced
Assignment
3.7059 2.1176 0.1765
CHS 4 2 0 6
0.0233 0.0065 0.1765
CIS 2.4706 1.4118 0.1176
3 1 0 4
63
0.1134 0.1201 0.1176

1.8529 1.0588 0.0882
MCYCMHS 2 1 0 3
0.0117 0.0033 0.0882
3.0882 1.7647 0.1471
PELMHS 3 2 0 5
0.0025 0.0314 0.1471
6.7941 3.8824 0.3235
SJNHS 8 3 0 11
0.2140 0.2005 0.3235
3.0082 1.7647 0.1471
ZAGMNHS 1 3 1 5
1.4120 0.8647 4.9471
Chi-square 1.7771 1.2265 5.8000 8.8036
Chi-square = 8.8036
Decision: Accept Ho
Established on the table, the computed chi-square value of 8.8036 is
lesser than the chi-square critical value of 18.307 at 10 df (0.05). This leads to
the recognition of the null hypothesis which means that there is no significant
connection between teachers’ school assignment and level of instructional
practices in teaching mathematics. It suggests that teachers’ school
assignment does not affect their level of instructional practices in teaching
mathematics.
Analysis of Variance among the Different Dimensions of Instructional
Practices
Calituban High School

64
Table XVI shows that the F-computed value of 3.3418 is greater than
the F-tabular value of 3.10 at 3 and 20 df (0.05). This means that there is a
significant degree of variance among the different dimensions of instructional
practices used by Calituban High School teachers in teaching mathematics.
The null hypothesis is therefore rejected.
To further determine as to where the difference lies among the
instructional practices used by Calituban High School Mathematics teachers,
the data were subjected to Scheffe’s Test. The table on the next page depicts
that all the pairings resulted to an insignificant relationship among the different
dimensions of instructional practices in teaching mathematics. This means that
even though there is a significant degree of variance among the different
dimensions, the actual difference cannot be determined through Sheffe’s test.
The probable reason of this could be the very slight difference in the computed
and tabular F-value.
Table XVI
Practices used by Calituban High School Mathematics Teachers
N=34
Teacher A (X1) X12 X2 X22 X3 X32 X4 X42
1 3.29 10.8241 3 9 3.33 11.0889 3.57 12.7449
2 3.29 10.8241 2.67 7.1289 3.33 11.0889 3.71 13.7641
3 3.86 14.8996 3.5 12.25 3.5 12.25 3.71 13.7641
4 3.93 15.4449 2.75 7.5625 3.67 13.4689 3.71 13.7641

65
5 3.57 12.7449 3.17 10.0489 3.17 10.0489 3 9
6 3.79 14.3641 2.75 7.5625 2.33 5.4289 2.86 8.1796
Sum 21.73 79.1017 17.84 53.5528 19.33 63.3745 20.56 71.2168
Mean 3.62 2.97 3.22 3.43
Sources of Degrees of Sum of Mean F-Value

Variation Freedom Squares Squares Computed Tabular
Between Groups 3 1.3913 0.4638 3.3418 3.10
Within Groups 20 2.7756 0.1388

Total 23 4.1670
Result: Significant
Decision: Reject Ho
Table XVII
Multiple Comparison of the Different Dimensions of Instructional
Practices Used by Calituban High School Mathematics Teachers Using
Scheffe’s Test
N=34
Mean Mean (F.05)
Between Dimensions F' Interpretation
1 2 (K-1)
Lesson Design Implementation
vs. 3.62 2.97 9.0869 9.3 Insignificant
Mathematical Discourse and
Sense Making
Task Implementation
Classroom Culture
Mathematical Discourse and 2.97 3.22 1.3336 9.3 Insignificant
Sense Making
66
vs.
Task Implementation
Sense Making 2.97 3.43 4.4432 9.3 Insignificant
vs.
Classroom Culture
Task Implementation
Classroom Culture
Cataban Integrated School
The table on the next page shows that the F-computed value of 2.2529
is lesser than the F-tabular value of 3.49 at 3 and 12 df (0.05). This means
that there is no significant degree of variance among the different dimensions
of instructional practices used by Cataban Integrated School teachers in
teaching mathematics. The null hypothesis is therefore accepted.
Table XVIII
Practices used by Cataban Integrated School Mathematics Teachers
N=34
Teacher X1 X12 X2 X22 X3 X32 X4 X42
7 3.29 10.8241 3.17 10.0489 3.17 10.0489 3.43 11.7649
8 3.71 13.7641 3.33 11.0889 3.67 13.4689 3.14 9.8596
9 3.5 12.25 2.42 5.8564 2.83 8.0089 3.43 11.7649
10 3.36 11.2896 2.92 8.5264 3.33 11.0889 3.43 11.7649
Sum 13.86 48.1278 11.84 35.5206 13 42.6156 13.43 45.1543
Mean 3.47 2.96 3.25 3.36

67
F-Value
Sources of Degrees of Sum of Mean
Compute
Variation Freedom Squares Squares Tabular
d
Between Groups 3 0.5665 0.1888 2.2529 3.49
Total 15 1.5722
Decision: Accept Ho
Mayor Catalino Y. Casoyla Memorial High School
The table on the next page shows that the F-computed value of 3.5099
is lesser than the F-tabular value of 4.07 at 3 and 8 df (0.05). This means that
there is no significant degree of variance among the different dimensions of
instructional practices used by Mayor Catalino Y. Casoyla Memorial High
School teachers in teaching mathematics. The null hypothesis is therefore
accepted.
Table XIX
Practices used by Mayor Catalino Y. Casoyla Memorial High School
N=34
11 3.79 14.3641 3.08 9.4864 3.17 10.0489 3.86 14.8996
12 3.21 10.3041 2.5 6.25 3 9 3.14 9.8596
13 3.07 9.4249 2.75 7.5625 3.33 11.0889 3.86 14.8996
Sum 10.07 34.0931 8.33 23.2989 9.5 30.1378 10.86 39.6588

68
Mean 3.36 2.78 3.17 3.62

Between Groups 3 1.1330 0.3777 3.5099 4.07
Total 11 1.9938
Decision: Accept Ho
Ponciana E. Leoligao High School
The succeeding table displays the F-computed value of 2.1677 is lesser
than the F-tabular value of 3.24 at 3 and 16 df (0.05). This means that there is
no significant degree of variance among the different dimensions of
instructional practices used by Ponciana E. Leoligao High School teachers in
teaching mathematics. The null hypothesis is therefore accepted.
Table XX
Practices used by Ponciana E. Leoligao High School Mathematics
Teachers
N=34
14 3.79 14.3641 3.33 11.0889 3.67 13.4689 3.71 13.7641
15 3.93 15.4449 3.75 14.0625 3.83 14.6689 3.86 14.8996
16 3.64 13.2496 3.17 10.0489 3.33 11.0889 3.71 13.7641
17 3.36 11.2896 2.58 6.6564 3.33 11.0889 3.57 12.7449

69
18 2.93 8.5849 2.25 5.0625 3 9 3.29 10.8241
Sum 17.65 62.9331 15.08 46.9192 17.16 59.3156 18.14 65.9968
Mean 3.53 3.02 3.43 3.63
F-Value
Sources of Degrees of Sum of Mean
Compute Tabula
Variation Freedom Squares Squares
d r
Between Groups 3 1.0868 0.3623 2.1677 3.24
Total 19 3.7607
Decision: Accept Ho
San Jose National High School
Table XXI
Practices used by San Jose National High School Mathematics Teachers
N=34
19 3.36 11.2896 2.83 8.0089 2.83 8.0089 3 9
20 3.43 11.7649 3 9 3.17 10.0489 3.43 11.7649
21 3.93 15.4449 3.25 10.5625 3.33 11.0889 3.71 13.7641
22 3.43 11.7649 3 9 2.5 6.25 3 9

70
23 3.86 14.8996 3.67 13.4689 3.5 12.25 3.71 13.7641
24 3.93 15.4449 3.83 14.6689 4 16 3.86 14.8996
25 3.57 12.7449 3.08 9.4864 3 9 3.71 13.7641
26 3.43 11.7649 2.92 8.5264 2.67 7.1289 3.14 9.8596
27 4 16 3.42 11.6964 3.5 12.25 3.57 12.7449
28 4 16 3.67 13.4689 3.5 12.25 3.43 11.7649
29 3.79 14.3641 3.58 12.8164 3.67 13.4689 3.57 12.7449
Sum 40.73 151.4827 36.25 120.7037 35.67 117.7445 38.13 133.0711
Mean 3.70 3.30 3.24 3.47

Between Groups 3 1.4172 0.4724 0.3502 4.31
Total 43 6.3064
Decision: Accept Ho
The table shows that the F-computed value of 0.3502 is lesser than the
F-tabular value of 4.31 at 3 and 40 df (0.05). This means that there is no
practices used by San Jose National High School teachers in teaching
mathematics. The null hypothesis is therefore accepted.
Zosimo A. Gulle Memorial National High School
Table XXII
71

Practices used by Zosimo A. Gulle Memorial National High School
N=34
30 3.07 9.4249 2.92 8.5264 3 9 3.14 9.8596
31 3.5 12.25 3 9 3 9 3.43 11.7649
32 2.64 6.9696 2.25 5.0625 2.17 4.7089 2.57 6.6049
33 3.36 11.2896 2.83 8.0089 2.83 8.0089 3.43 11.7649
34 3.86 14.8996 3.75 14.0625 3.5 12.25 3.71 13.7641
Sum 16.43 54.8337 14.75 44.6603 14.5 42.9678 16.28 53.7584
Mean 3.29 2.95 2.90 3.256

Between Groups 3 0.6071 0.2024 0.8844 3.24
Total 19 4.2681
Decision: Accept Ho
The table shows that the F-computed value of 0.8844 is lesser than the
F-tabular value of 3.24 at 3 and 16 df (0.05). This means that there is no
practices used by Zosimo A. Guille Memorial High School teachers in teaching
mathematics. The null hypothesis is therefore accepted.
Over-all Analysis of Variance among the Different Dimensions of
72
It was revealed on table XXIII that the F-computed value of 11.5943 is
greater than the F-tabular value of 2.60 at 3 and 132 df (0.05). This means
that there is a significant degree of variance among the different dimensions of
instructional practices. The null hypothesis is therefore rejected.
To determine as to where the difference lies, the data where further
subjected to Scheffe’s Test. It was revealed on Table XXIV below that the
pairings that yield a significant relationship are lesson design implementation
vs. mathematical discourse and sense making, lesson design implementation
vs. task implementation and mathematical discourse and sense making vs.
classroom culture. The rest of the pairings yield an insignificant relationship.
Table XXIII
Practices in Teaching Mathematics (Over-all)
N=34
1 3.29 10.8241 3 9 3.33 11.0889 3.57 12.7449
2 3.29 10.8241 2.67 7.1289 3.33 11.0889 3.71 13.7641
3 3.86 14.8996 3.5 12.25 3.5 12.25 3.71 13.7641
4 3.93 15.4449 2.75 7.5625 3.67 13.4689 3.71 13.7641
5 3.57 12.7449 3.17 10.0489 3.17 10.0489 3 9
6 3.79 14.3641 2.75 7.5625 2.33 5.4289 2.86 8.1796
7 3.29 10.8241 3.17 10.0489 3.17 10.0489 3.43 11.7649
8 3.71 13.7641 3.33 11.0889 3.67 13.4689 3.14 9.8596
9 3.5 12.25 2.42 5.8564 2.83 8.0089 3.43 11.7649
10 3.36 11.2896 2.92 8.5264 3.33 11.0889 3.43 11.7649
73
11 3.79 14.3641 3.08 9.4864 3.17 10.0489 3.86 14.8996

12 3.21 10.3041 2.5 6.25 3 9 3.14 9.8596
13 3.07 9.4249 2.75 7.5625 3.33 11.0889 3.86 14.8996
14 3.79 14.3641 3.33 11.0889 3.67 13.4689 3.71 13.7641
15 3.93 15.4449 3.75 14.0625 3.83 14.6689 3.86 14.8996
16 3.64 13.2496 3.17 10.0489 3.33 11.0889 3.71 13.7641
17 3.36 11.2896 2.58 6.6564 3.33 11.0889 3.57 12.7449
18 2.93 8.5849 2.25 5.0625 3 9 3.29 10.8241
19 3.36 11.2896 2.83 8.0089 2.83 8.0089 3 9
20 3.43 11.7649 3 9 3.17 10.0489 3.43 11.7649
21 3.93 15.4449 3.25 10.5625 3.33 11.0889 3.71 13.7641
22 3.43 11.7649 3 9 2.5 6.25 3 9
23 3.86 14.8996 3.67 13.4689 3.5 12.25 3.71 13.7641
24 3.93 15.4449 3.83 14.6689 4 16 3.86 14.8996
25 3.57 12.7449 3.08 9.4864 3 9 3.71 13.7641
26 3.43 11.7649 2.92 8.5264 2.67 7.1289 3.14 9.8596
27 4 16 3.42 11.6964 3.5 12.25 3.57 12.7449
28 4 16 3.67 13.4689 3.5 12.25 3.43 11.7649
29 3.79 14.3641 3.58 12.8164 3.67 13.4689 3.57 12.7449
30 3.07 9.4249 2.92 8.5264 3 9 3.14 9.8596
31 3.5 12.25 3 9 3 9 3.43 11.7649
32 2.64 6.9696 2.25 5.0625 2.17 4.7089 2.57 6.6049
33 3.36 11.2896 2.83 8.0089 2.83 8.0089 3.43 11.7649
34 3.86 14.8996 3.75 14.0625 3.5 12.25 3.71 13.7641
Sum 120.47 430.5721 104.09 324.6555 109.16 356.1558 117.40 408.8562
Mean 3.5432 3.0615 3.2106 3.4529

Between Groups 3 4.9736 1.6579 11.5943 2.60
Within Groups 132 18.8745 0.1430
Total 135 23.8480
Result: Significant
Decision: Reject Ho
Table XXIV
Multiple Comparison of the Different Dimensions of Instructional
Practices Using Scheffe’s Test
N=34
Mean Mean (F.05)
Between Dimensions F' Interpretation
1 2 (K-1)
74

vs.
3.54 3.05 28.5434 7.8 Significant
Sense Making
vs. 3.54 3.22 12.1734 7.8 Significant
Task Implementation
Classroom Culture
Sense Making
3.05 3.22 3.4357 7.8 Insignificant
vs.
Task Implementation
Sense Making
3.05 3.45 19.0210 7.8 Significant
vs.
Classroom Culture
Task Implementation
vs. 3.22 3.45 6..2888 7.8 Insignificant
Classroom Culture
CHAPTER III
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The findings which were presented, analyzed and interpreted in the
preceding chapter are herein summarized which could be the bases for
establishing recommendations.
Statement of the Problem

75
The primary objective of this study was to determine the instructional
practices in teaching mathematics among the public secondary schools of
Talibon II district, Talibon, Bohol during the school year 2016-2017. The
findings of the study will serve as the basis of formulating recommendations to
address the phenomenon.
Specifically, it is directed towards answering the following sub-
problems: the profile of Mathematics teachers in terms of age, sex, civil status,
highest educational attainment, number of years in teaching and school
assignment; the instructional practices of the teachers in teaching
mathematics among its dimensions – lesson design and implementation,
mathematical discourse and sense making, task implementation and
classroom culture.
The study further sought to discover the degree of relationship between
the profile of the teachers and their instructional practices in teaching
mathematics. It also tried to verify the degree of variance on the instructional
practices in teaching mathematics when the respondents are grouped
together according to their school assignment and the degree of variance in
the different dimensions of instructional practices. Moreover, the significant
results of the analysis of variance were also verified using Scheffe’s test.
Null Hypotheses
The study is also focused towards testing the following null hypotheses:
76
Ho1: There is no significant degree of relationship between the profile of the
teachers and instructional practices in teaching mathematics.
Ho2: There is no significant degree variance on the instructional practices in
according to their school assignment.
Ho3: There is no significant degree of variance in the different dimensions of
Research Design
The researcher made use of the descriptive normative survey method
of research in data gathering using a questionnaire patterned from the
standard tool of Dr. Yasemin Copur Gencturk for the Study of Teacher’s
Mathematical Knowledge for Teaching, Instructional Practices, and Student
Outcomes, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois. It employed the purpose-
universal technique. The method is purposive since it intentionally chose
public secondary school teachers who are teaching mathematics subject. It is
universal because all public secondary school teachers of Talibon II district,
Talibon, Bohol handling mathematics subject were considered as
respondents. It utilized descriptive survey questionnaires which determined
the respondents’ profile and their instructional practices.
FINDINGS
77
Presented below are the findings of the study based on the data
gathered:
Profile of the Teachers. In terms of age, thirteen (38.24%) of the
teachers were 21-25 years old, nine (26.47%) were 26-30 years old, three
(8.82%) were 36-40 years old, another three (8.82%) were 41-45 years old,
two (5.88%) were 31-35 years old, another two (5.88%) were 46-50 years old,
one (2.94%) was 51-55 years old, and another one (2.94%) was aged 56 and
above. As to sex, twenty five (73.53%) were female while nine (26.47%) were
male. It was also found out that nineteen (55.88%) were single, thirteen
(38.24%) were married, one (2.94%) was widowed, and another one (2.94%)
was separated.
As to highest educational attainment, thirteen teachers (38.24%) have
acquired master’s units while eleven (26.47%) got their master’s degree, ten
(29.41) have attained bachelor’s degree, one (2.94%) has acquired doctoral
units, and one (2.94%) has gained doctor’s degree. As to the number of years
in teaching, nineteen teachers (55.88%) were teaching for 5 year and below
(11.76%) were teaching less than a year, three (8.82%) were teaching eleven
to fifteen years and another three (8.82%) were teaching around twenty one to
twenty five years. It is followed by two teachers (5.88%) who were teaching for
six to ten years and another two (5.88%) who were teaching for sixteen to
twenty years. Lastly there is only one teacher (2.94%) who was teaching for
around twenty six to thirty years.

78
It was also found out that eleven Mathematics teachers (32.35%) were
assigned in San Jose National High School, six (17.65%) were assigned in
Calituban High School, five (14.71%) were assigned in Ponciana E. Leoligao
High School, another five (14.71%) were assigned in Zosimo A. Gulle
Memorial National High School, four (11.76%) were assigned in by Cataban
Integrated School, and only three (8.8%) were assigned in Mayor Catalino Y.
Casoyla Memorial High School.
Teachers’ Level of Lesson Design and Implementation. Teachers’
level of lesson design and implementation has a composite mean of 3.54
which is interpreted as Highly Practiced. It is very remarkable to say that all
the items in this dimension of instructional practices have weighted means
which are interpreted as Highly Practiced. Items 7, 11 and 4 have the highest
weighted means of 3.88, 3.79 and 3.76 respectively. Item 7 which has the
highest weighted mean indicates that the teachers appeared confident in their
ability to teach mathematics. Items 11 and 4 imply that the teachers are
flexible and able to take advantage of teachable moments during discussion
and the instructional objectives of their lesson were clear and they are able to
clearly articulate what mathematical ideas and/or procedures that students
were expected to learn.
In contrast, items 10, 3 and 2 have the lowest weighted means of 3.35,
3.29 and 3.26 respectively but still understood as Highly Practiced. This
means that the pace of teachers’ lesson is appropriate for the developmental
79
level/needs of the students and the lesson’s purpose. This also suggests that
the teachers’ lesson has a problem/investigation-centered structure and the
design of their lesson incorporates tasks, roles, and interactions consistent
The composite mean of 3.54 in the first dimension of instructional
practices which is interpreted as Highly Practiced implies that the teachers are
careful in planning the lesson by making the instructional objectives clear thus
making them confident and flexible in teaching mathematics to the students.
Furthermore, teachers were able to create a problem-centered instruction and
make appropriate connections to other areas of mathematics.
Teachers’ Level of Mathematical Discourse and Sense Making.
Teachers’ mathematical discourse and sense making has a composite mean
of 3.05 which is taken as Moderately Practiced. Based on the indicators, items
11, 12 and 5 have the highest weighted means of 3.56, 3.50 and 3.41
respectively, which are all interpreted as Highly Practiced. This means that the
teachers engage their students in meaning making at the end of the
instruction, they are able to productively review mathematics in students’
responses, their students share observations and students listened intently
and actively to the ideas and/or procedures of others for the purpose of
understanding someone’s method of reasoning.

80
The three least rated items are 7, 6 and 1 which have weighted means
of 2.79, 2.76 and 2.68 respectively, which are all interpreted as Moderately
Practiced. This indicates that students often defend their mathematical ideas
and/or procedures, drew upon variety of methods to represent and
communicate their mathematical ideas and/or procedures, and they often ask
questions to clarify their understandings of mathematical ideas and/or
procedures.
the Mathematics teachers’ level of mathematical discourse and sense making
entails that the students are able to evaluate their learning on mathematical
ideas and procedures thus allowing them to be more engaged in meaning
making at the end of the activity/instruction.
Teachers’ Level of Task implementation. Teachers’ level of task
implementation has a composite mean of 3.22, interpreted as Moderately
Practiced. Based on the factors, items 1, 6 and 5 have the biggest weighted
means of 3.71, 3.59 and 3.44 respectively, which are all interpreted as Highly
Practiced. This means that the teachers give tasks which are focused on
understanding of important and relevant mathematical concepts, processes
and relationship. It is motivating to note that teachers give tasks which
encourage students to think beyond the immediate problem and make
connections to other related mathematical concepts, and they encouraged

81
students to employ multiple representations and tools to support their learning,
The three smallest rated factors are items 4, 3 and 2 which have
composite means of 3.15, 2.94 and 2.47. Items 4 and 3 are interpreted as
Moderately Practiced while item 2 is construed to be Slightly Practiced. This
means that the teachers often give tasks which encouraged students to
search for multiple solution strategies and which successfully created
mathematically productive disequilibrium among students. In addition to that,
the teachers rarely give tasks which stimulate complex, non-algorithmic
thinking.
the teachers’ level of task implementation implies that teachers provide tasks
understanding of mathematical concepts and processes.
Teachers’ Level of Classroom Culture. Teachers’ level of classroom culture
has a composite mean of 3.49 which is interpreted as Highly Practiced. Based
on the indicators, items 5, 1 and 2 have the highest weighted means of 3.82,
3.79 and 3.74 correspondingly, which are all interpreted as Highly Practiced.
This means that teachers treated wrong answers as worthwhile learning
opportunities, active participation of their students was encouraged and valued
and they respect students’ ideas, questions and contributions.

82
The three lowest valued items are 3, 7 and 6 which are interpreted as
Highly Practiced and Moderately Practiced. This result recommended that
interactions frequently reflected a productive working relationship among their
students, there is a pleasant classroom climate which encouraged students to
engage in a mathematical discourse and students are often willing to openly
discuss there thinking and reasoning.
The interpretation of Highly Practiced on the composite mean of the
Mathematics teachers’ level of classroom culture denotes that there is
productive interaction inside the classroom since active participation is
encouraged and students are engage to mathematical discourse. However, it
is important to note that students were occasionally open to discuss their
thinking and reasoning.
Teachers’ Level of Instructional Practices in Teaching Mathematics. In
the teachers’ level of instructional practices in mathematics, teacher 24, 15
and 34 have the greatest composite means of 3.90, 3.84 and 3.71 respectively
which are all understood as Highly Practiced. This means that the teachers
effectively and efficiently present the lesson to the class; students are
engaged in meaning making and understand mathematical ideas and
procedures which lead them to justify their learning. This result also assumes
that the teachers give tasks which encouraged students to search for multiple
solution strategies and think beyond the immediate problem and there is a
conducive classroom climate where students’ participation is encouraged.

83
Teacher 6, 18 and 32 got the least composite means of 2.93, 2.87 and
2.41 respectively which are taken as Moderately Practiced and Slightly
Practiced. This signifies that teachers often incorporate tasks, roles and
interactions consistent with investigative mathematics; they often probe
mathematics in students’ responses and occasionally give tasks which
encourage students to employ multiple representations and tools to support
their learning. Likewise students’ participation is often encouraged which leads
to discussing their thinking and reasoning habitually.
The over-all composite mean of 3.32 which is interpreted as Highly
Practiced directs that teachers are confident and flexible in teaching
mathematics to their students, able to create a problem-centered instruction,
make appropriate connections to other areas of mathematics. It also implies
that teachers were able to let their students evaluate their learning on
mathematical ideas and procedures thus allowing them to be more engaged in
meaning making at the end of the activity. In addition, teachers provide tasks
understanding of mathematical concepts and processes. When it comes to
classroom, there is a productive interaction since active participation is
encouraged and students are engage to mathematical discourse but students
occasionally open to discuss their thinking and reasoning.
Relationship Between Teachers’ Age and Level of Instructional Practices
in Teaching Mathematics. There is no significant relationship between

84
teachers’ age and level of instructional practices in teaching mathematics. This
was attested by the computed chi-square value of 13.5197 which is lesser
than the chi-square critical value of 23.685 at 14 df (0.05). The null hypothesis
was therefore accepted.
This implies that teachers’ age do not affect their level of instructional
practices in teaching mathematics. This is parallel to the study of Shirley M.
Yates (2006) of the Flinders University where she found out that teacher’s age
is not significantly related to their teaching practices.
Relationship Between Teachers’ Sex and Level of Instructional Practices
in Teaching Mathematics. Through Chi-square Test, it was established that
there is no significant relationship between teachers’ sex and level of
instructional practices in teaching mathematics. This was confirmed by the
computed chi-square value of 1.4607 is lesser than the chi-square critical
value of 5.991 at 2 df (0.05). This leads to the acceptance of the null
hypothesis which means that there is no significant relationship between
teachers’ sex and level of instructional practice in teaching mathematics.
It was found out that 7 males and 14 females landed in Highly Practiced
Category, 2 males and one female fell in Moderately Practiced Category, only
1 female settled in Slightly Practiced Category and no one belong to Never
Practiced Category. This suggests that sex has no bearing on the teachers’

85
This result is of great resemblance to the finding of Friend (2006) which
found out that teacher’s sex did not have a significant impact on their
instructional practices. Likewise, according to Johannesson (2004), there is no
evidence that male teachers did any better than female teacher in regards to
their instructional practices specifically in administering discipline. This finding
is also in line with Kong (2008) who declared that there is no relationship
between teachers’ sex and their effectiveness as teachers.
However, the studies of Arbuckle and Williams (2003) declared that
male teachers perform better than female teachers in their instructional
practices especially in areas asserting authority and using meaningful voice
tones during teaching. This is still in contrast with the study conducted by
Mwamwenda and Mwamwenda (2002). For them female teachers performed
better than their male counterparts.
Relationship Between Teachers’ Civil Status and Level of Instructional
Practices in Teaching Mathematics. It was revealed through the Chi-square
Test that there is no significant relationship between civil status and level of
instructional practices in teaching mathematics. This was supported by the
computed chi-square value of 7.3349 which is lesser than the chi-square
critical value of 12.592 at 6 df (0.05). This leads to the approval of the null
hypothesis.
86
There are 8 singles, 11 married, 1 widowed, and 1 separated who
landed in Highly Practiced Category. There are 10 singles and 2 married who
fell in Moderately Practiced Category, 1 single who fell in Slightly Practiced
Category and no one settled in Never Practiced Category. It entails that
teachers’ civil status does not affect their instructional practices in teaching
mathematics.
Level of Instructional Practices in Teaching Mathematics. The finding
shows a significant relationship between teachers’ highest educational
attainment and level of instructional practices in teaching mathematics. This
was proven by the computed chi-square value of 9.5427 which is closer but
greater than the chi-square value of 9.488 at 4 df (0.05). The null hypothesis
was therefore rejected.
This suggests that the teachers’ highest educational attainment
affect their instructional practices in teaching mathematics. It seems that
teachers with higher educational attainment have better instructional practices
compared to teachers with lower educational attainment.
of Instructional Practices in Teaching Mathematics. From the tabulation,
the obtained chi-square value of 10.0663 happens to be lesser than the chi-
square critical value of 18.307 at 10 df (0.05) thus, the null hypothesis is
accepted. The result showed that there was an insignificant relationship

87
between teachers’ number of years in teaching and level of instructional
It was found out that 23 teachers were teaching within 1-5 years, 10
teachers fell in Highly Practiced Category, 12 landed in Moderately Practiced
Category, and only 1 fell in Slightly Practiced Category. Two teachers were
teaching within 6-10 years landed in Highly Practiced Category, 3 teachers
were teaching within 11-15 years fell in Highly Practiced Category, 2 teachers
were teaching within 16-20 years landed in Highly Practiced Category, 3
teachers were teaching within 21-25 years fell in Highly Practiced Category,
and only 1 teacher was teaching within 26-30 settled in Highly Practiced
Category. It infers that the number of years in teaching has no bearing on
teachers’ level of instructional practices in teaching mathematics.
Instructional Practices in Teaching Mathematics. There is no significant
connection between teachers’ school assignment and level of instructional
practices in teaching mathematics. This was attested by the computed chi-
square value of 8.8036 which is lesser than the chi-square critical value of
18.307 at 10 df (0.05). This leads to the recognition of the null hypothesis.
It was revealed that there among the 6 Mathematics teachers in
Calituban High School, 4 landed in Highly Practiced and 2 settled in
Moderately Practiced Category. Out of the 4 Mathematics teachers in Cataban

88
Integrated School, 3 fell in Highly Practiced and only one landed in Moderately
Practiced Category. Among the 3 Mathematics teachers in Mayor Catalino Y.
Casoyla Memorial High School, 2 settled under Highly Practiced and only 1
landed in Moderately Practiced Category. Ponciana E. Leoligao High School
has 5 Mathematics teachers, 3 under Highly Practiced and 2 Moderately
Practiced Category. The independent public school in Talibon II district which
is San Jose National High School has 11 Mathematics teachers, 8 fell under
Highly Practiced and 3 landed in Moderately Practiced Category. Lastly,
Zosimo A. Gulle Memorial National high School has 5 Mathematics teachers,
only 1 settled in Highly Practiced, 3 landed in Moderately Practiced and 1 fell
in Slightly Practiced Category.
Calituban High School. There is a significant degree of variance among the
different dimensions of instructional practices in teaching mathematics used by
Calituban High School teachers. This was confirmed by the F-computed value
of 3.3418 which happens to be greater than the F-tabular value of 3.10 at 3
and 20 df (0.05). The null hypothesis is therefore rejected and the data were
further subjected to Scheffe’s Test to determine as to where the difference lies
among the dimensions.

89
Furthermore, it was found out that no computed value was greater than
the F-tabular value of 3.10 (F.05) multiplied by 3 (K-1) which was 9.3.
Probable reason for this is the closeness of the F-computed value (3.3418)
and F-tabular value (3.10). Though there is a significant degree of variance, to
determine as to where the difference lies among these dimensions cannot be
further recognize.
Cataban Integrated School. The finding shows an insignificant degree of
variance among the different dimensions of instructional practices in teaching
mathematics used by Cataban Integrated School teachers. This agrees to the
rejection of the null hypothesis. This result was supported by the F-computed
value of 2.2529 which is lesser than the F-tabular value of 3.49 at 3 and 12 df
(0.05).
Mayor Catalino Y. Casoyla Memorial High School. It was revealed that the
F-computed value of 3.5099 is lesser than the F-tabular value of 4.07 at 3 and
8 df (0.05). This means that there is no significant degree of variance among
the different dimensions of instructional practices in teaching mathematics
used by Mayor Catalino Y. Casoyla Memorial High School teachers. This
leads to the approval of the null hypothesis.
Ponciana E. Leoligao High School. There is no significant degree of
variance among the different dimensions of instructional practices in teaching
mathematics used by Ponciana E. Leoligao High School teachers. This was

90
proven by the F-computed value of 2.1677 which is lesser than the F-tabular
value of 3.24 at 3 and 16 df (0.05). Thus the null hypothesis is accepted.
San Jose National High School. There is an insignificant degree of variance
among the different dimensions of instructional practices in teaching
mathematics used by San Jose National High School teachers. This was
attested by the F-computed value of 0.3502 which is lesser than the F-tabular
value of 4.31 at 3 and 40 df (0.05). This leads to the acceptance of the null
hypothesis.
Zosimo A. Gulle Memorial National High School. It was found out that the
F-computed value of 0.8844 is lesser than the F-tabular value of 3.24 at 3 and
16 df (0.05). This means that there is no significant degree of variance among
the different dimensions of instructional practices in teaching mathematics
used by Zosimo A. Guille Memorial High School teachers. Thus, the null
hypothesis is accepted.
Over-all Analysis of Variance among the Different Dimensions of
Instructional Practices. There is a significant degree of variance among the
different dimensions of instructional practices in teaching mathematics. It was
attested by the F-computed value of 11.5943 which is greater than the F-
tabular value of 2.60 at 3 and 132 df (0.05). This leads to rejection of the null
hypothesis. To determine as to where the difference lies, the data where
further subjected to Scheffe’s Test. It was revealed that the pairings that yield
91
a significant relationship are lesson design implementation vs. mathematical
discourse and sense making, lesson design implementation vs. task
implementation and mathematical discourse and sense making vs. classroom
culture. The rest of the pairings yield an insignificant relationship.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the findings of the study, the researcher arrived at the
following conclusions:
1. Majority of the teachers-respondents are females, singles, and their
ages usually ranges from twenty one to twenty five years old. This
suggests that most of them are fresh graduates from college. As to their
educational attainment and number of years in teaching, acquiring
master’s units and teaching within one to five years gained the most
number of respondents. The most number of respondents are teaching
in San Jose National High School which has the most number of
teachers in Talibon II district.
2. The teachers have highly practiced level of lesson design and
implementation. They always design lessons which reflect careful
planning and organization, incorporate tasks, roles, and interactions
consistent with investigative mathematics, their lesson design provides
opportunities for student discourse, and they constantly portray
mathematics as a dynamic body of knowledge. They also appear

92
confident in their ability to teach mathematics, flexible and able to take
advantage of the teachable moments, and they are able to create
appropriate connections to other areas of mathematics.
3. The teachers have moderately practiced level of mathematical
discourse and sense making. They habitually review mathematic in
students’ responses and their students often evaluate their learning on
mathematical ideas and procedures thus allowing them to be more
engaged in meaning making at the end of the activity/instruction.
4. The teachers have moderately practiced level of task implementation.
Teachers consistently give tasks which encourage students to think
beyond the immediate problem and make connections to other related
mathematical concepts. In contrast, they seldom give tasks which
stimulate complex, non-algorithmic thinking.
5. The teachers have moderately practiced level of classroom culture.
There is a positive interaction inside the classroom since active
participation is encouraged. However, students were seldom open to
discuss their thinking and reasoning.
6. The teachers have highly practiced level of instructional practices. They
are confident and flexible in teaching mathematics to their students,
able to create a problem-centered instruction, able to let their students
evaluate their learning on mathematical ideas, In addition, they provide
tasks that would develop students’ critical thinking skills and enhance
93
students understanding of mathematical concepts and processes.
There is a pleasant climate inside the classroom but sometimes
students are afraid to discuss their ideas on a mathematical concept.
7. There is no significant degree of relationship between teachers’ age
and level of instructional practices. Meaning, teachers’ age has no
influence on their levels of instructional practices in teaching
mathematics.
8. There is no significant degree of relationship between teachers’ sex
and level of instructional practices. So, teachers’ sex has no effect on
their levels of instructional practices in teaching mathematics.
9. There is no significant degree of relationship between teachers’ civil
status and level of instructional practices. Thus, teachers’ civil status
has no bearing on their levels of instructional practices in teaching
mathematics.
10. There is a significant degree of relationship between teachers’ highest
educational attainment and level of instructional practices. Therefore,
teachers’ highest educational attainment influences their levels of
instructional practices in teaching mathematics in a manner that
teachers with higher educational attainment have better instructional
practices compared to teachers with lower educational attainment.
11. There is no significant degree of relationship between teachers’ number
of years in teaching and level of instructional practices. This means that

94
teachers’ number of years in teaching has no influence on their levels
of instructional practices in teaching mathematics.
12. There is no significant degree of relationship between teachers’ school
assignment and level of instructional practices. So, teachers’ school
assignment has no impact on their levels of instructional practices in
13. Statistical computations revealed that there was a significant degree of
variance among the four dimensions of instructional practices in
teaching mathematics used by Calituban High School teachers and the
over-all computation while there was an insignificant degree of variance
among the four dimensions of instructional practices in teaching
mathematics used by Cataban Integrated School, Mayor Catalino Y.
Casoyla Memorial High School, Ponciana E. Leoligao High School, San
Jose National High School and Zosimo A. Gulle Memorial National High
School teachers.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the findings and conclusions drawn, the following
recommendations are offered:
1. It is proposed that the findings of this study be presented to school
authorities, teachers, parents for information, reflection, and decision-
making.
95
2. The administrators and teachers are encouraged to design and
implement any program that would target on enhancing mathematics
instructional practices.
3. There should be more seminars and trainings with regards to upgrading
teachers’ pedagogical skills and practices in teaching mathematics.
4. Mathematics Area Supervisors are suggested to include updated
effective strategies in facilitating mathematics learning as well as their
practices in teaching during in-service trainings.
5. As much as possible, Mathematics teachers are encouraged to give
tasks which stimulate complex and no-algorithmic thinking.
6. Mathematics teachers must give ample time for students to explain,
justify, and defend their mathematical ideas or procedures.
7. Mathematics teachers should give encouragements to openly discuss
their ideas and share their observations.
8. Mathematics teachers should provide truthful appreciation to students
every time they share their thoughts and views about certain
mathematical concepts, ideas or procedures, and perform a specific
task.
9. Mathematics teachers should connect the lesson to other areas of math
or to other disciplines, and relate mathematics to real life situations.
Everyday applications will help them realize that mathematics is a
practical and useful discipline.

96
10. Mathematics teachers must provide more practices or drills to students.
11. Mathematics teachers should encourage students to draw on a variety
of methods (verbal, visual, numerical, algebraic, and graphical) to
represent and communicate their mathematical ideas or procedures.
12. Mathematics teachers are encouraged to give tasks which encouraged
students to search for multiple solution strategies and employ multiple
representations and tools to support students’ learning.
13. A parallel study may be conducted using larger and other groups of
respondents and focusing on other variables such as teaching
strategies, teacher’s beliefs, and mathematical knowledge.
REFERENCES
Battista, M (1999). The Mathematical Miseducation of America’s Youth” Phi
Delta Kappan, 80 (6).
Bauzon, P. (2009). Foundations of Curriculum Development and

Management. Mandaluyong, Philippines: National Book Store. p.60.
Brophy, J. (1988). Research on Teacher Effects: Uses and Abuses. The

Elementary School Journal, vol. 89, no. 1, pp. 3-21.
Berou, M. L. (2017). Self-efficacy and Anxiety in Learning Mathematics in

Relation to the Academic Performance among Grade 7 Students of
Catungawan National High School, Guindulman, Bohol during the
97
School Year 2016-2017. Unpublished Master’s Thesis. University of

Bohol, Tagbilaran City.
Gagne, R. M. (1975). Essentials of Learning for Instruction (Expanded ed.).

New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winton.
Gagne, R. M., Briggs, L. J., & Wager, W. W. (1992). Principles of Instructional

Design (4th ed.). Forth Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanich College
Publishers.
Gencturk, Y. C. (2012). Teachers’ Mathematical Knowledge for Teaching,

Instructional Practices, and Student Outcomes. Doctoral Dissertation,
University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, USA.
Grant, G.E. (1991). The sources of structural metaphors in teacher knowledge:

Three cases: Paper presented at the Fifth Conference of the
International Study Association on Teacher Thinking, University of
Surrey, Guilford, UK.
Hill, H., Rowan, B., & Ball, D. L. (2005). Effects of teachers’ mathematical
knowledge for teaching on student achievement. American Education
research Journal, pp.371-406.
Sabean, M. P., & Bavaria, R. (2005). Sylvan Learning Center Math Research.
Sylvan Learning, Inc.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (1992). Learning to think mathematically: Problem solving,

metacognition, and metacognition, and sense-making in mathematics.
In D.A Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching
and learning (pp.334-370). New York: Macmillan.
Tindugan, D. T. (2005). Factors associated with the Courses Taken by the

Graduates of the Special Science Curriculum of Catanduanes National
98
High School, School Year 2003-2004. Unpublished Master’s Thesis.

Catanduanes State College, Catanduanes, Philippines.
Watson, A., & De Geest, E. (2005). Principled teaching for deep progress:
Improving mathematical learning beyond mathematics and materials.
Educational Studies in Mathematics, 58(2), 209-234.
APPENDIX A-1
University of Bohol
Graduate School and Professional Studies
January 28, 2017
GODOFREDA O. TIROL, Ph. D.

Director, Graduate School and Professional Studies
University of Bohol
Dear Dr. Tirol:
I am Jo Marie Garcia currently enrolled in Thesis Writing 1 for the 2 nd semester of

academic year 2016-2017. I am pursuing the Master of Arts in Teaching Mathematics
program. I am asking approval from your office on my research titled “Instructional
99
Practices in Teaching Mathematics among the Public Secondary Schools of Talibon II

District, Talibon, Bohol during the School Year 2016-2017.”
.
In accordance to this academic requirement, may I further ask Dr. Buenaventurada D.
Libot to be my appointed Thesis Adviser to help and guide me the research process
of my approved study which is a terminal requirement for this degree.
I am hoping for your favorable response over this request.
Respectfully yours,
(Sgd.) JO MARIE GARCIA

Researcher
Noted by:
(Sgd.) GLENN R. ANDRIN, Ed. D., Ph. D.

Thesis Supervisor
Approved by:
(Sgd.) GODOFREDA O. TIROL, Ph. D.

(certified true copy)

APPENDIX A-2
University of Bohol
March 27, 2017
CECILIO M. ALBIOS
School In-Charge
Calituban High School
Calituban, Talibon, Bohol
Sir:
Greetings!
100
I am presently conducting my thesis titled “INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES IN

TEACHING MATHEMATICS AMONG THE PUBLIC SECONDARY SCHOOLS OF
TALIBON II DISTRICT, TALIBON, BOHOL DURING THE SCHOOL YEAR 2016-
2017” as a requirement for the degree of Master of Arts in Teaching Mathematics.
In this connection, I would like to ask permission from your good office to conduct this
study in your school. I am assuring your office that utmost confidentiality will be
observed pertinent to obtained data.
I would gladly provide your office a copy of the research findings for your reference.
Hoping for a positive response to this request as it would be tantamount to the

success of this endeavour. Thank you very much and God bless.
Very truly yours,

Researcher
Noted:
(Sgd.) BUENAVENTURADA D. LIBOT, Ph.D., Ch.E.
Thesis Adviser
(Sgd.) GODOFREDA O. TIROL, Ph.D.


APPENDIX A-3
University of Bohol
March 27, 2017
ANA MARIE F. VALMORIA

Elementary School Principal I
Cataban Integrated School
Cataban, Talibon, Bohol
Madam:
Greetings!
101


Very truly yours,

Researcher
Noted:
Thesis Adviser


APPENDIX A-4
University of Bohol
March 27, 2017
FELICIANA N. NIÑO
Secondary School Principal I
Mayor Catalino Y. Casoyla Memorial High School
Suba, Talibon, Bohol
Madam:
Greetings!
102


Very truly yours,

Researcher
Noted:
Thesis Adviser


APPENDIX A-5
University of Bohol
March 27, 2017
JULIUS I. MAESTRE
Head Teacher III
Ponciana E. Leoligao High School
San Francisco, Talibon, Bohol
Sir:
Greetings!
103


Very truly yours,

Researcher
Noted:
Thesis Adviser


APPENDIX A-6
University of Bohol
March 27, 2017
MARCELA R. BAUTISTA
Secondary School Principal IV
San Jose National High School
San Jose, Talibon, Bohol
Madam:
Greetings!
104


Very truly yours,

Researcher
Noted:
Thesis Adviser


APPENDIX A-7
University of Bohol
March 27, 2017
EDWIN S. CORBITA
Secondary School Principal I
Zosimo A. Gulle Memorial National High School
Bagacay, Talibon, Bohol
Sir:
Greetings!
105


Very truly yours,

Researcher
Noted:
Thesis Adviser

APPENDIX A-8
University of Bohol
Dear Respondents,
Greetings!

2017”” as a requirement for the degree of Master of Arts in Teaching Mathematics.
106
The purpose of this study is to assess your instructional practices in teaching

mathematics. Also, this study will help you undertake significant adjustments in
teaching and will serve as guide or reference for the improvement of classroom
instruction.
In line with this, I would respectfully ask you to answer this questionnaire. Rest
assured that your answers will be handled effectively and treated with utmost
confidentiality.
Your cooperation is highly appreciated.
Thank you and God bless!
Very truly yours,

Researcher
Noted:

Thesis Adviser
GODOFREDA O. TIROL, Ph.D.


APPENDIX B
University of Bohol
SCHEDULE FOR PRE-ORAL EXAMINATION
Name : Jo Marie Garcia
Date : March 12, 2017

107
Time : 3:00 in the afternoon
Venue : Office of the Director, Professional Studies
Adviser : Buenaventurada D. Libot, Ph. D.
Panel : Jerome Magallen, Ph. D.
Glenn R. Andrin, Ed. D., Ph. D., (Chairman)


APPENDIX C
University of Bohol
SCHEDULE FOR ORAL DEFENSE
Name : Jo Marie Garcia
Date : September , 2017

108
Time : ____ in the afternoon
Venue : Office of the Director, Professional Studies
Adviser : Buenaventurada D. Libot, Ph. D.
Panel : Godofreda O. Tirol, Ph. D. (Chairman)

SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE
Instruction: Please put a check mark ( √ ) on the box provided and fill in the
blanks with the appropriate information. Your answers will be kept strictly
confidential and will not be identified by name.
Part I: Demographic Profile

Name (Optional): ___________________________
Age : _____
Sex : Male Female
Civil Status:
Single
Married
109
Separated
Widowed
Highest Educational Attainment:
Bachelor’s Degree
Acquired Master’s Units
Master’s Degree
Acquired Doctoral Units
Doctor’s Degree
Number of Years in Teaching: ________________
School Assignment: ____________________________________
Part II.
MATHEMATICS INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES QUESTIONNAIRE
(MIPQ)
by: Dr. Yasemin Copur Gencturk of Illinois University
This questionnaire is designed to help us gain a better understanding of

the different dimensions of instructional practices in mathematics. Please
indicate your opinions about each of the statements below by checking the
appropriate response.
Description Meaning Equivalent

Weight
Always The condition is felt at all times 4
Sometimes The condition is felt at certain times 3
Rarely The condition is seldom felt 2
Never The condition is never felt 1
A. Lesson Design and Always Sometimes Rarely Never

Implementation 4 3 2 1
1. The design of my lesson reflected
careful planning and organization.
2. The design of my lesson
110
incorporated tasks, roles, and

interactions consistent with
investigative mathematics.
3. My lesson had a
problem/investigation-centered
structure (e.g. I launched a
problem/investigation and I led a
synthesizing discussion).
4. The instructional objectives of my
lesson were clear and I was able to
clearly articulate what mathematical
ideas and/or procedures that students
were expected to learn.
5. My lesson design provided
opportunities for student discourse
around important concepts in
mathematics.
6. I portrayed mathematics as a
dynamic body of knowledge
continually enriched by conjecture,
investigation analysis, and/or
proof/justification.
7. I appeared confident in my ability
to teach mathematics.
8. My instructional strategies were
consistent with investigative
mathematics.
9. My questioning strategies for
eliciting student thinking promoted
discourse around important concepts
in mathematics.
10. The pace of my lesson was
appropriate for the developmental
level/needs of the students and the
purpose of the lesson.
11. I am flexible and able to take
advantage of “teachable moments,”
(including building from students’
ideas – both mathematical and non-
mathematical).
12. My classroom management
style/strategies enhanced the quality
of the lesson.
13. The vast majority of my students
111
were engaged in the lesson and

remained on task.
14. I create appropriate connections
to other areas of mathematics, to
other disciplines, and/or to real-world
contexts.
B. Mathematical Discourse and
Sensemaking
1. My students asked questions to
clarify their understanding of
mathematical ideas or procedures.
Logistical questions – “may I sharpen
my pencil?” don’t count.
2. My students shared their
observations.
3. My students explained
mathematical ideas and/or
procedures.
4. My students justified mathematical
5. My students listened intently and
actively to the ideas and/or
procedures of others for the purpose
of understanding someone’s methods
or reasoning.
6. My students challenged each
other’s and their own ideas that did
not seem valid.
7. My students defended their
mathematical ideas and/or
procedures.
8. My students determine the
correctness/sensibility of an idea
and/or procedure based on the
reasoning presented.
9. My students made generalizations,
or made generalized conjectures
regarding mathematical ideas and
procedures.
10. My students drew upon a variety
of methods (verbal, visual, numerical,
algebraic, graphical, etc.) to represent
and communicate their mathematical
112
11. I and my students engaged in

meaning making at the end of the
activity/instruction. (There was a
synthesis or discussion about what
was intended to be learned from
doing the activity.)
12. I productively probed/“pushed on”
the mathematics in students’
responses (including both correct and
incorrect responses).
C. Task Implementation
1. I give tasks which are focused on
understanding of important and
relevant mathematical concepts,
processes, and relationship.
2. I give tasks which stimulated
complex, non-algorithmic thinking.
3. I give tasks which successfully
created mathematically productive
disequilibrium among students.
students to search for multiple
solution strategies and to recognize
task constraints that may limit
solution possibilities.
students to employ multiple
representation and tools to support
their learning, ideas and/or
procedures.
students to think beyond the
immediate problem and make
connections to other related
mathematical concepts.
D. Classroom Culture
1. Active participation of all my
students was encouraged and
valued.
2. I displayed respect for students’
ideas, questions, and contributions.
3. Interactions reflected a productive
working relationship among my
students.
113
collaborative working relationship
between me and the students.
5. I treated wrong answers as
worthwhile learning opportunities.
6. My students were willing to openly
discuss their thinking and reasoning.
7. The classroom climate encouraged
my students to engage in
mathematical discourse.

Master's Thesis (Jo Marie Garcia) - 015022

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Master's Thesis (Jo Marie Garcia) - 015022

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Master's Thesis (Jo Marie Garcia) - 015022

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

THE PROBLEM AND ITS SCOPE

platform of change to gain achievement and prosperity. In this contemporary

society, individuals should be educated enough to face challenges and

endeavors to stay alive with peace and harmony. Consequently, most

its full commitment to develop its educational system to attain progress.

Basically, the Philippine educational system gives more emphasis on

that Filipino learners should be equipped with basic competencies in

reasoning ability for them to be globally competitive in nature.

However, it is sad to note that the quality of Philippines’ education

concerning mathematics is declining. It is evident in the results of national and

International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS, 2010) survey showed

to students in other countries. Also, National Achievement Tests (NAT) show

Assessment Examinations (NCAE) indicate that there is a large number of

to fields related to mathematics. This confirms that many students find

mathematics as a difficult subject and leads them to be uncomfortable and

gives little effort in studying the said subject matter.

Several studies were conducted to resolve this problem. Probably, one

of the biggest transformations done by the government to resolve this problem

is changing the curriculum from 2002 Basic Education Curriculum (BEC) to

K+12 Basic Education Curriculum Program – a curriculum program patterned

in other developing countries. In reality, the curriculum in both Basic and

Higher Education is changing. However, this issue is also attributed to several

education. The quality of learning depends on how teachers develop

instructional practices for them to contribute to the optimum learning of

students. Meanwhile, the government is doing its best to maintain its

objectives of improving quality personnel in the teaching profession. This also

education depends on the instructional practices done by teachers.

Instructional practices are those applications that fuel effective and

efficient classroom interaction to drive students on their journey of discovery in

a learning experience. Instructional practices also depend on what the teacher

brings to the classroom. Professional competence is believed to be a crucial

Improvement of students’ achievement is a combination of several

factors. Teachers equipped with precise instructional practices promotes

Exposure of students to problems which apply real world situations, including

in college would help them in deciding what they want to pursue.

Hence, it is considered essential to determine the degree of how

teachers’ profile affects their instructional practices in teaching mathematics. It

is also important to understand how the dimensions of instructional practices

the teachers use relate with each other.

This inspires the researcher to undertake this research study primarily

teachers of Talibon II district, Bohol in teaching mathematics. The researcher

mathematics and to give significant knowledge and valuable understandings in

creating learning more meaningful to students.

This study is anchored on the following theories.

Robert M. Gagne’s Theory of Instruction. This theory stresses that

instruction consists of a set of events external to the learner designed to

of instruction are designed to make it possible for learners to proceed from

objective. Gagne formulated the Nine Events of Instruction (1992) namely:

gaining attention, informing students of the objectives, stimulating recall of the

prior learning, presenting content, providing learning guidance, eliciting

performance, providing feedback about performance, assessing performance,

and enhancing retention and transfer of learning.

With this, instructional practices in teaching mathematics may mean

offering support for the development of learning mathematics such as

incorporating tasks, roles and interactions consistent with investigative

mathematics in lessons, and making appropriate connections to other areas of

mathematics, other disciplines and to the real world contexts.