SOLVING WORD PROBLEMS IN MATHEMATICS AMONG GRADE 9

STUDENTS IN BICOL COLLEGE

INTRODUCTION

Mathematics plays a very important role in our daily living. It is a subject that

deals with the logic of shape, quantity and arrangement. “Math is all around us, in

everything we do. It is the building block for everything in our daily lives, including

mobile devices, architecture (ancient and modern), art, money, engineering, and even

sports” (Hom, E.J., 2013). According to Lamb, “a world without math is unimaginable”

(2011). “Mathematics is widely recognized not only as a core component of the

curriculum but also as a critical filter to many educational and career opportunities”,

(Springer Science & Business Media, 2006).

According to the Handbook of Research on Mathematics Teaching and Learning

(1992), “mathematics is a living subject which seeks to understand patterns that permeate

both the world around us and the mind within us. Although the language of mathematics

is based on rules that must be learned, it is important for motivation that students move

beyond rules to be able to express things in the language of mathematics. This

transformation suggests changes both in circular content and instructional style. It

involves renewed effort to focus on (1) seeking solutions, not just memorizing

procedures; (2) exploring patterns, not just memorizing formulas; (3) formulating

conjectures, not just doing exercises”.

“As teaching begins to reflect these emphases, students will have opportunities to

study mathematics as an exploratory, dynamic, evolving discipline rather than as a rigid,

absolute, closed body of laws to be memorized. They will be encouraged to see

mathematics as a science, not as a canon, and to recognize that mathematics is really

about patterns and not merely about numbers” (National Research Council, 1989, p. 84).

“From this perspective, learning mathematics is empowering. Mathematically

powerful students are quantitatively literate. They are capable of interpreting the vast

amounts of quantitative data they encounter on a daily basis and of making balanced

judgements on the basis of those interpretations. They use mathematics in practical ways,

from simple applications such as using proportional reasoning for recipes or scale

models, to complex budget projections, statistical analyses, and computer modeling. They

are flexible thinkers with a broad repertoire of techniques and perspectives for dealing

with novel problems and situations. They are analytical, both in thinking through issues

themselves and in examining the arguments put forth by others”.

“Word problems are an important assessment tool for teachers because they show

a complete understanding of the math being taught. Solving math word problems can be

difficult for students – especially for those who are already struggling with foundational

math concepts. Word problems can be confusing because, unlike equations, they contain

extra words, numbers, and descriptions that have seemingly no relevance to the

question”,

Thiagarajan, K., (2018).

Problem-solving as defined in the dictionary is the thought processes involved in

solving a problem and it is also the area of cognitive psychology that studies the

processes involved in solving problems.

 “In a historical review focusing on the role of problem solving in the mathematics

curriculum, Stanic and Kilpatrick (1988) provide the following brief summary: Problems

have occupied a central place in the school mathematics curriculum since antiquity, but

problem solving has not. Only recently have mathematics educators accepted the idea

that the development of problem solving ability deserves special attention. With this

focus on problem solving has come confusion. The term problem solving has become

slogan encompassing different views of what education is, of what schooling is, of what

mathematics is, and of why we should teach mathematics in general and problem solving

in particular” (p. 1).

“Indeed, problems and problem solving have had multiple and often contradictory

meanings through the years – a fact that makes interpretation of the literature difficult”.

For example, a 1983 survey of college mathematics departments (Schoenfeld, 1983)

revealed that, “the following categories of goals for courses that were identified by

respondents as problem solving courses: (1) to train students to think creatively and/or

develop their problem solving ability (usually with a focus on heuristic strategies); (2) to

prepare students for problem competitions such as the Putnam examinations or national

or international Olympiads; (3) to provide potential teachers with instruction in a narrow

band of heuristic strategies; (4) to learn standard techniques in particular domains, most

frequently in mathematical modeling; (5)to provide a new approach to remedial

mathematics (basic skill) or to try to induce critical thinking or analytical reasoning

skills”, (Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning 334370, 1992).

 In year 1994, Ann M Gallagher and Richard De Lisi have examined whether male

and female students of high mathematical ability use different solution strategies on math

problems that had previously yielded gender differences in correct responding. Structured

interviews were conducted with high school students who had scored at least 670 on the

math portion of the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT-M). Female students were more likely

than male students to use conventional strategies. SAT-M scores were correlated with

positive attitudes (confidence and persistence) toward math: use of conventional

strategies was correlated with negative attitudes (dislike, non-relevance) toward math.

The purpose of Lynn S Fuchs & Douglas Fuchs (2002) study was to, “describe

the mathematical problem-solving profiles of students with mathematics disabilities

(MD) with and without comorbid reading disabilities (RD). The disability status of

fourth-grade students was verified through testing (n = 18 MD; n = 22 MD + RD). Then a

hierarchy of mathematics problem-solving tasks was administered. The results

demonstrated large deficits for both groups; however, the differences between students

with MD and those with MD + RD were mediated by the level of problem solving

(arithmetic story problems vs. complex story problems vs. real-world problem solving)

and by performance dimension (operations vs. problem solving). On arithmetic story

problems, the differences between the disability subtypes were similar for operations and

problem solving. By contrast, on complex story problems and real-world problem

solving, the differences between the subtypes were larger for problem solving than for

operations”.
 Peterson, Carpenter and Fennema (1989), examined the relationship of teachers'

knowledge of students' knowledge to teachers' mathematics instruction and to students'

mathematics problem solving. First-grade teachers (N= 20) participated in a 4-week

workshop in which they were given access to research-based knowledge on children's

mathematics learning. Teachers were observed for 16 days throughout the school year. In

May, teachers completed interviews and questionnaires about their knowledge and

beliefs; their students completed achievement tests. “Correlational analyses showed

significant positive relationships between teachers' knowledge of students' knowledge

and students' mathematics problem-solving achievement. Teachers with more knowledge

of their students questioned students about problem-solving processes and listened to

their responses. Teachers with less knowledge of their students explained problem-

solving processes to students or observed students' solutions. Case analyses of knowledge

and behavior of the most effective teacher and the least effective teacher supported these

conclusions and showed important differences in how these teachers thought about and

used students' knowledge”.

According to Tambychik & Meerah, (2010), “problem solving is one of major

aspect in mathematics curriculum in Malaysia which required students to apply and to

integrate many mathematical concepts and skills as well as making decision. However,

students were reported to have difficulties in mathematics problem solving”. The focus of

their study is to discuss the major mathematics skills and cognitive abilities in learning

that caused the difficulties in mathematics problems-solving among students from

students’ point of view. “The study was carried out on three focused group samples that
were selected through purposeful sampling. A mixed qualitative and quantitative

approach is used in order to have clearer understanding. Apart from the questionnaire

given, focused group interviews were carried out. Interviews were recorded and

transcribed. Data finding was analyzed descriptively. Data findings showed that

respondents lacked in many mathematics skills such as number-fact, visual-spatial and

information skills. Information skill was the most critical. The deficiency of these

mathematics skills and also of cognitive abilities in learning inhibits the mathematics

problem-solving. This understanding on how the deficits influenced the problem-solving

is expected to give effective guide lines in preparing diagnostic instruments and learning

modules in order to develop the mathematics skills”.

According to Hugar (2011), “the types of things we might think about a

mathematics classroom are equations, procedures, and word problems, but in learning

them, a student needs to master to solve problem. Thus, over the last couple of decades

there has been a move to approach the teaching of mathematics through problem-

solving”.

“Mathematical problem solving of secondary students in Singapore, showed that

students performed poorly on solving word problems. Difficulties in solving problems in

Mathematics are evident inside the classroom. Some students were impeded in their

progress in solving the problem as they did not comprehend the problem at all. Several

students also committed erroneous solutions owing to careless computations. Students

sometimes identify an appropriate operations or sequences of operating but do not know

the procedures necessary to carry out these operations accurately. Their problem
particularly in solving is confounded by the difficult terminology. These students have

difficulty understanding written or verbal directions or explanations and find word

problems especially difficult to translate into mathematical form and inability to use the

correct mathematics” (Yeo, 2004).

Bandong (2000) of the University of the Philippines Baguio, stated that, “as long

as a student is patient and sets his mind into it, he can learn everything. All he needs is

the understanding of the four fundamental operations of arithmetic – addition,

subtraction, multiplication and division. Teachers and students believe that Mathematics

needs patience in analyzing and solving every problem. The heart determination is

needed to make the subject interesting and easy”.

“In spite of the importance of mathematics, there seems to be growing reluctance

of the student to go into subject. Many students, despite a good understanding of

mathematical concepts are inconsistent at analyzing and computing. They make errors

because they misread or carry numbers incorrectly or may write numerical clearly enough

or in the correct column. These students often struggle, where basic computation and

right answers are stressed. Often they end up with remedial classes, even though they

might have a high level of potential for higher level mathematical thinking".

The foregoing gave the interest to the researcher to conduct the present study due

to the difficulties of the students in problem solving.

Bicol College Junior High School is a Private High School specially located at Cor. J.P.,

Rizal & R.T. Tabuena St. Sagpon, Daraga, Albay in the Municipality of Daraga (Locsin),
in the Province of Albay, and in the Region V – Bicol Region. This was established on

year 1941. The school presently has a Grade 7 to Grade 10.

This study aims to determine the difficulties of the grade 9 students in solving

word problems in Mathematics.

Specifically, this will answer the following objectives:

1. Determine the profile of the respondents in terms of:

a. Age

b. Gender

c. Educational Attainment of Parents

2. Determine the level of performance of the respondents in solving math word

problems in terms of:

a. Remembering

b. Understanding

c. Analyzing

d. Applying

e. Evaluating

3. Determine the strengths and weaknesses of the respondents along the above

variables.

4. Identify the factors that affect the respondents in solving word problems in Math.

5. Recommend measures to enhance the skills in solving word problems in Math.

 The results of the study that will be drawn from the test questionnaires that will be

given to the selected respondents of Bicol College.

The main idea of the researchers is to gather data from the resources and interpret

the results that will be formulated so that inquires of the present study entitled “Solving

Word Problems in Mathematics among Grade 9 students of Bicol College” will be

satisfactory and may be utilized in the practices of teaching particularly by future

educators of mathematics subject. It can use to help handling students having difficulties

in solving math problems.

Included in the investigation are the profile of the respondents in terms of age and

gender. The second concept or idea to be studied is about the performance level of the

respondents in terms of remembering, understanding, analyzing, applying and evaluating.

The third concept is to determine the strengths and weaknesses of the respondents along

the mentioned variables. The fourth concept are the factors that affect the respondents in

solving word problems in Math. The last concept of the study is to recommend measures

on how to enhance the skills in solving word problems in Math.

As to the recommended measures there is an institutional implication in terms of

mathematically oriented school, academic performance in mathematics in that school and

better feedbacks in the school. There are also community implications in terms of

improvement of the mathematical beliefs of the people that surrounds the respondent and

improvement of the self-confidence of the people having difficulties in solving word

problems in Mathematics.
SOLVING WORD PROBLEMS IN MATHEMATICS AMONG GRADE
9 STUDENTS IN BICOL COLLEGE

1. Determine the profile of the respondents in terms of age and

gender.
2. Determine the level of performance of the respondents in solving
math word problems in term of:
a. Remembering
b. Understanding
c. Analyzing
d. Applying
e. Evaluating
3. Determine the strength and weaknesses of the respondents.
4. Identify the factors that affect the respondents in solving word
problems in Math.
5. Recommend measures.

 Mathematically oriented school.

 Academic performance in mathematics in school.
 Better feedbacks in school.

 Improve the mathematical beliefs of the people that surrounds the

respondent.
 Improve the self-confidence of the people that surrounds the
respondent.
 Feedbacks

The researchers chose the problem solving model that was created by George

Polya, and a theory of Alan Schoenfeld. The mentioned theory and model will help the

respondents to solve mathematical word problems.

George Polya was a mathematician in the 1940s. Polya devised a systematic

process of solving problems that is now referred to by his name: the Polya 4-step

Problem-Solving Process: (1) Understand the problem; (2) Devise a plan (translate); (3)

Carry out the plan (solve); and (4) Look back (check and interpret), which is used all over

to aid people in solving math word problems.

The first step of Polya's Process is to understand the problem. “Some ways to tell

if you really understand what is being asked is to: state the problem in your own words,

pinpoint exactly what is being asked, identify the unknowns, figure out what the problem

tells you is important, and identify any information that is irrelevant to the problem. The

next step after understanding the problem is to devise a plan. In devising a plan you

should: look for a pattern, review similar problems, make a table, diagram or chart, write

an equation, use guessing and checking, work backwards, and identify a sub-goal. The

third step in the process is the next logical step: Carry out the plan. This step is usually

easier than devising a plan. In general, all you need is care and patience, given that you

have the necessary skills. Persist with the plan that you have chosen. If it continues not to

work discard it and choose another. Don’t be misled, this is how mathematics is done,

even by professionals”. And the last step of his model is look back. Polya mentions that,

Figure 1.
Research Paradigm
“much can be gained by taking the time to reflect and look back at what you have done,

what worked, and what didn’t. Doing this will enable you to predict what strategy to use

to solve future problems”.

The first theory is the Polya 4-step Problem Solving Process which emphasizes

four steps on how to solve mathematical word problems and which is used all over to aid

people in problem solving. The researchers focused on the level of comprehension of the

respondents and factors that struggle them to answer math worded problems.

Alan Schoenfeld states that, “problem solving is confronting a situation that does

not have a ready answer — not merely doing exercises which can be completed using

known procedures.  By this definition, problem-solving activities would include writing

an essay trying to convince someone of your perspective or applying a historical or

biological concept to a particular situation”.  According to Schoenfeld’s research, “there

are four categories of knowledge that determine the quality and success of our problem-

solving attempts: (1) our actual knowledge base; (2) our problem-solving strategies; (3)

our control, monitoring and self-regulation (i.e. metacognition); and (4) our beliefs and

the practices that give rise to them”.

Schoenfeld’s first category of knowledge is our actual knowledge base.

“Although we typically realize that the content of our knowledge makes a difference to

our ability to solve problems, we don’t always consider how we know it, or recognize our

interpretive filters”.  When working with students, Schoenfeld argued that, “we need to

be able to evaluate the interpretive filters they have developed.  That is, being a good

teacher means more than being able to explain the same thing in multiple ways — good
teachers need to recognize how students know the material, and be able to intervene

when their understandings falter”.  Schoenfeld gave the example of six three-digit

number subtraction problems solved by a child, four correctly and two incorrectly.  He

noted that, “if we carefully analyzed the child’s errors, we would realize that the child

only made mistakes when there was a zero in the first number and subtraction required

borrowing across columns.  This student would be best served by an instructor who

intervened by noticing this consistent error and explaining the concept again”.

Second is the Problem-solving strategies, also called “heuristics,” that can be

identified in every discipline.  “In writing and composition, heuristics include outlining,

using topic sentences, and following basic argument and rhetorical structures.  In

mathematics, they include approaches like drawing a diagram, looking at individual

cases, solving an easier related problem, and establishing sub-goals.  Students can be

taught these strategies — and, in Schoenfeld’s experience, as a result they can learn to

solve problems that the instructor cannot”.

Third is the Metacognition. “In order to solve problems effectively, we must

control, monitor, and self-regulate our thinking.  What we know matters, but how and

when we use our knowledge matters even more.  In writing, common errors for students

and scholars alike are losing track of the argument and meandering; failing to explain to

readers’ points that are already clear in our own minds; and forgetting to consider the

audience for the piece.  In mathematics, students often begin using techniques and

strategies they know without evaluating how appropriate those strategies are for the

problem at hand”.
 Schoenfeld’s fourth and last category of knowledge is beliefs. “In areas such as

writing and math, and in every discipline, we and our students develop beliefs that may

not serve us well”.  For example, in writing, we might believe that you just write down

what’s in your head” and so writing should be easy, or that “writing is like telling a story;

you just start at the beginning and follow the narrative.”  Schoenfeld told the group that,

“he spent around 5,000 hours writing each of his monographs, and that unrealistic beliefs

about writing being “easy” can hamper not only students but faculty members as well”.

In mathematics, unhelpful student beliefs might include, “math is just about rules you

learn,” “all problems can be solved in five minutes or less,” or “school math has nothing

to do with the real world.”  Because of these kind of beliefs, students are less effective

mathematicians. Schoenfeld suggested that, “enriching our classroom practices, in any

disciplinary context, can help students develop more productive beliefs and behaviors”.

Ultimately, Professor Schoenfeld argued, “we should not only teach the content of

our disciplines — we should teach heuristics for problem-solving within them”.

The second theory is the Schoenfeld’s theory that emphasizes the four categories

of knowledge. The researchers also focused on the recommendations that will be given

and advised to the respondents. This theory recommend some measures to help the

respondents solve mathematical problems.

The first theory, Polya’s Model, and the second theory, Schoenfeld’s theory, have

similarities in solving word problems in Math. Both theories have provided 4 steps and/or

categories that will help the respondents in apprehending and decreasing the difficulties

in problem-solving.
Schoenfeld's Polya's
Theory Model

Solving Word
Problems in
Mathematics
among Grade 9
students in Bicol
College

Figure 2
 Theoretical Paradigm
The main focus of this study are the difficulties of Solving Word Problems in

Mathematics among Grade 9 students of Bicol College. This study is limited to Grade 9

students of Bicol College in the first quarter of academic year 2019-2020. Since in this

grade level, their skills and abilities in solving word problems in Math should have been

already developed and the factors that affect the respondents in Mathematics. This study

will be conducted in Bicol College Junior High School located at Bicol College Cor. J.P.,

Rizal & R.T., Tabuena Street Sagpon, Daraga, Albay.

This study will benefit the following:

Students. Students are the center of the learning. It is important for them to

enhance their performance and comprehension level in Mathematics.

Teachers. Teacher is the facilitator in developing the mathematical skills of the

students. The teacher should also use their different strategies so that the students can

easily understand the topic.

Parents. This study is important to the parents of the respondents, so that they

will not worry about their children’s performance when it comes to Mathematics and they

can also give appropriate advice.

Community. Since the school is one of the stakeholders of the community it is

anticipated that they are part of the activities that will be conducted. This study will aid as

an accessible data that can be useful to the community’s future programs.

School. This study is important to the school of the respondents so that they can

also know if the students’ mathematical skills are best and enough.
 School Administrator. Being authority of Bicol College, the administrator will

not help you to give the answers but advice on how to deliver topics in not much difficult.

Future Researchers. This study will help them to have literature if they conduct

a similar study. It can serve as their reference for their future researches.

METHODOLOGY

This is a descriptive and explorative single case study design in which the

researchers seek to discover the possible causes that affects the ordinary students enrolled

in Mathematics subject in solving word problems.

The primary sources of the data will be coming from the observation to be

conducted and the answer from the survey questionnaires that will be handed out to the

Grade 9 students of Bicol College Junior High School Department. The secondary

resources in gathering the data in this study will be coming from reference dictionary,

unpublished thesis or dissertation and the internet that serves a valuable source of

information and important ideas.

Table A

Respondents of the Study

Grade 9 – Diligent Grade 9 – Generous Grade 9 - Total

Industrious

Male Female Male Female Male Female 104

respondents
16 20 16 17 20 15
Source: Bicol College Junior High School Registrar Office

The researchers will use step-by-step procedure in conducting the study. The

procedure will help the researchers to conduct the study in a systematic way. The first

step in gathering the data is to find a perfect school in conducting a test to the

respondents of the study. The second step is to identify the respondents who will satisfy

the information. Then, the researchers will request a letter from the adviser permitting the

researchers to conduct the study. After its approval the letter will be sent to the principal

or coordinator of the school. After securing the letter to the principal, the next step is to

distribute the questionnaires to the respondents of the study. The last step is to tabulate

and analyze the data that will be collected using descriptive statistics. The data will be

analyzed to gather the findings, recommendations, and remedies that will help to solve

problems as regards the topic of the study.

The instrument of the researchers in this study will use survey questionnaires

through test. The survey questionnaires will determine the level of performance of the

respondents in Mathematics.
 Table B

Performance Level Scale

Performance Level (%) Adjectival Rating

96 – 100 Mastered

86 – 95 Closely Approximating Mastery

66 – 85 Moving Towards Mastery

35 – 65 Average Mastery

15 – 34 Low Mastery

5 – 14 Very Low Mastery

0–4 Absolutely No Mastery

In table B shows the scale of performance level of the respondents based on the

test questionnaires that will be given to the respondents. It will show where they belong

based on their performance mean level. The Frequency Distribution is a table that will

summarize values and their frequency. It is a useful way to organize data if you have a

list of numbers that represents the frequency of a certain outcome in a sample. It is a

representation, either graphical or tabular format that displays the number of observations

within a given interval. Frequency distributions is typically used within a statistical

context.
 “The measure of the central tendency is single value that describes the way in

which a group of data clusters around the central value. Measure of central tendency

gives concise information about the nature if the distribution of the test scores and present

appropriate ways to how the scores tend towards the center. The mean is another term for

the average”, (Detere, Nelly (2007), Assessment of Students Learning).

Table C

Likert Scale

Scale Quantification Adjectival Rating

5 4.20 – 5.00 Strongly Agree

4 3.40 – 4.19 Agree

3 2.60 – 3.39 Sometimes

2 1.80 – 2.59 Disagree

1 1.00 – 1.79 Strongly Disagree

The following statistical tools will be used in this study for the analysis of data in this

study.

Percentage. The percentage formula will be employed in the profiling of the

respondents to determine the percentage of the specific results. This will also use to

transmute the average of scores into the form of percentage.

f
P= ∗100
N

Where:
 P = Percentage

f = Frequency

N = Total number

100 = Constant

Mean. This will be used in getting the averages and to determine the group’s

average rating as bases for transmuting the result to the group mastery and difficulty level

in the test to determine their difficulties.

X
Mean=
N

Where:

X = Score

N = No. of Items

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The data are presented according to the objectives of this research study.

1) Profile of the respondents

The profile of the respondents contains the age, gender, and the highest

educational attainment of their parents.

a. Age

Table 1.A – Age of the Respondents

Age Frequency Percentage

14 years old 50 51.546 %

15 years old 39 40.206 %

 16 years old 8 8.247 %

Total 97 99.999 %

The data on the age of Grade 9 students of Bicol College Junior High School.

Table 1.A shows the age of the respondents. There are only 97 grade 9 students

took up survey and test questionnaires. There are 50 respondents that are in 14 years old,

39 respondents for 15 years old and only 8 respondents are already 16 years old. For the

percentage, 51.546% out of 99.999% total for 14 years old, 40.206% for 15 years old and

only 8.247% for 16 years old. It can be seen that the age majority in grade 9 students is

14 years old followed by 15 years old and the least respondents’ age is 16 years old.

Therefore, the table shows that the age of grade 9 students are not uniformed.

b. Gender

Table 1.B – Gender of the Respondents

Gender Frequency Percentage

Male 50 51.546 %

Female 47 48.454 %

Total 97 100%

The data on the gender of Grade 9 students of Bicol College Junior High School.

Table 1.B shows the gender of the respondents who took up the test question and

the survey question that was given by the researchers. There are only 97 respondents out

of 104 respondents who have taken the test and the survey questionnaires. Based on the
survey there were only 50 respondents in the male category and 47 in female category out

of 97 respondents. There were two (2) male respondents and five (5) female respondents

who did not take up the test and the survey questionnaire. The percentage of the male is

51.546% and 48.454% for the female with a total of 100 percent.

According to Scafidi and Bui (2010), “math school achievement and grades do

not differ significantly between boys and girls”.

c. Highest Educational Attainment of Parents

Table 1.C – Educational Attainment of Parents of the Respondents

Highest Educational Mother Father Total Percentage

Attainment (frequency) (frequency) Frequencies
Elementary Undergraduate 0 2 2 1.030 %

Elementary Graduate 1 0 1 0.515 %

High School Undergraduate 6 4 10 5.155 %

High School Graduate 15 6 21 10.825 %

College Undergraduate 21 21 42 21.649 %

College Graduate 50 58 108 55.670 %

Did not indicate 4 6 10 5.155%

Total 97 97 194 99.999 %

The data on the Educational Attainment of Parents of the Respondents of Bicol College
Junior High School

Table 1.C shows the highest educational attainment of parents of the respondents.

The educational attainment of parents of the respondents contributes to the learning of the

respondents. “Educational backgrounds of parents are one and important aspects and
plays a role for studying mathematics. The education of the child does not depend only

on the teacher’s role but also on their parents’ awareness, interest and knowledge about

handling and guiding their children at home”.

2) Performance Level of the Respondents

The performance level of the respondents were determined through test

questionnaires. The test questionnaires has five cognitive domains – remembering,

understanding, applying, analyzing and evaluating.

Table 2

Performance Level of the Respondents

Performance Level (%) Frequency Adjectival Rating

96 – 100 0 Mastered

86 – 95 7 Closely Approximating Mastery

66 – 85 2 Moving towards Mastery

35 – 65 45 Average Mastery

15 – 34 36 Low Mastery

5 – 14 7 Very Low Mastery

0–4 0 Absolutely No Mastery

The table exhibits the performance mean level of the Grade 9 students. This

proves that the problem-solving skills of the respondents are much more in average

mastery. There are no respondents who belong in Mastered category and in Absolutely

No Mastery. There are no entries on the mastered category with the reason of the
respondents failed to perform well in some cognitive domains such applying, analyzing

and evaluating. Also, no respondents are in absolutely no mastery implying that the

respondents leastways know how to solve mathematical word problems. Moving towards

mastery is the least at frequency of respondents. Somehow, there are seven (7)

respondents who are in closely approximating mastery and in very low mastery. One-

third much of the respondents are in low mastery with 36 frequency. Most of the

respondents who are in average mastery and low mastery failed to perform well in

analyzing the problems while the respondents in very low mastery lacked in applying,

analyzing, and evaluating the problems.

3) Determine the strengths and weaknesses of the Respondents

Based on the performance level, the strengths and weaknesses of the respondents

were reflected. This will show where the respondents have difficulties in solving

mathematical word problems through the five cognitive domains – remembering,

understanding, applying, analyzing, and evaluating.

The following table will display the results of the respondents. In getting the mean of

each item number, each frequencies were divided by the total number of items. For

percentage, each frequencies were divided by the total number of respondents (97

respondents) and multiplied to 100. Total percentage will be obtained by adding all the

percentage and divide by the total number of percentage.

 a. Remembering

Item No. Competencies f Mean Percentage Performance Level

Moving Towards
1 Define geometry 77 15.4 79.38%
Mastery

2 Identify triangle 34 6.8 35.05% Average Mastery

7 Determine angle 32 6.4 32.99% Low Mastery

8 Determine polygons 18 3.6 18.56% Low Mastery

Define solving
15 39 7.8 40.21% Average Mastery
problem

Total: 5 200 40 41.24% Average Mastery

Table 3.A

The total mean of the respondents’ result is 40 and the total percentage is 41.24%.

From the Performance Level table, 35% - 65% are in Average Mastery.

This table reflects the respondents performed well in remembering domain.

Respondents got the highest mean and percentage in defining the geometry whereas

determining the polygons got the lowest mean and percentage.

According to Math Fluency (2011), “educators and cognitive scientists agree that

the ability to recall basic math facts fluently is necessary for students to attain higher-
order math skills. If this fluent retrieval does not develop then the development of higher-

order mathematics skills – such as multiple-digit addition and subtraction, long division,

and fractions – may be severely impaired”.

Gooding (2009), suggests “through continuous practice, learner can acquire a lot

of skills and knowledge of which strategy to use in each scenario”.

b. Understanding

Item No. Competencies f Mean Percentage Performance Level

4 Classifying polygons 36 7.2 37.11% Average Mastery

6 Classifying points 55 11 56.70% Average Mastery

14 Sides of polygons 30 6 30.93% Low Mastery

16 Identifying angles 29 5.8 29.90% Low Mastery

21 Identifying angles 29 5.8 29.90% Low Mastery

Total: 5 179 35.8 36.91% Average Mastery

Table 3.B

Table 3.B presents the result of respondents in cognitive domain understanding.

The total mean of the respondents’ result is 35.8 and the total percentage is 36.91%. From

the Performance Level table, 35% - 65% are in Average Mastery.

In classifying points and polygons, respondents are in Average Mastery while

they have Low Mastery in identifying polygons and angles.

Barwell (2011), states that “understanding the structure of word problems, helps

students become better readers and problem solvers”. Also, according to Powell (2011),
“once students determine the type of questions, they can use a diagram and an equation to

solve the problem”.

“Some students do not comprehend the problem and they tend to be confused.

Others look for keywords when they read a problem instead of understanding it. This will

lead incorrect translations. When students fail to translate the problem, they end up with

an erroneous solution”, (Dela Cruz & Lapinid, 2014).

“Some children find it difficult to solve word problems presented in a paragraph.

It is easier for them if the problem is presented in numbers or a certain equation;

therefore, they need to develop a full understanding of the problem before they attempt to

solve it”, (Swanson, Orosco, & Lussier, 2014)

c. Applying

Item No. Competencies f Mean Percentage Performance Level

10 Rectangle Perimeter 43 4.3 44.33% Average Mastery

11 Triangle 45 4.5 46.39% Average Mastery

12 Triangle 38 3.8 39.18% Average Mastery

13 Area of Rectangle 31 3.1 31.96% Low Mastery

18 Prism 24 2.4 24.74% Low Mastery

19 Rectangle 20 2.0 20.62% Low Mastery

24 Right Triangle 25 2.5 25.77% Low Mastery

25 3D Rectangle 22 2.2 22.68% Low Mastery

26 Pythagorean 33 3.3 34.02% Low Mastery

30 Rectangle 30 3.0 30.93% Low Mastery

 Total: 10 311 31.1 32.06% Low Mastery

Table 3.C

The result of the respondents in cognitive domain applying appears in this table.

The total mean of the respondents’ results in applying is 31.1 and the total percentage is

32.06%. From the Performance Level table, 15% - 34% are in Low Mastery.

Respondents’ results in applying are almost in Low Mastery. They only got

Average Mastery on those items that has basic questions in terms of applying.

“Carelessness of students can also be a source of difficulty in solving word

problems. Some might copy the number given incorrectly. Some students tend to

interchange the order of numbers in the question. Although they understand the given and

what operation to use, copying the given numbers incorrectly will lead them to an

incorrect answer”, (Dela Cruz & Lapinid, 2014)

d. Analyzing

Item No. Competencies f Mean Percentage Performance Level

5 Distinguish Angle 12 1.50 12.37% Very Low Mastery

9 Examine the Angle 46 5.75 47.42% Average Mastery

17 Examine the triangle 24 3.00 24.74% Low Mastery

22 Examine the angle 39 4.88 40.21% Average Mastery

23 Sphere from circle 43 5.38 44.33% Average Mastery

27 Examine the triangle 41 5.13 42.27% Average Mastery

28 Examine the cylinder 22 2.75 22.68% Low Mastery

 29 Examine the circle 37 3.63 38.14% Average Mastery

Total: 8 264 32.02 34.02% Low Mastery

Table 3.D

In table 3.D, the respondents’ performance level in cognitive domain analyzing is

Low Mastery with a total mean of 32.02 and a total percentage of 34.02%.

Respondents showed difficulties as they failed to distinguish angle and resulted in

Very Low Mastery. This question got the lowest frequency among all the questions.

“Some students have difficulty in analyzing word problems. They are either

unable to translate, or translate incorrectly”. According to Dela Cruz and Lapinid (2014),

“it is important to teach students how to think in solving such problems and explain to

them that they can develop a lot of skills by practice. Students will acquire a lot of

reasoning when they observe how others solving problems”.

e. Evaluating

Item No. Competencies f Mean Percentage Performance Level

3 Selecting of triangle 32 16 32.99% Low Mastery

20 Judging of Rectangle 32 16 32.99% Low Master

Total: 2 63 32 32.99% Low Mastery

Table 3.E

Table 3.E presents the performance level of respondents in the cognitive domain

evaluating which is Low Mastery having a total mean of 32 and a total percentage of

32.99%.
 Results showed that the two questions got equal frequencies, mean, and percentage.

However, their evaluating domain are still in Low Mastery.

Kumar and Natrajan (2007), examined the components of a theoretical problem based

learning framework adopted by a reform minded tertiary institution in Singapore. It was

found that “by learning disciplinary content matter through the instructional strategy of

solving real life of simulated problem, higher order skills such as critical evaluation and

information processing developed in students”.

It can be seen in the foregoing tables the respondents’ strengths and weaknesses

in solving word problems in Math. It can clearly see that the strength of the respondents

are only in remembering and understanding as they got Average Mastery. Respondents

performed well in defining, determining, identifying and classifying the problems.

However, respondents showed weaknesses in applying, analyzing, and evaluating.

Applying has the lowest total mean and total percentage with 31.1 and 32.06%,

respectively. The respondents got the total mean of 32 and 32.99% in evaluating which is

the second to the lowest. Analyzing has a total mean of 32.02 and a total percentage of

34.02%. Respondents failed to distinguish, examine and contrast the problem. In

evaluating, respondents failed to select and judge the answers.

 4) Factors affecting the respondents in solving word problems in Math.

Table 4 – Factors Affecting the Respondents

Factors Affecting Learning Mean Description

Learner-related factors: 3.21 Sometimes

I easily give up in solving math word problems. 2.86 Sometimes

I’m scared to raise questions about math word problems

3.15 Sometimes
because my classmates might make fun of me
I find it difficult in understanding math word problems 3.62 Agree

I don’t know the process in solving math word problems 3.53 Agree

I’m lazy to study about solving math word problems. 2.89 Sometimes

Teacher-related factors: 2.64 Sometimes

The teacher didn’t explain the process of solving math

2.70 Sometimes
word problems.
The teacher discussed the lesson without asking us if we
2.68 Sometimes
really understand.
I’m afraid to ask questions to our teacher 3.42 Agree

The teacher doesn’t know how to solve math word

1.74 Strongly Disagree
problems.
Family-related factors: 2.56 Disagree

My parents don’t know how to solve math word problems 2.22 Disagree
 I can’t study at home because of some family problems. 2.86 Sometimes

My parents are too tired to teach me. 2.61 Sometimes

Table 4

Table 4 displays the factors affecting the respondents in solving mathematical

word problems. Likert Scale was used to determine what is most likely to be the factors

that affects learning.

The factors indicated in the table are from the survey questionnaire that was given

to the respondents. The survey questionnaire has statements that refers to three (3) factors

— learner-related factors, teacher-related factors, and family-related factors.

Among the listed items, the students agreed that they find solving word problems

difficult, they don’t know the process and they’re afraid to ask questions to their teacher

with mean values of 3.62, 3.53, and 3.42, respectively. Sometimes the respondents give

up easily in solving math word problems (2.86), scared to raise questions for they are

might make fun of their classmates (3.15), and lazy to study (2.89). Based on the results,

respondents claimed that sometimes the teacher didn’t explain the process in solving

word problems (2.70), and the teacher discussed the lesson without asking them if they

understand (2.68). Nevertheless, the respondents strongly disagree that the teacher knows

how to solve word problems (1.74). Also, sometimes the respondents can’t study at home

because of family problems (2.86) and their parents are too tired to teach (2.61). The

respondents disagreed that their parents know how to solve word problems in Math

(2.22).
 Cañete (2002) studied about the teacher and pupil factors affecting problem

solving difficulties in mathematics. It concluded that “pupils had satisfactory

performance in basic skills test and fair attitude toward mathematics but low performance

in problem solving achievement test. A significant relationship existed between pupils’

problem solving skills in mathematics and some teacher factors, namely, educational

qualification, and possession of master’s units/degree, specialized training, performance

rating and strategies in teaching math. No sufficient evidence was seen to show

significant relationship between pupil’s skills in mathematics and the pupil factors,

mother’s educational attainment and family annual income”.

A new study by researchers at the University of Leicester and University of Leeds

has concluded that “parents’ efforts towards their child’s educational achievement is

crucial – playing more significant role than that of the school or child”. The researchers

found that “parents’ effort is more important for a child’s educational attainment that the

school’s effort, which in turn is more important than the child’s own effort”, (De Fraja &

Zanchi, 2010)

5) Recommending measures to enhance the skills in solving word problems in

Math.

Students find it difficult in solving word problems in Math because they are

lacking in skills and they did not comprehend the problem before solving. The learner

must improve their knowledge on mathematical terms, formulas and must know the basic

math and Algebra. It is really important to understand every word of the problem to not
mislead of what formula should be use. Most of the time, students who failed to

comprehend the problem cannot proceed to solving as they do not know what to do. In

solving, students must know what formula to use to arrive at the right answer. After

arriving at answer, students should look back to the problem and see if they really used

an appropriate formula and if they got the right answer.

Students must always pay attention to teacher’s discussion and if they did not

understand, they should shamelessly raise a right question about what they can’t

comprehend regarding the discussion. This has also contribution in improving the skills

for they will not be confused in what to do the next time. Reading books about the

strategies on how to solve math word problems can really improve your skills solving

word problems.

Kroll & Miller (1993), states that “students must possess relevant knowledge and

be able to coordinate their use of appropriate skills to solve problems. Furthermore,

knowledge factors such as algorithmic knowledge, linguistic knowledge, conceptual

knowledge, schematic knowledge and strategic knowledge are vital traits of problem-

solving ability. For mathematics teachers to assist their students develop their problem-

solving ability, it is essential that they are aware of their difficulties first”.

Conclusion

Based on the results and discussion, the study arrived at the following

conclusions:
 1. The profile of the respondents in terms of age, gender, and the highest educational

attainments of their parents are varied from each other.

2. Most of the Grade 9 students were varied in the performance level of solving

word problems in Math in terms of mastery, closely approximating mastery,

moving towards mastery, average mastery, low mastery, very low mastery, and no

mastery.

3. Most of the Grade 9 students were varied with their strengths and weaknesses in

solving word problems in Math in terms of remembering, understanding,

applying, analyzing, and evaluating.

4. It is the learner-related factors and teacher-related factors that affect the Grade 9

students in solving word problems in Math.

5. Recommendation to be used on how to enhance the skills in solving word

problems in Math among Grade 9 students.

Recommendation

The recommendation of the study are the following:

1. The parents must guide their child at all times and should follow-up the academic

performances of their child in Mathematics.

2. The teacher should provide a relaxed atmosphere in the classroom and must

review their lesson before discussing in the classroom.

3. The students must study more in Mathematics for their performance level will be

better and they can overcome their weaknesses in solving mathematical word

problems.

4. The teacher must encourage the students to raise questions and to answer even in

incorrect response.

5. The teacher must use varied strategies in teaching Mathematics to catch the

students’ attentions and to have them interest even the topic is difficult to

understand.