SAMPLE TABLE: MEAN PERCENTAGE SCORE (MPS)

Level of Students’ Mathematics Achievement. The data on the test result of the students’

mathematics achievement using the Flipped classroom approach (experimental group) and

Conventional teaching method (control group) for both first trial and second trial runs were

shown in Table 1.

As shown in the table, the use of Flipped Classroom Approach in teaching generates a

posttest result with an MPS of 79%, descriptively interpreted as moving towards mastery of

which a computed increase of 51% in the level of students’ achievement from the pretest with an

MPS of 28% which is descriptively interpreted as low for the first trial run was exhibited. The

posttest result for the second trial run exhibited an MPS of 76%, descriptively interpreted as

moving towards mastery, which is a 47% increase in the level of students’ achievement from the

pretest with an MPS of 29% which is descriptively interpreted as low.

Table 1. Level of students' mathematics achievement

Using Flipped Classroom Approach Conventional Method

Test (Experimental Group) (Control Group)
MPS Descriptive Equivalent MPS Descriptive Equivalent
1st Trial Pretest 28% Low 29% Low
Run Posttest 79% Moving Towards Mastery 64% Average

MPS 51% 35%

Increase
2nd Trial Pretest 29% Low 26% Low
Run Posttest 76% Moving Towards Mastery 62% Average
MPS 47% 36%
Increase
Scale: 96 – 100% = Mastered; 86 – 95% = Closely Approximating Mastery; 66 – 85% = Moving Towards Mastery; 35 –
65% = Average; 15 – 34% = Low; 5 – 14% = Very Low; 0 – 14% = Absolutely No Mastery
 The pretest of the control group in the first trial and second trial runs were low with a

mean percentage score (MPS) of 29% and 26%, respectively. A descriptive equivalent average

with an MPS of 64% for the posttest in the first trial run of which indicates an increase of 35% in

the level of students’ achievement from the pretest. Also, a descriptive equivalent average with

an MPS of 62% for the posttest in the second trial run of which shows an increase of 36% in the

level of students’ achievement from the pretest.

The findings indicated that there is an increase in the level of students' achievement from

the pretest to posttest using the two methods in teaching Mathematics. The experimental group,

which is taught using the Flipped Classroom Approach, appeared to have a better performance

with an average increase in their level of achievement of 49% compared to students in the

control group with an average increase of only 35.5%. The posttest result of the experimental

group during the two trial runs are higher than that of the control group. This indicates that using

a Flipped Classroom Approach posted a higher achievement level than using the conventional

teaching method.
SAMPLE TABLE: LEVEL OF STUDENTS’ ENGAGEMENT

Level of Students’ Engagement. Table 2 shows the results in determining the students’

level of engagement in learning Mathematics. The overall level of engagement in learning using

Mathematical Games (experimental) was observed to be Very High (M = 3.40; SD = 1.48).

Similarly, the overall level of engagement in learning with Conventional Method was also

observed to be Very High (M = 3.34; SD = 0.62). Taking into consideration the range of the

deviations, the control group seems to be more homogeneous compared to the experimental

group which means that the responses of the students in terms of their level of engagement when

they are taught using Mathematical Games are a bit varied compared to the responses of the

students who are taught using Conventional Method.

Interestingly, only two (2) indicators of students’ engagement in the experimental group

out of seventeen (17) posted a mean interpreted as High while other indicators posted means

interpreted as Very High. On the other hand, Item #3, Item #4, Item #8, and Item #9 indicated a

level of engagement interpreted as High while the remaining thirteen (13) items posted means

interpreted as Very High. By and large, students in the experimental and control groups showed

approximately equivalent level of engagement in the learning process.

 Table 2. Level of Students' Engagement: 1st Trial Run

Using Mathematical Conventional Method

Indicators Games (Experimental) (Control)
M SD Remarks M SD Remarks
1. I am inspired and prepared to come to Mathematics 3.30 0.53 Very High 3.37 0.56 Very High
class every day.
2. I am inspired to learn new things in Mathematics class. 3.60 0.50 Very High 3.60 0.56 Very High
3. I am optimistic that I can learn and perform well in 3.07 0.52 High 3.17 0.59 High
Mathematics class.
4. I feel encouraged and interested to work on something 3.53 0.57 Very High 3.23 0.77 High
in Mathematics class.
5. I always stay on task or remain engaged during 3.30 0.47 Very High 3.27 0.74 Very High
Mathematics class.
6. I have increasing interest in Mathematics because of the 3.37 0.56 Very High 3.37 0.61 Very High
encouraging learning environment.
7. I read and review my class notes, handouts, and 3.30 0.53 Very High 3.37 0.49 Very High
textbook between classes to make sure that I learn from
these Mathematics learning materials.
8. I want to ask my Mathematics teacher or classmates 3.30 0.65 Very High 3.17 0.87 High
personally or through social media if I have a trouble
understanding a lesson.
9. I consult and share my views and knowledge to my 4.20 5.67 Very High 3.03 0.61 High
classmates and Mathematics teacher.
10. I always pay attention to my teacher and classmates 3.47 0.57 Very High 3.57 0.50 Very High
who communicate during Mathematics class.
11. I raise my hand to participate in Mathematics class 3.13 0.43 High 3.43 0.50 Very High
discussions.
12. I feel supported by my classmates and Mathematics 3.37 0.67 Very High 3.40 0.56 Very High
teacher.
13. I participate and interact during small-group 3.30 0.60 Very High 3.37 0.72 Very High
discussions in Mathematics.
14. I am having fun during collaborative learning activities 3.40 0.56 Very High 3.40 0.50 Very High
in Mathematics.
15. I give maximum effort to my Mathematics class. 3.47 0.51 Very High 3.30 0.53 Very High
16. I want to help my classmates in doing our activities 3.30 0.70 Very High 3.27 0.64 Very High
and
tasks.
17. I prepare thoroughly before the summative test or 3.37 0.61 Very High 3.40 0.50 Very High
exam
in Mathematics.
Overall 3.40 1.48 Very High 3.34 0.62 Very High
Scale: 1.00 – 1.75 = Very Low; 1.76 – 2.50 = Low; 2.51 – 3.25 = High; 3.26 – 4.00 = Very High
SAMPLE TABLE: PEARSON CORRELATION
Table 3
Test of Relationship between Computation Skills and Mathematics Performance

Variables Pearson “r” Interpretation p-value Interpretation

Computation .593 Moderate Positive .000 With

Skills and Linear Relationship Significant
Mathematics Relationship
Performance
Scale: 0 – ± 0.29 = No Linear Relationship *N = 90
± 0.30 – ± 0.49 = Weak Linear Relationship
± 0.50 – ± 0.69 = Moderate Linear Relationship
± 0.70 – ± 0.99 = Strong Linear Relationship
±1 = Perfect Linear Relationship

The results showed that there is a moderate positive correlation between students’

computation skills and students’ Mathematics performance (Pearson “r” = .593) which means

that when the students' computation skills are more strengthened and developed, the better they

will perform in Mathematics. On the other hand, if such computation skills are weak, the bigger

the chance that they will have poor performance in Mathematics. Besides, a significant

relationship was established between the two variables (p-value < .05). Thus, the null hypothesis

was rejected and the alternative hypothesis specifying that there is a significant relationship

between the students’ computation skills and their Mathematics performance was accepted.

Philips (2007) emphasized that computation skill is essential for today’s generation and

posited that it empowers students to be more operative problem solvers for situations beyond the

computer science realm, and inspires them to generate tools to solve problems, rather than utilize

prevailing paraphernalia. This skill also has been called the literacy of the 21st century, which is

being addressed at the tertiary level with high degrees of achievement. Moreover, Lunsford &

Poplin (2011), said that computation skills are an important factor of student success in
elementary statistics regardless of the level of mathematics presented, or the virtual emphasis on

computation versus interpretation by the instructor.

Since the significant relationship between computation skills and Mathematics

performance has been established, this recommends that both students and teachers must help

one another to strengthen the students’ computation skills in order to maximize their

performance in Mathematics.
SAMPLE TABLE: PAIRED SAMPLES T-TEST
By employing Paired Samples T-test, Table 4 indicates the test of significant difference
in students’ engagement in learning Science with and without the use of Interdisciplinary
Contextualization and Inquiry-Based Approach during the second trial run. The table (t-value = -
4.39; p-value = 0.000) reveals that there is a high significant difference between the level of
students’ engagement before and after ICon and IBA during the second trial run.

Table 4. Test of Significant Difference on Students’ Engagement With and Without

the Use of Interdisciplinary Contextualization and Inquiry-Based Approach

Second Trial Run Mean SD t – value df p– Remarks

Variables value
Before Interdisciplinary 3.24 0.37 -4.39 130 0.000 Highly
Contextualization and Inquiry- Significant
Based Approach

After Interdisciplinary 3.46 0.21

Contextualization and Inquiry-
Based Approach

* Significant at the 0.05 level

This finding signifies that students’ level of engagement in learning Science has

significantly increased through the long-term utilization and assimilation of Interdisciplinary

Contextualization (ICon) and Inquiry-Based Approach. This warrants the claim that ICon and

IBA implementation could enhance students’ engagement in the teaching-learning process.

Several researches theorized the positive impact of interdisciplinary contextualization and

inquiry-based approach in teaching to students’ engagement in the learning process. A student in

a supportive learning environment which provides an opportunity to express curiosity and

become involved in the learning process will always succeed and engage more than a student

who is subjected to a threatening environment or lack of stimulation (Dotterer & Lowe, 2011).

Students' engagement in their schoolwork increases significantly when they are taught why they

are learning the concepts and how those concepts can be used in real-world contexts (Chernus &
Fowler, 2010; K to 12 Toolkit, 2012; K to 12 Science Curriculum Guide, 2013). Inquiry-based

pedagogy provides students with opportunities to engage and practice the activities involved in

science (Apedoe, Walker, & Reeves, 2006). When students learn things that are close and

relevant to their daily living through the use of authentic materials, their interests and

engagement are engrossed and maintained (Goode, 2000; Simpson & Nist, 2002).
SAMPLE TABLE: INDEPENDENT SAMPLES T-TEST
By employing Independent Samples t-test, Table 5 establishes that there is a significant

difference in students’ interest in learning Mathematics using Videos (experimental) and

Conventional Method (control). The table (t-value = 2.358; p-value = .022) reveals that students

in the experimental have significantly higher level of interest than their counterparts in the

control group.

Table 5. Independent t-Test on Students’ Interest Using Video (Experimental) and Conventional
Method (Control): 1st Trial Run

Variables Mean SD t – value df p – value Remarks

Using Video 3.641 0.262 2.358 56 0.022 Significant

(Experimental Group)
Using Conventional Method 3.463 0.322
(Control Group)
* Significant at the 0.05 level

One of the common goals of all mathematics teachers at all levels of education is that

students should understand and learn Mathematics. Various factors are involved in shaping the

understanding and learning of Mathematics (Payan & Khayati, 2014). However, one of the

prerequisites for understanding Mathematics is interest in math and the desire of students to learn

it. Interest is a stimulus that increases the activity power. Simultaneous to active learning,

students should be interested in the subject they are learning and students may resort to it in

order to understand the materials and apply them (Shabani, 2006).

The findings of this study revealing significantly higher level of interest to students who

are taught using Videos (experimental) suggested that teaching with the use of Videos enhanced
students’ interest on the learning process and that learning Mathematics can be more enjoyable

and its value can be much more appreciated by students (Darling, Zielezinski, & Goldman,

2014). The more interested and engaged students are, and the more interactive each learning

session is, the more students will enjoy, learn and retain information from the lesson (Zane

Education, 2017).
SAMPLE TABLE: ANOVA

Using One-Way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) to test, analyze, and interpret the

difference, at 0.05 level of significance. The factor of Table 6 (f-ratio = 67.64 and p-value

<0.000) reveals that there is a significant difference in students’ achievement among the three

groups particularly the experimental group A, experimental group B and control group. These

findings revealed that the utilization of technology-enhanced instruction in teaching mathematics

particularly statistics is considerably better compared to the reinforcement of realia and

traditional instruction.

Table 6. One-Way ANOVA to Test Students’ Achievement Using Technology-enhanced

Instruction (Experimental Group A), Reinforcement of Realia (Experimental
Group B) and Traditional Instruction (Control Group).

Source of Sum of Mean

Df F-ratio P-value
Variation Squares Square

Between Groups 366.02 2 183.01 67.64 0.000

Within Groups 332.81 123 2.71

Total 698.83 125

*Significant at the 0.05 level

Table 7 displays post hoc analysis using Tukey test to show the pairwise differences that

occurred in the groups using three teaching strategies. In the first group, there is a significant

difference between the means of students’ achievement using Technology and Realia (p < .05),

meaning to say, using technology in teaching Mathematics is more effective compared to the use

of Realia in teaching Mathematics. Second group shows that there is significant difference
between means of students’ achievement using Realia and Conventional Teaching (p < .05),

which means the use of Realia in teaching Mathematics is more effective than Conventional

Teaching. Lastly, group C shows the significant difference between means of students’

achievement using Technology and Conventional Teaching (p < .05) which is the use of

Technology in teaching Mathematics is more effective than Conventional Teaching.

Table 7. Multiple comparisons between students’ achievement using technology

(experimental group A), realia (experimental group B) and conventional
teaching (control group).
*Tukey HSD
Grouping Mean Std. Sig. 95% Confidence Interval
Difference Error Lower Bound Upper Bound
1 2 2.818* .500 .000 1.62 4.02
*
3 4.045 .500 .000 2.85 5.25
*
2 1 -2.818 .500 .000 -4.02 -1.62
*
3 1.227 .500 .044 .03 2.43
*
3 1 -4.045 .500 .000 -5.25 -2.85
*
2 -1.227 .500 .044 -2.43 -.03
*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level
* 1 – Using Technology; 2 – Using Realia; 3 – Using Conventional Teaching

Mathematics instruction is considered as difficult and sometimes frustrated to learn for

most students (Shyu, 2000). But learning mathematics can be more enjoyable and the value of

mathematics can be much more appreciated by students through a systematically instructional

design for incorporating situated learning theory and multimedia video technology into

instruction in which students learn in a better way (Darling, Zielezinski, & Goldman, 2014).

When mathematics teachers use technology strategically, more students, especially those

students who struggle, are given the opportunity to learn math skills effectively, close their

achievement gaps, and have a better chance for a productive future. Using technology, can
improve student achievement in mathematics by providing multiple means and methods for

learners to grasp traditionally difficult concepts (Darling, Zielezinski, & Goldman, 2014).

Stanic (2014) stated that students will more likely understand the material and memorize

it better when they are engaging in active learning; it encourages the students to mentally

represent the material in words (written or narrated) and pictures and make the connection

between the pictorial and verbal representation. This significantly improves recall of heard and

seen and also fosters creative thinking. Thus reinforcement of realia could substantially improve

students’ performance. Other aspects of realia that have been demonstrated to engage students in

active learning are its address to 4 multiple forms of intelligence, its use of multiple modes for

content delivery and its emotional appeal to viewers (Mayer, 2001). Thus, these empirical

findings suggest that the technology-enhanced should be reinforced in teaching and learning

Mathematics.