Loading...

Game-Based Problem Solving Skills and Mathematics Performance

by Professor Richard Tutanes (Author) Levy Reuyan (Author)

Diploma Thesis 2016 46 Pages

Pedagogy - Common Didactics, Educational Objectives, Methods

Excerpt

Inhaltsverzeichnis

THES IS ABSTRACT

Research Objectives:

Scope and Coverage:

Methodology:

Findings:

Conclusions

Recommendations

The Problem

Introduction

Perspective of the Researcher

Conceptual Framework

Statement of the Problem

Hypotheses

Significance of the Study

Scope and Limitations

Definition of Terms

Review of Related Literature

Game-Based Approach

Sophisticated Manipulatives

Problem Solving Skills

Role of Problem Solving in Mathematics Education

Methodology

Research Design

Research Environment

Research Subject

Sampling Techniques

Research Instruments

Data Gathering Procedure

Statistical Treatment

Presentation, Analysis and Interpretation of Data

Summary of Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations

Conclusions

Recommendations

Bibliography

THES IS ABSTRACT

Research Objectives:

This study tried to find out the level of learning of the students using manipulative materials in teaching mathematics. It focused on the Grade 7 high school students of Sultan Naga Dimaporo Integrated School, Poblacion, Sultan Naga Dimaporo, Lanao del Norte, during the school year 2015-2016.

Specifically, this study answered the following questions after the data have been analyzed and interpreted.

1. To what level is the students’ performance of the experimental group (using manipulative materials) in the pretest and posttest results during the first and second trial runs?
2. Is there any significant difference of the students’ performance in the experimental group (using manipulative materials) in the pretest and posttest results during the first and second trial runs?
3. To what level is the students’ performance of the control group (using conventional method) in the pretest and posttest results during the first and second trial runs?
4. Is there any significant difference of the students’ performance in the control group (using conventional method) in the pretest and posttest results during the first and second trial runs?
5. Is there any significant difference between the students’ performance in the experimental group (using manipulative materials) and control group (using conventional method) in the first trial run?
6. Is there any significant difference between the students’ performance in the experimental group (using manipulative materials) and control group (using conventional method) in the second trial run?
7. Based on the result, what action plan can be developed to improve the learning skills of the students using manipulative material?

Scope and Coverage:

The study focused on determining the effects of using manipulative materials in teaching mathematics among grade 7 high school students of Sultan Naga Dimaporo Integrated School, Poblacion, Sultan Naga Dimaporo, Lanao del Norte, during the school year 2015-2016.

Methodology:

This study utilized the experimental method of research. The experimental method group is exposed to teaching mathematics using manipulative materials. The control group is immersed in the conventional lecture method of presenting the lessons in mathematics. It has undergone two trial runs both in experimental using manipulative materials in teaching and conventional lecture method to assess the validity of the outcomes. Pretests were conducted before the two lessons and posttests were given afterwards. The result would determine the degree of learning among the 40 students for the experimental group and 35 students for the control group in Grade 7- Mathematics.

Findings:

Summary of Findings

The following are the results of the study:

1. What is the Level of Students’ Learning Using Game-Based Problem Solving (Experimental) as Revealed in the Pretest and Posttest Results during the First and Second Trial Runs?

Results revealed that during the first trial run and second trial run in the pretest, it shows that in both runs the level of proficiency of the respondents is Beginner. If further shows that during the posttest especially in the second trial run there is evident change of the level of proficiency because it becomes approaching Proficiency instead of beginner in the pretest.

2. What is the level of problem solving skills of the respondents during the pre-study phase both in the control and experimental groups?

It also shows that during the first trial run and second trial run in the pretest, in both runs the level of proficiency of the respondents is Beginner. If further shows that during the posttest in the second trial run there is no evident change of the level of proficiency because it is still under beginner. Results also reveal that there is a higher increase of the overall Level of Students’ Learning under the experimental group, as compared to the control group.

3. Is there a significant difference in the Students’ Learning Using Game-Based Problem Solving (Experimental) and the Conventional Method (Control) in the First Trail Run?

Results show that here is a significant difference between the Students’ Level of Learning Using the Game-Based Problem Solving approach both in the first and second trial runs. This implies that the students have learned a lot from the lesson through Game-Based Problem Solving.

4. Is there a significant difference in the Students’ Learning Using Game-Based Problem Solving (Experimental) and the Conventional Method (Control) in the Second Trail Run?

It also reveals that there is a significant difference between the Students’ Level of Learning Using the Conventional Method both in the first and second trial runs. This implies that using the conventional method the students still learn a lot about the lesson.

5. Is there a significant difference in the Students’ Learning Using the Game-Based Problem Solving (Experimental) between Pretest and Posttest?

During the posttest, it shows that there has been a significant difference between the Levels of Students’ Learning using both approaches to problem solving. This implies that during the posttest those under the experimental group are performing better than those that are in the control group.

6. Is there a significant difference in the Students’ Learning Using the Conventional Method (Control) between Pretest and Posttest?

During the pretest there is no significant difference between the Students’ Learning using both approaches to problem solving. However, during the posttest, it shows that there has been a significant difference between the Levels of Students’ Learning using both approaches to problem solving. This implies that during the posttest in the second trial run those that are under the experimental group are performing better than those that are in the control group.

Conclusions

Based on the summary of findings above, the following conclusions are made:

During the first trial run and second trial run in the pretest, it shows that in both runs the level of proficiency of the respondents is Beginner. Moreover, during the posttest especially in the second trial run there is evident change of the level of proficiency because it becomes approaching Proficiency instead of beginner in the pretest.

During the first trial run and second trial run in the pretest, in both runs the level of proficiency of the respondents is Beginner. As well as in the posttest in the second trial run there is no evident change of the level of proficiency because it is still under beginner. Results also reveal that there is a higher increase of the overall Level of Students’ Learning under the experimental group, as compared to the control group.

There is a significant difference between the Students’ Level of Learning Using the Game-Based Problem Solving approach both in the first and second trial runs. This implies that the students have learned a lot from the lesson through Game-Based Problem Solving.

There is also a significant difference between the Students’ Level of Learning Using the Conventional Method both in the first and second trial runs. This implies that using the conventional method the students still learn a lot about the lesson.

During the pretest there is no significant difference between the Students’ Learning using both approaches to problem solving. However, during the posttest, it shows that there has been a significant difference between the Levels of Students’ Learning using both approaches to problem solving. This implies that during the posttest in the second trial run those that are under the experimental group are performing better than those that are in the control group.

Recommendations

Based on the summary of findings and conclusions above, the following recommendations are presented:

Another research of the same scope should be done in order to catch up with the demands of the learners. It is also advisable to conduct a further research on the same topic but from different year levels for basis of comparison. Moreover, future researchers may conduct the same research with bigger scope in other year levels.

Chapter 1

The Problem

Introduction

As cited in the study of Spires, et.al. (2011) that in 2006, the educational research community received a mandate from the National Summit on Educational Games to ramp up empirical investigations targeting how and under what conditions games can be used to maximize learning potential. One of the assumptions that members of the Summit made was that students “acquire new knowledge and complex skills from game play, suggesting gaming could help address one of the most pressing needs— strengthening the system of education and preparing workers for 21st century jobs” (Federation of American Scientists, 2006). Games are often touted as important tools for teaching an array of 21st century skills because: (a) they accommodate various learning styles and promote a complex decision-making context (Squire, 2006); (b) skill sets and dispositions embedded in well-designed games are a good match for the contemporary, technology-rich worlds students inhabit (Gee, 2003; Spires, 2008); and (c) games have the potential to promote the 21st century skills recognized as critical for all citizens (National Research Council, 2010). Increasingly, educators, private industry as well as policy makers agree that the bottom line for success in contemporary life and work is the ability “to learn rapidly and efficiently and to go into almost any situation and figure out what has to be learned” (Morrison, 2001). Games are often viewed as potential tools for learning since they can simulate real-world complexity and fast-paced processing in ways that traditional school learning scenarios cannot approximate. Historically, games have been associated with play outside of school contexts, but in light of low testing scores and increasing rates of high school dropouts, many are looking to games for educational benefits in schools. Pelletier (2009) has challenged educators to resist the urge to frame games as a way to salvage education by claiming that the value of games should be rethought in terms of “the situated signification of ‘game’ rather than games causing learning” (p. 83). Klopfer, Osterweil, and Salen (2009) in Moving Games Forward: Obstacles, Opportunities, & Openness, on the other hand, provide a conceptual path for people and organizations interested in fostering the development of games for learning purposes. Resisting the urge to make an either/or argument, they make “a case for learning games grounded in the principles of good fun and good learning” (p. 1) and devote their efforts to motivating and informing educators and researchers who want to constructively participate, as creators and consumers, in the gaming domain. Notwithstanding the growing trend for games to be fun and educational, empirical support for how games can improve learning outcomes for academic content in schools has been slow to emerge (Hayes, 2005). Mayer and Johnson (2010) conducted a recent review where they synthesized learning outcome research in three categories: “cognitive consequences, media comparisons, and value added” (p. 246). They concluded that the value added research (i.e., when researchers ask which features add value in terms of educational effectiveness of the game) is most important when the goal is academic learning. Mayer and 454 / SPIRES ET AL. Johnson’s (2010) research synthesis provides a much needed (a) utilitarian analysis of game effectiveness, and (b) critical definition and articulation of learning outcomes as the field of game-based learning continues to evolve. One of the most promising goals for games is to foster problem-solving skills. Problem solving is considered a critical 21st skill by many groups, including the Partnership for 21st Century Skills (2004), which claims that the capacity to problem-solve separates students who are prepared for increasingly complex life and work environments from those who are not. Problem solving is also supported by research conducted by Levy and Murnane (2004), who, after conducting a content analysis of emerging work skills, concluded that the nation’s challenge was to prepare youth for the high-wage/high-skilled jobs that involve expert problem-solving skills and complex communication.

In view of this, the researcher decided to conduct the research to correlate game-based problem solving and students performance.

Perspective of the Researcher

The researcher is a graduate of Bachelor of Secondary Education major in Mathematics at Mindanao State University - Iligan Institute of Technology last March 2000. On the same year she was employed as a mathematics teacher and as an adviser at St. Joseph’s Community High School, Sapad, Lanao del Norte which lasts for thirteen (13) years. The researcher is a secondary public school teacher who is presently employed at Lala National High School at Maranding Lala, Lanao del Norte. She is handling Mathematics subjects in the Junior High School and has decided to conduct a study on the problem solving skills and the overall mathematics performance. The researcher presently residing at Maranding, Lala, Lanao del Norte.

She applied different strategies to get the students involve in the lesson not only a mere listener and expectation. One of the strategies utilized is the used of games in teaching. The researcher strongly believes that using games is an effective ways in teaching mathematics.

[...]

Details

Pages
46
Year
2016
ISBN (eBook)
9783668612075
ISBN (Book)
9783668612082
File size
736 KB
Language
English
Catalog Number
v381300
Grade
Tags
Game-based Instruction Constructivitism Assessment Pedagogy Performance Teaching Methodology Teaching Education

Authors

Share

Previous

Title: Game-Based Problem Solving Skills and Mathematics Performance