dingdong chapter ii

7/28/2019 Dingdong Chapter II

1/5

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURES AND STUDIES

Good performance of students in mathematics and science does not mean that learning is

easy. It is not difficult either. Students, teachers, parents, and administrators should understand

that good performance means that students actively engaged in the learning process, they are

involved with problems, they struggle with ideas, and they take part in the dialogue (Lee et al,

2007).

Mathematics and Science are some of the most important subjects in high schools

(National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM), 2003. The National Assessment of

Educational Progress (NAEP) showed that US fourth and eighth grade students performed poorly

in basic concepts of math and science. The results from the 2007 NAEP revealed that fourth

grade students performed below the basic level in their performance on descriptions of geometric

properties. Mathematics and Science are vital parts of high school curricula. However, students

are not demonstrating strong conceptual knowledge of these subjects. Many secondary school

students were not prepared for these subjects. There was too much emphasis placed on formal

symbolism and naming in mathematics curriculum while relational understanding was

underemphasized (Mistretta, 2000).

A report from Trend in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) in 2007

showed that students in the United States, China, Netherlands and Singapore scored at or near

the bottom in every geometry task. Usiskin (1987) also stated that from all the students enrolled

in U.S. high schools, only 63 percent can correctly identify different types of triangles and 30

percent can write proofs.


2/5

An important problem of todays schools mentioned in Principles and Standards is

disengagement of students from mathematics and science (NCTM, 2000). Students have become

irrespective to the teachers, show negative attitudes, and not value mathematics and science in

school. As a result, discipline problems have risen in school. If the ways we present mathematics

and science are not consistent with the needs of students and appropriate to their interests will

still face the same difficulties in school (Duatape, 2004).

Traditional elementary and middle school mathematics curricula focus on having students

learn list of definitions and properties of mathematics. This focus is misguided. Instead of

memorizing properties and definitions, students should develop personally meaningful concepts

and ways of reasoning that enable them to carefully analyze spatial problems and situations

(Battista, 2001).

Battista (1999) and Michelemore (2002) stated that learning mathematics and science

was not easy and many of students fail to develop an adequate understanding of the subjects

concepts, reasoning, and problem solving skills.

In the Philippines, the Department of Education, through the National Testing and

Research Center (NETRC) conducts the annual National Achievement Test (NAT) which is used

to determine what the pupils know, understand and can do at their level. From 2006-2009, an

increase of 21.36 percent was achieved. In 2009 NAT, Mean Percentage Score (MPS) showed a

mark improvement of 11.67 or 63.33 percent from 54.66 percent in 2006

(www.deped.gov.ph/cpanel/uploads/issuancelmg/jan8-nat.pdf).

However, the said increase of Mean Percentage Score is still alarming because

63.33percent MPS is still near mastery level.


3/5

Studies have proven visual, descriptive and theoretical model theory of mathematics can

influence learning in schools (Tay, 2003). Casbari (2007) also said that the use of this model

theory of mathematics can improve academic achievement and student motivation and provide

an atmosphere of mathematics and science teaching and learning more fun.

Abidin and Abu (2010) claimed that visualization is a necessary tool in mathematics for

concept formation. Some mathematics educators also recommend more visual activities in the

classroom to help students understand concepts (Chong, 2001). For this type of learners,

enrichment program are considered to be most beneficial.

It seems clear that no amount of effort and fancy teaching methods at the

secondary school will be successful unless we embark on a major revision of the primary school

mathematics and science curriculum (Wu, 2000).

Mason (2002) indicates that most students starting high school mathematics think at the

first or second level. The teacher needs to remember that although the teacher and the students

maybe use the same word, they may interpret it quite differently.

The limited activities and the lack of ability of teachers in the mastery of mathematics

and science are the major barriers in learning mathematics (Jugar, 2013). This condition causes

the achievements of the elementary school students in learning mathematics very low from year

to year.

Consequently, it would be difficult for the students to study mathematics and science at

higher level. To overcome the problem, there is a need to develop an enrichment program to

teach mathematics (Hershkowitz,1989).


4/5

RELATED LITERATURES

Mason, Marguerite (2002). Professional Handbook for Teachers, Geometry

National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM), 2003.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM), 2000.

Trend in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) in 2007

www.deped.gov.ph/cpanel/uploads/issuancelmg/jan8-nat.pdf

RELATED STUDIES

Abidin and Abu (2010). Students Perceptions Towards the Van Heiles Phases of Learning

Geometry Using Geometers Sketchpad Software 2011

Battista (1999). Relations Between Geometrical Paradigms and Van Heile Levels

(Http://WGS_Braconne.pdf)

Battista (2001). Characterizing the Van Heile Levels of Development in Geometry. Journal of

Research in Mathematics

Casbari (2007). An investigation into students understandings of class inclusion concepts in

Geometry. PhD Thesis: University of New England.

Chong, A. (2001). The Van Heile Model : A Literature Review.

Duatape et al. (2004). The Development of a Geometry Attitude Scale.
http://www.deped.gov.ph/cpanel/uploads/issuancelmg/jan8-nat.pdfhttp://www.deped.gov.ph/cpanel/uploads/issuancelmg/jan8-nat.pdfhttp://www.deped.gov.ph/cpanel/uploads/issuancelmg/jan8-nat.pdf


5/5

Hershkowitz, N. (1989). Proceeding of the 29th

Conference of the International Group for the

Psychology of Mathematics Education, Vol.4 pp. 329-336. Melbourne; PME

Jugar, C. (2013). Enrichment Program in Geometry for Grade Six Pupils

Lee et al, (2007). Technology enhances student learning across the curriculum. Mathematics

Teaching in the Middle School, Vol. 6, pp344-349

Michelemore, V (2002). Pedagogy in Mathematics Education; Kuala Lumpur: Utusan

Publication Sdn. Bhd.

Mistretta, D. (2000). Adding it Up: Helping Children Learn Mathematics. Washington: National

Academy Press.

Tay (2003). A study of Fifth Grade Students Problem Developing And Related Factors.

Usiskin, W (1987). A Using Dynamic Geometry to Expand Mathematics Teachers

Understanding of Proof. The International Journal of mathematical Education In Science

and Technology, 35(5), 703-724.

Wu, Der-Bang (2000). An Application of GM (ON) on Analyzing the First Van Heile

Geometrical Thinking Level.

dingdong chapter ii

Documents