CHAPTER III

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This chapter presents the overall framework and methodology that the

researcher used in the conduct of the study. This includes the method of data analysis,

respondents of the study, data gathering procedure, and the statistical tools to be used

in data analysis.

Methods of Research

Descriptive-evaluative-correlation method of research was used in this study to

determine the profile of Teacher Education Students along with the selected

psychological predictors namely, Admission Test (AT), Study Habit (SH), Attitude

towards mathematics (ATM), Mathematics Self-efficacy (MSE), and Language Proficiency

(LP). The profile of the students along with these predictor variables will be presented

through tables and descriptions.

Descriptive and evaluative was used in the study to present the profile and

performance levels of the respondents, quantify, and evaluate the result. The predictors

of mathematics performance along aspects was quantified and presented using

descriptive statistics and determine the scale such as, Admission Test (Poor, Fair, Good,

Outstanding, Excellent), Language Proficiency (Poor, Fair, Good, Outstanding,

Excellent), Study Habit (very poor, poor, good, very good), Attitude towards

mathematics (highly negative, negative, positive, highly positive), Math Self-efficacy

(very low, low, high, very high), Mathematics performance (Poor, Fair, Good,

Outstanding, Excellent).
 39

Correlation was also used in this study to determine the relationship of each

independent variable to the dependent variable. The independent variables are

Admission Test (AT), Study Habit (SH), Attitude towards mathematics (ATM),

Mathematics Self-efficacy (MSE), and Language Proficiency (LP) were correlated to

mathematics performance to find out each relationship. The combination of each

predictor was also correlated to mathematics performance to determine the extent of

influence of the combined predictors using multiple regression analysis.

Admission Test ratings of each students were obtained from the admission office

with utmost confidentiality. And also the grades in English 1 and English 2 as

measurement for Language proficiency and grades in Fundamentals of Mathematics

(Math 1) and Contemporary Mathematics (Math 2) as measurement for Mathematics

performance was obtained from the registrar with utmost confidentiality. Each student

coded anonymously. Other predictors such as Study Habit, Attitude towards

mathematics, Mathematics self efficacy was measured using the questionnaires (see

appendix B).

Study habits questionnaires were adapted from the study habit questions of

Maria Rita D. Lucas, Ph. D. and Brenda B. Corpuz, Ph.D., A textbook in Facilitating

Learning: A metacognitive process. Attitude towards mathematics and math self-efficacy

questionnaires were adapted from, revised, modified and patterned to the

Questionnaires of PISA and other ATM and MSE questionnaires devised by previous

studies such as Martha (2009), Ferla et al (2009) and math-self efficacy questionnaires

developed by Albert Bandura (2013). Each predictor variables comprised of 15-item

questions. The level or scale and its interpretation were:

 40

I. Study Habits

Scale:

Mean Categories
1 – 1.5 VP – Very Poor SH
1.6 – 2.5 P – Poor SH
2.6 – 3.5 G – Good SH
3.6 – 4 VG – Very Good SH

II. Attitude towards Mathematics

Scale:

Mean Categories
1 – 1.5 HN – Highly Negative ATM
1.6 – 2.5 N – Negative ATM
2.6 – 3.5 P – Positive ATM
3.6 – 4 HP – Highly Positive ATM

III. Mathematics Self-efficacy

Scale:

Mean Categories
1 – 1.5 VL – Very low MS
1.6 – 2.5 L – low MS
2.6 – 3.5 H – High MS
3.6 – 4 VH – Very High MS

IV. Grades in Mathematics Performance and Language Proficiency Level:

Mean Rating Categories

96 – 100 Excellent
90 – 95 Outstanding
84 – 89 Good
78 – 83 Fair
75 – 77 Poor

Note: Outstanding means having a quality that thrusts itself into attention.
Excellence means the quality of excelling; possessing good qualities in high degree.
 41

Grades and equivalents:

Percentage Numerical Percentage Numerical

Equivalent Equivalent Equivalent Equivalent
99 – 100 1.0 86 2.1
98 1.1 85 2.2
97 1.2 84 2.25
96 1.25 83 2.3
95 1.3 82 2.4
94 1.4 81 2.5
93 1.5 80 2.6
92 1.6 79 2.7
91 1.7 78 2.75
90 1.75 77 2.8
89 1.8 76 2.9
88 1.9 75 3
87 2.0 71-74 4

V. Admission Test ratings

Mean Rating Categories

91 – 130 Excellent
76 – 90 Outstanding
61 – 75 Good
46 – 60 Fair
31 – 45 Poor

Respondents of the Study

Three hundred four (304) second year students of Teacher Education

Department of Central Bicol State University of Agriculture A/Y 2016-2017 served as

respondents of the study. The respondents were from the four campuses of CBSUA. The

adequate number of (n) of respondents was determined using Slovin’s formula, then by

ratio and proportionate sampling. The respondents are presumed to have similar

learning facilities used, quality of instruction and curriculum appropriate to the

respondents’ year level, since the respondents were given similar program of instruction,

similar qualified instructors, and facilities used.

 42

Table 1

Respondents of the Study

Campus N n %

(A) Calabanga 225 61 20.1 %

(B) Pasacao 325 79 26 %

(C) Pili 444 106 34.8 %

(D) Sipocot 239 58 19.1 %

TOTAL 1263 304 100 %

Legend:

N – Total Population
n – Sample size
% - Percentage with regards to sample size
 43

Data Gathering Procedure

Before the administration of the study, the researcher asked permission from the

Office of the University President, Chairman of academic affairs, campus administrators

and other concern authorities thru formal written communications to seek for approval

and proceed for data gathering. Math performance and Language Proficiency was

measured using the student’s final grades in Fundamentals of Math, Contemporary

Mathematics, English 1, and English 2, respectively. Grades were obtained with

permission of the respondents and verified thru registrar with utmost confidentiality.

Data concerning the study habits, attitude towards mathematics, and math self-efficacy

was obtained using the questionnaires. Ethical conduct will be observed through

confidentiality of the results of the scores, data and coding anonymously of the

respondents.

Data gathering tools

The following statistical tools were used to treat and quantify the data :

Mean. When the data was gathered, study habits, attitude towards

mathematics, and mathematics self-efficacy were determined using mean.

Percentage Technique. This technique was used to quantify the data for

tabular presentation and data analysis.

Standard Deviation. This tool was used to determine the homogeneity and

heterogeneity of the scores and means of the student’s data. If the Standard Deviation

is less than or equal to 3, the scores are homogenous or less scattered. If the Standard

deviation is greater than 3, the scores are heterogeneous or scattered.

 44

Performance level. When the grades in mathematics and English were

gathered, performance levels were determined using the percentage technique and the

grades scale.

Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficient. This tool was used to

determine the degree of relationship between the selected psychological predictors and

mathematics performance.

Coefficient of Determination. This tool was used to determine the level of

relationship that the can be explained by the relationship of two variables.

T-test for significance. This tool was also used to determine the significance

of the relationship between two variables.

Multiple Regression Analysis. This tool was used to determine the combined

effect or extent of influence of the selected psychological characteristics as predictors of

mathematics performance.
 45

NOTES

Maria Rita D. Lucas, Ph. D. and Brenda B. Corpuz, Ph.D., Facilitating Learning: A
metacognitive process, 4th edition – Published by Lorimar publishing Inc. 2014.

Nicolaidou and Philippou et al. (2008), “Attitudes Towards Mathematics”,.

http://www.dm.unipi.it/~didattica/CERME3/ proceedings/Groups/TG2/TG2_nicolaidou_
cerme3.pdf. Date retrieved: August 10, 2016.

Fast et al. (2010), Running Head: Self – efficacy and Standardized Test
Performance. http://digitalcommons.bryant.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1015&
context=honors_mathematics. Date retrieved: August 11, 2016.

Olivia Lett, (2012) : Math Self – efficacy and Performance.

http://digitalcommons.iwu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2916&context=jwprc. Date
retrevied: August 11, 2016

Ferla et al, (2009), Math self-efficacy and Math Self-concept subscales of the
Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA).Developed according to Albert
Bandura’s guidelines regarding self-efficacy beliefs.
http://www.strivetogether.org/sites/default/files/images/24%20PISA_Math%20Self-
Efficacy%20Self-Concept%20scales.pdf. Date retrieved: August 12, 2016

Marc Zimmerman, (2009): A questionnaire for surveying mathematics self-

efficacy expectations of future teachers.
http://www.cerme7.univ.rzeszow.pl/WG/14/CERME7-WG14-Paper---Zimmermann,-
Bescherer-&-Spannagel-REVISED-Dec2010.pdf. Date reterived: August 11, 2016.

Martha Tapia, Attitude toward Mathematics Inventory.

http://www.pearweb.com: Date retrieved: August 01, 2016.