Active-Based Combo in Fortifying Students Performance in Measures of Quantile
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22940431Keywords:
Active-Based Learning, Mathematics Education, Measures of Position, Quartiles, Deciles, Percentiles, Experimental Research, Grade 10 StudentsAbstract
This study determined the effectiveness of the Active-Based Learning (ABL) approach in fortifying Grade 10 students' performance in measures of position, particularly quartiles, deciles, and percentiles. A true experimental pretest-posttest control group design was employed among 46 Grade 10 students of Don Alipio Fernandez, Sr. Integrated School during School Year 2025-2026. Two heterogeneous sections were purposively selected because of their low prior performance, after which one section was randomly designated as the experimental group and the other as the control group. Each group consisted of 23 students. The experimental group received three weeks of ABL instruction involving hands-on data manipulation, collaborative problem solving, guided discovery, and real-life applications, whereas the control group received conventional lecture-based instruction. A researcher-made 30-item multiple-choice test served as both pretest and posttest. The instrument obtained an overall expert-validation mean of 4.43, interpreted as very highly valid, and a Cronbach's alpha coefficient of 0.849, indicating high reliability. Descriptive statistics, independent-samples t tests, and paired-samples t tests were used. The groups did not differ significantly at pretest, t = 0.488, p = .628. At posttest, the experimental group obtained a higher mean score (M = 23.0870) than the control group (M = 17.4348), with a statistically significant difference, t = 6.238, p < .001. The experimental group's mean gain of 10.52174 was nearly twice the control group's mean gain of 5.30435. The results demonstrate that ABL was more effective than lecture-based instruction in strengthening students' conceptual understanding and computational performance in measures of position. The study recommends the integration of structured active-learning tasks in secondary mathematics instruction.
Downloads
References
Abedi, P., Keshmirshekan, M. H., & Namaziandost, E. (2019). The comparative effect of flipped classroom instruction versus traditional instruction on Iranian intermediate EFL learners' English composition writing. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 6(4), 43–56.
Azizi, Z., Namaziandost, E., & Ashkani, P. (2022). Active learning as an approach to fostering EFL learners' speaking skills and willingness to communicate: A mixed-methods inquiry. Issues in Language Teaching, 11(2), 93–128. https://doi.org/10.22054/ilt.2023.70542.74
Buckmire, R. (2019). A survey of significant developments in undergraduate mathematics education over the past decade. Notices of the American Mathematical Society, 66(1), 22–31. https://doi.org/10.1090/noti1761
Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2021). Occupational outlook handbook: Mathematicians and statisticians. U.S. Department of Labor. https://www.bls.gov/ooh/math/mathematicians-and-statisticians.htm
Chi, N. P. (2022). A comparative study of the probability and statistics curricula in the high school mathematics textbooks of Vietnam and Germany. International Journal of Education and Practice, 10(2), 69–83. https://doi.org/10.18488/61.v10i2.2942
Demirci, C. (2017). The effect of active learning approach on attitudes of seventh-grade students. International Journal of Instruction, 10(4), 129–144. https://doi.org/10.12973/iji.2017.1048a
Department of Education. (2016). K to 12 curriculum guide: Mathematics. Department of Education, Republic of the Philippines.
Felder, R. M., & Brent, R. (2009). Active learning: An introduction. ASQ Higher Education Brief, 2(4), 1–5.
Fernandez, M. S., Pomilio, C., Cueto, G., Filloy, J., Gonzalez-Arzac, A., Lois-Milevicich, J., & Perez, A. (2020). Improving skills to teach statistics in secondary school through activity-based workshops. Statistics Education Research Journal, 19(1), 106–119. https://doi.org/10.52041/serj.v19i1.124
Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(23), 8410–8415. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1319030111
Frost, J. (2024). The importance of statistics. Statistics by Jim. https://statisticsbyjim.com/basics/importance-statistics/
Funny, R. A., Ghofur, M. A., Oktiningrum, W., & Nuraini, N. L. S. (2019). Reflective thinking skills of engineering students in learning statistics. Journal on Mathematics Education, 10(3), 445–458. https://doi.org/10.22342/jme.10.3.9446.445-458
Gal, I. (2002). Adults' statistical literacy: Meanings, components, responsibilities. International Statistical Review, 70(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-5823.2002.tb00336.x
Garfield, J., & Ben-Zvi, D. (2008). Developing students' statistical reasoning: Connecting research and teaching practice. Springer.
Gould, R. (2017). Data literacy is statistical literacy. Statistics Education Research Journal, 16(1), 22–25. https://doi.org/10.52041/serj.v16i1.228
Little, R. J. A. (2013). In praise of simplicity not mathematistry! Ten simple powerful ideas for the statistical scientist. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 108(502), 359–369. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.2013.801682
Moroni, G. A., & Brun, R. S. (2019). Teachers' time allocation and students' achievement in statistics and probability. Asian Journal of Governance and Education, 2(1), 85–103.
Sirisilla, S. (2023, November 26). Effective use of statistics in research: Methods and tools for data analysis. Enago Academy. https://www.enago.com/academy/statistics-in-research-data-analysis/
Theobald, E. J., Hill, M. J., Tran, E., Agrawal, S., Arroyo, E. N., Behling, S., Chambwe, N., Cintrón, D. L., Cooper, J. D., Dunster, G., Grummer, J. A., Hennessey, K., Hsiao, J., Iranon, N., Jones, L., II, Jordt, H., Keller, M., Lacey, M. E., Littlefield, C. E., . . . Freeman, S. (2020). Active learning narrows achievement gaps for underrepresented students in undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and math. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(12), 6476–6483. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1916903117
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. (2021). Education for sustainable development: A roadmap. UNESCO.
Usiskin, Z., & Hall, K. (2015). The relationships between statistics and other subjects in the K-12 curriculum. Chance, 28(3), 4–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/09332480.2015.1099361
Weiland, T., & Sundrani, A. (2022). Opportunities for K-8 students to learn statistics in the United States. Journal of Statistics and Data Science Education, 30(2), 165–178. https://doi.org/10.1080/26939169.2022.2075814
Wijaya, A., & Doorman, M. (2021). A learning trajectory for probability: A case of game-based learning. Journal on Mathematics Education, 12(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.22342/jme.12.1.12836.1-16
Zakaria, E., & Nordin, N. M. (2008). The effects of mathematics anxiety on matriculation students as related to motivation and achievement. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 4(1), 27–30. https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/75303
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
How to Cite
