rone ryan

E-International Scientific Research Journal

ISSN: 2094-1749 Volume: 2 Issue: 2, 2010

161

THE EFFECTS OF PEER TEACHING IN THE PERFORMANCE

OF STUDENTS IN MATHEMATICS

Dr. Editha T. Vasay

Director, Institute of Computer Science

Agoo, La Union, Philippines

Introduction

The teaching of Mathematics is enjoyable. This is true when the performance of the students is

satisfactory or better. Otherwise, it is frustrating.

Inspite of the researcher’s long years of teaching experience, exposure to trainings and

seminars, giving pieces of advice and motivations to students, using simple language and

different techniques and strategies, still many students have poor performance.

Based from quizzes and examinations, it is observed that students have poor performance

which may be due to weak foundation. Students have no mastery on the operations of whole

numbers , integers, decimals, and fractions. Techniques were conceived to improve the

situation and peer teaching was used.

Peer teaching is a technique in helping students perform better in understanding the different

concepts, developing computational skills and their moral, social and emotional values most

especially their ability to express their ideas.

Statement of the Problem

This research activity is composed of two parts: Phase I and Phase II.

Specifically, it aimed to find out the effects of peer teaching in

Phase I

Improving the foundation of students in the operations of while numbers, integers, decimals,

and fractions.

Phase II

The performance of the students in College Algebra.

Research Hypotheses

This study tested the following hypotheses:

Phase I (Fundamental Operations of Whole Numbers, Integers, decimals, and Fractions)

1. There is no significant difference between the pre-test and post-test mean scores of

the experimental group.


the control group.

3. There is no significant difference between the pre-test mean scores of the

experimental and control groups.

4. There is no significant difference between the post-test mean scores of the


5. There is no significant difference between the mean gain of the experimental and

control groups.

Phase II (College Algebra)


the experimental group. E-International Scientific Research Journal


162


the control group.

3. There is no significant difference between the pre-test mean scores of the


4. There is no significant difference between the post-test mean scores of the


5. There is no significant difference between the mean gain of the experimental and

control groups.

Scope and Delimitations of the Study:

This study was conducted during the first semester of the school year 1994-1995.

Two classes of college freshmen students of the Don Mariano Marcos Memorial State

University, institute of Science, Agoo, La Union, were involved in the study. The B.S.

Biology I was used as the experimental group and the control group was the B.S. Math I. The

experimental group was composed of 41 students while the control group was composed of 40

students.

Instruments Used:

Phase I

Two sets of similar 45-item tests on the fundamental operations of whole numbers, integers,

decimals, and fractions was the main instrument used. The first set was administered to

determine the foundation of every student on the fundamental operations of the different kinds

of numbers. The second set was administered to determine the effects of per teaching on their

foundations of the operations. The second set was administered after two weeks of peer

teaching.

Phase II

Two sets of 50-item achievement test of the multiple choice type was the main instrument

used. The first set was administered during the midterm and the second was administered

during the finals. This served to determine the performance of the two groups of students

taught with and without peer teaching.

Questionnaire was also prepared and answered by the students in order to know where they

finished their elementary and secondary education, their favourite and least-liked subjects.

Observation and interview were also used to gather data. There were used to find out the

background of the students and to determine the effects of peer teaching on the moral values of

the students.

Research Design:

This study made used of the Pre-test-Post-test Control-experimental group design using two

groups of freshmen college students. One group was taught with peer teaching while the other

group was taught without peer teaching. E-International Scientific Research Journal


163

Treatment of Data:

Frequency counts and percentages were used to describe students’ variables based on the

results of the pre-test.

The t-test for correlated means was utilized to determine the significant differences in the pretest of each group and also the significant differences in the post-test mean scores of each

group.

The t-test for uncorrelated means was used to determine the significance of the variation of the

performance of the two groups of students, both in Phase I and Phase II.

Review of Related Studies:

A review of related studies was done to construct, refine, and evaluate the present study.

Celino (1987) conducted a study on the comparative effectiveness of instructional tools in the

achievement of high school students in Algebra. Same as the present study, he also used the

pre-test - post-test control-experimental group research design. It was found out that the most

effective combination of instructional tools in improving achievement of students is review,

test, and assignment followed by test and assignment and review and test in that order. The

least effective combination of instructional tools in enhancing achievement is review and

assignment, and test.

Mangubat (1980), in his research work, made sample modules on ratio, proportion and percent.

The study made mention that one teaching strategy that could possibly help solve our problem

regarding low performance of student is modular instruction. It is one of the many strategies

aimed at individualized instruction. It also uses philosophy of programmed instruction and the

mastery learning strategy.

Hermosura (1990) compared the performance of students taught with and without workbook in

Math 1. She found out that students taught with and without the workbook performed equally.

There was no significant difference between the performance in an achievement test in Math 1

of the students taught with and without the workbook with respect to their sex.

De Leon (1973) worked on the effect of grouping on achievement, classroom participation and

interaction of students in Modern Geometry. Subjects of his study were two groups of high

school juniors with a total of 82 high school students. The findings revealed that there was a

significant difference in the achievement of the students in the specific ability group from that

of the general ability group. The specific ability group referred to the group of students of near

homogeneous abilities based on their achievement in a particular branch of subject area. On

the other hand, the general ability group was based on their general average computed from the

final ratings in all academic subjects in the curriculum. While De Leon made used of grouping

on achievement, classroom participation and interaction, the researcher of the present study

made used of peer teaching.

Emphasizing the importance of grouping, Hyman (1973) clearly expressed the following:

With the isolation of students in the individualization program comes the loss of camaraderie.

This loss is significant beyond measure. The very essence of democracy is the feeling of E-International Scientific Research Journal


164

responsibility to all fellows. This feeling evolves from participating together on common

activities.

The individualizing of program and the loss of interaction also leads to the minimizing of peer

teaching. Much of what each of us learns is learned from peers. When student works in groups

on common projects, each pupil learns from his classmates in a significant way.

Flores (1990) conducted a study on the mathematical readiness of first year high school

entrants during the SY 1989-1990. The study revealed that the first year entrants performed

“low” in Elementary Mathematics. Out of the 335 respondents, one hundred fifty-four

performed “high” and one hundred eighty-one performed “low”. In other words, less than onehalf of them were ready for first year mathematics. Flores was able to determine that high

school entrants were not ready while the present investigator determined that many college

freshmen are not also ready for their college mathematics.

Procedure:

Phase 1

Phase 1 aimed to find out the effect of peer teaching in improving the foundation of students

on the operations of whole numbers, integers, decimals and fractions.

The first year B.S.Math was used as the control group. It is composed of forty students. The

B.S. Biology 1 was used as the experimental group. It is composed of forty-one students.

Both groups are heterogeneous in nature.

The experimental group was divided into six groups. The top six students were chosen as little

professors. They were numbered 1-6. The remaining students were also numbered 1-6. All

number 1’s were the students of little professor’s no. 1. All number 2’s were the students of

little professor no. 2, and so on.

Two sets of 45-item test on the four operations of whole numbers, integers, decimals and

fractions were prepared and administered before and after peer teaching. Scores on the pre-test

were announced to the students for them to know their performance in the foundations of

mathematical operations. Both groups were advised, motivated and encouraged to improve

their skills on the operations because a similar test shall be given to them after two weeks.

The advantages and disadvantages of doing and not doing the peer teaching were explained to

the students in the experimental group. Schedule of peer teaching was arranged in such a way

that there will be no disruption of the regular schedule and professor’s meeting. The peer

teaching handled by the little professors was scheduled during Fridays. A day after the

students underwent peer teaching, they approached the researcher and asked if they could do

the peer teaching everyday during their vacant time. The researcher approved it provided

classrooms are vacant.

During the peer teaching, the researcher observed the activities done by each group. The little

professors were asked to interview their respective students why they are weak on the

operations or computational skills in mathematics. They were asked to report to the researcher

the results of their peer teaching and their interviews.

A questionnaire was also prepared and answered by the students in order to know their favorite

and least-liked subjects and the schools where they finished their elementary and secondary

education.

After two weeks the post-test was administered to both experimental and control groups.

Frequency counts and percentages were used to describe students’ variables based on the

results of the pre-test. E-International Scientific Research Journal


165

After the second set was administered it was found out that peer teaching was very effective in

improving the foundation of every student as evidently shown by the results (see results of

Phase 1) that the two groups were already comparable since the t-value obtained showed no

significant difference between their performance.

Phase II

A 50-item achievement test of the multiple choice type was administered during the midterm

examination to the B. S. Math I and B. S. Biology I. The result showed that the B. S. Biology

students were very far behind the B. S. Math students. Most of them got very low with a mean

score of 36.66 while the mean score of the B.S. Math was 47.32. Out of the 41 B.S. Biology

students 11 or 27 % got scores of 10 and below. Eighteen or 44% got scores between 10 to 20.

The lowest score obtained by the B.S. Math students was 20.

Based on the results of the achievement test, phase I was conducted and after it was found out

that the two groups were comparable, peer teaching was done in their lessons in College

Algebra.

The same grouping was utilized but the researcher instructed the little professors to submit

names of their students in their respective groups who could do the job of the little professor

already. The original little professors became the supervisors/ evaluators during the peer

teaching of the chosen little professors by the original little professors. This activity went on

until the last member of every group was able to cope up with the classroom

discussion/activities.

A similar 50-item achievement test was administered during the final examination. That was

after two months of peer teaching.

Results and Analysis:

The results in Phase I was analyzed and interpreted as follows:

Table 1

Students with Weak Foundation on the operations of Whole Numbers

Operations F %

Addition

Subtraction

Multiplication

Division

7

15

13

46

9

19

16

56

Table 1 shows that 7 or 9% out of 81 students are weak in addition of whole numbers.

Fifteen or 19% are weak in subtraction. Thirteen or 16% are weak in multiplication and 46 or

56% are weak in division. E-International Scientific Research Journal


166

Table 2

Students With Weak Foundation on the Operations of Integers

Operations F %

Addition

Subtraction

Multiplication

Division

14

36

17

14

17

44

21

17

Table 2 evidently shows that subtraction is the most difficult among the operations of

integers. Thirty-six or 44% are weak in subtraction while 14 or 17% are weak in addition and

division. Seventeen or 21% are low in multiplication.

Table 3

Students With Weak Foundation on the Operations of Decimals

Operations F %

Addition

Subtraction

Multiplication

Division

5

29

18

29

6

36

22

36

Table 3 shows that only 5 or 6% out f the 81 students are weak in addition of decimals but 29

or 36% are weak in subtraction and division while 18 or 22% are weak in multiplication.

Table 4

Students With Weak Foundation on the Operations of Fractions

Operations F %

Addition

Subtraction

Multiplication

Division

15

24

27

15

19

30

33

19

Table 4 presents how weak are the students on the operations of fractions. Fifteen or 19% out

of the 81 students are weak in addition and division while 24 or 30% are weak in subtraction.

Twenty-seven or 33% are poor in multiplication.

Based on the results of the pre-test and the questionnaire it was found out that the top 25% of

both the experimental and control groups graduated from central schools, national high schools

and private schools particularly Montessori school. The bottom 25% came from the barangay

schools and lower sections of national high schools from the different towns of La Union and

Pangasinan. E-International Scientific Research Journal


167

Students were very much interest in the peer teaching especially those little professors assigned

to teach. But after one day, most of the students taught by the little professors became more

interested. They asked for tutoring even at noontime and during their vacant periods.

Through observation, students were very noisy conversing and doing unnecessary activities

before peer teaching was started but when they were doing the peer teaching, noises were

lessened. Through peer teaching, therefore, students learned to develop so many values such

as time management, sense of responsibility, sharing, self-discipline, self-reliance, ability to

express their ideas, and others.

The fast learners became more developed especially in expressing their own ideas. They had

mastered the lessons. The slow learners improved their classroom participation and were able

to cope up with the different classroom activities.

Through interviews done by the little professors, it was known that many students were weak

in their foundation because their teachers, when they were in the elementary, oftentimes

attended to faculty meetings. They just assigned their students to clean the classroom and

grounds. Some students said they were handles by teachers who are not so good in

mathematics. Students also said they even had teachers who were sleeping during class hours

assigning their students some other activities.

Many of the students, through their conversations with their little professors, admitted that they

were learning to, love mathematics. These students hated math all their lives from elementary

to high school. They considered Math as the most difficult subject and that’s why they

considered it as their least-liked subject.

Table 5

Results of the Pre-test and Post-test on the Fundamental Operations

Experimental

Group

Mean

Control

Group

Mean

Mean

Difference

T-ratio

Pretest Mean 24.33 29.82 5.49 2.52 *

Posttest Mean 32.28 32.53 0.25 0.995

Mean Gain 7.95 2.71 5.24 4.33 *

T-ratio 8.76 * 3.37 *

*significant at .01 level

Based on the data above, it is inferred that both groups registered marked increase in the posttest means (t-ratio for experimental groups is 8.76 while the t-ration for the control group is

3.37, both significant at the .01 level). The t-test applied in each group was that of the

correlated means.

It is also noted that the difference in the mean gain between the two groups (5.24) also

registered a significant t-ration (4.33 at .01 level) with the use of the independent t-test. This E-International Scientific Research Journal


168

indicates that the experimental group had a significantly greater gain in their performance with

the use of peer teaching while the control group did a very slight improvement.

There is significant difference between the pre-test and post-test mean scores of the

experimental group.

There is significant difference between the pre-test and post-test mean scores of the control

group.

There is significant difference between the pre-test mean scores of the experimental and

control groups.

There is significant difference between the post-test mean scores of the experimental and

control groups.

There is significant difference between the mean gain of the experimental and control groups.

Table 6

Results of the Pre-test and Post-test College Algebra

Experimental

Group

Mean

Control

Group

Mean

Mean

Difference

T-ratio

Pretest Mean 36.66 47.32 10.66 2.50 *

Posttest Mean 48.27 48.98 0.71 0.84

Mean Gain 11.61 1.66 9.95 4.40*

T-ratio 5.26 * 1.18

*significant at .01 level

Table 6 evidently shows that the experimental group registered a great increase in the post-test

mean (t-ratio is 5.26, significant at .01 level) while the control group did not. The t-test

applied in each group was that of the correlated means.

The difference in the mean gain between the two groups (9.95) also registered a significant tratio (4.40 at .01 level) using the independent t-test. This means that the experimental group

had a significantly greater gain in their performance with the use of peer teaching while the

control group did not.

There is significant difference between the pre-test and post-test mean scores of the

experimental group.

There is no significant difference between the pre-test and post-test mean scores of the control

group. E-International Scientific Research Journal


169

There is significant difference between the pre-test mean scores of the experimental and

control groups.

There is no significant difference between the post-test mean scores of the experimental and

control groups.

There is a significant difference between the mean gain of the experimental and control groups.

Implications:

1. The Students

a. Fast Learners

Peer teaching helps the fast learners to have mastery on the different concepts.

Through this technique they develop their ability to express their ideas. They also

develop values such as sharing, sense of responsibility, self-confidence, self-discipline,

time management, etc.

b. Slow Learners

The slow learners can improve their performance through the help of other students like

those chosen as little professors. They gain better understanding of the lessons

discussed. They also develop values similar to the bright students.

2. The Teachers

The use of the technique, peer teaching, helps the teachers in the teaching-learning

process. But the teachers should see to it that motivating and inspiring their students

must not be taken for granted, otherwise the technique will be a failure. They must see

to it that the students will be enlightened on the advantages of doing it. They must be

alert in checking the activities through the little professors. Every problem that arises

in the peer teaching must be solved immediately.

3. The Administrators

Administrators must be very careful in giving teaching loafs to teachers. They should

not assign teachers who were not trained to teach mathematics handle classes in

mathematics especially when students are still developing their foundation otherwise

the whole educational system will be affected. They must be alert in supervising

whether their teachers are teaching or sleeping. They should schedule faculty meetings

in such a way that classes are not disrupted. They must schedule remedial teaching for

the slow learners.

Summary of Findings and Conclusion:

1. It was found out that the top 25% of students graduated from central schools, national

high schools and Montessori school while the bottom 25% came from the barangay

schools and from the lower sections of national high schools from the different towns

of La Union and Pangasinan.

2. Peer teaching greatly affected the intellectual and moral values of the students such as

the ability to express their ideas, mastery of the different concepts, time management, E-International Scientific Research Journal


170

sense of responsibility, sharing, self-discipline, self-reliance. Self-confidence,

resourcefulness, cooperation, obedience, etc.

3. Majority of the B.S. Biology students were found out to be very weak in their

foundation on the fundamental operations of whole numbers, integers, decimals and

fractions.

4. There was a significant difference between the pre-test and post test mean scores of the

experimental group on the fundamental operations of the different kinds of numbers.

5. There was a significant difference between the pre-test and post-test mean scores of the

control group on the fundamental operations of numbers.

6. There was a significant difference between the pre-test mean scores of the experimental

and control groups on the fundamental operations of numbers.

7. There was no significant difference between the post-test mean scores of the

experimental and control; groups on the fundamental operations of numbers. Meaning

two groups were already comparable after peer teaching had improved the performance

of the experimental group.

8. There was a significant difference in the mean gain between the experimental and

control groups in their performance on the fundamental operations of numbers which

means that the experimental group had a significantly greater gain with the use of peer

teaching while the control group did a very slight improvement.

9. There was a significant difference between the pre-test and post-test mean scores of the

experimental group in (their performance in ) College Algebra.

10. There was no significant difference between the pre-test and post-test mean scores of

the control group in College Algebra.

11. There was a significant difference between the pre-test mean scores of the experimental

and control groups in College Algebra.

12. There was no significant difference between the post-test mean scores of the

experimental and control groups in College Algebra.

13. There was a significant difference in the mean gain between the experimental and

control groups which means that the experimental group had a significantly greater

gain in their performance in College Algebra with the use of peer teaching while the

control group did not.

Recommendations:

In view of the findings and conclusive statement, the following recommendations are

given: E-International Scientific Research Journal


171

1. Teachers in the elementary and secondary schools must help their students develop

their computational skills, master the four fundamental operations of the different

kinds of numbers and apply these knowledge in simple problem solving.

2. Teachers can make use of peer teaching to help their students in improving their

performance in the acquisition of knowledge and in developing their moral values.

3. Administrators should assign math majors to teach math in the elementary and

secondary schools or those with trainings in the area.

4. It is also recommended that peer teaching be used in all academic subjects to help

students in their studies.

References:

Celino, Manuel C. (1987). “ The Comparative Effectiveness of Instructional tools in the

Achievement of High School Students in Algebra.” DMMMSU-CAS, Agoo, La Union.

De Leon, Lorenzo. (1973). “ The Effects of Grouping on Achievement, Classroom

Participation and Interaction of students in Modern Geometry at the Manuel Luis Quezon

University.” U.P.Diliman, Quezon City.

Flores, Herminia K. (1990). “ The Mathematics Readiness of First Year High School Entrants

During the School 1989-1990.” DMMMSU-CAs, Agoo, La Union.

Hermosura, salvacion B. (1990). ; The Use of Mathematics I Workbook: A Comparative

Study.” .” DMMMSU-CAs, Agoo, La Union.

Hyman, Ronald. (1973). “Individualization: The Hidden Agenda.” The Education Digest.

XXXIX,2.

Mangubat, Emmanuel . (1980). “ How to Write Master-Based Teaching Modules.” The

Philippine Journal of Education. 57, No. 7

Ang website:

http://www.slideshare.net/jennilynbalbalosa/final-na-final-thesis

http://www.slideshare.net/jennilynbalbalosa/final-na-final-thesis