CLASSROOM ENVIRONMENT AND THE STRATIFICATION OF SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENT’S MATHEMATICS ABILITY PERCEPTIONS Nelda a. nacion 5th international scholars’ conference Asia-pacific international university, Thailand October 30-31, 2017

INTRODUCTION Mathematics is one of the subjects that students tend to avoid. One of the reasons is that they believe that they are poor in the said subject . The students’ self-perception of their math ability is sometimes due to factors like the frequency of their teacher’s comment on their ability. Sometimes because of how they see themselves based on the ability of their classmates. According to Rosenholtz and Simpson (1986), task structures, ability grouping practices and evaluation practiced inside the classroom are important factors of the degree to which student’s ability perceptions were stratified within the classroom.

Scope and Limitation The study was conducted to the senior high school students of De La Salle University- Dasmariñas, Dasmariñas City, Cavite during the second semester of school year 2016-2017.

Definition of Terms Classroom Environment- In this paper, classroom environment includes task structure, grouping practices, feedback and evaluation procedures used by the teachers in the classroom. Task Structures - This refers to the type of tasks given to the students by their teachers. Teachers can give only one task to the whole class, or the students are given different tasks based on abilities. Ability Stratification- This term refers to the student’s perception about themselves or others in terms of mathematical ability. Talent Dispersion- This refers to the heterogeneity of student’s ability level in the class.

Significance of the study To prevent or as much as possible avoid the formation of self-perception ability stratification of students in terms of mathematical ability.

Objective of the Study (general): Generally, the purpose of this study is to determine the effect of task structure, frequency and salience of grading, grade dispersion, and talent dispersion on the measures of the stratification of students’ self-perceptions of math ability.

Objectives of the Study (Specific): The characteristics of the students in terms students’ track and grade. The students rate of math self-concept . The teachers’ report task structure. The teachers report on the emphasis of grade. The teacher’s report of the student’s talent in math. The main effects of task structure, grade and emphasis of grades on ability perception stratification. The differences in the self-perception of the students when grouped according to track. The difference between student’s self-perception and teacher’s report of student’s math talent.

METHODOLOGY RESEARCH DESIGN The study utilized quantitative type of research through the use of survey. SAMPLING AND RESPONDENTS Stratified Random Sampling A total of 282 students

METHODOLOGY INSTRUMENT A modified instrument was used to collect information from the respondents. The instrument was checked and validated by some experts in the field of Mathematics and Education. Reliability Analysis was also utilized in order to check the consistency of the instrument. A Cronbach’s Alpha of 0.658 was obtained using 30 samples.

METHODOLOGY STATISTICAL TOOLS Frequency and percentage Weighted mean and the standard deviation Multiple linear regression ANOVA and TUKEY’S (posthoc) T-test

RESULTS Demographic profile of the respondents Track Frequency Percentage ABM 71 25.2 GAS 3 1.1 HUMSS 60 21.3 STEM 134 47.5 TVL/ARTS 14 5 Total 282 100

RESULTS Grades of Students Grade Frequency Percentage 66 to 70 2 0.70 12 4.30 76 to 80 47 16.70 81 to 85 79 28.00 86 to 90 91 to 95 51 18.10 96 to 100 Total 282 100

RESULTS Grade Last Semester N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation 282 Descriptive Statistics   N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Grade Last Semester 282 66 99 85.493 5.9426

RESULTS Student’s rate of Math self-concept Item Mean Standard Deviation Interpretation 1. How good are you at math?  3.67  1.228 Fairly Good 2. If you were to rate all the students in your class, how would you rate yourself?  3.60  1.298  Fairly Good 3. Compared to most of your other subjects, how good are you at math? 3.54 1.509 Over-all 3.61 1.226

RESULTS Teacher’s report on Math Structure Item Mean Standard Deviation Interpretation 1. Most of the students in this class use the same math textbooks/materials. 4.84  0.370  Always  2. Students are given several alternative math assignments from which they can choose the ones to work on for that period.  2.53  0.597  Sometimes 3. Students are given the opportunity to work on their own in math for several days before checking with me.  3.71  0.681  Often 4. Students work on a variety of different math activities and assignments at the same time in a class.  3.02  1.289 Over-all 3.52 0.528 Often

RESULTS Teacher’s report on the emphasis of grade Item Mean Standard Deviation Interpretation 1. I give grades on math homework/ assignments.  5.00 0.000 Always  2. I give grades on math classwork. 4.20  0.481   Often 3. I give stress on the importance of getting good grades in math.  4.26 1.378  4. Students are asked to show low grades or unsatisfactory work to their parents.  1.89 1.129   Seldom Over-all 3.84 0.524 Often

RESULTS Student's Talent Frequency Percentage 1 4 1.40 2 8 2.80 3 51 Teacher’s report on student’s talent in math Student's Talent Frequency Percentage 1 4 1.40 2 8 2.80 3 51 18.10 83 29.40 5 65 23.00 6 53 18.80 7 18 6.40 Total 282 100

RESULTS Descriptive Statistics N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation   N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Teacher Report 282 1 7 4.518 1.3103

Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients RESULTS The main effects of task structure, grade and emphasis of grades on ability perception stratification. Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients T Sig. B Std. Error Beta (Constant) -0.262 1.626   -0.161 0.872 Grade Last Sem 0.035 0.022 0.17 1.601 0.11 Teacher Report 0.274 0.097 0.293 2.813 .005* Task Structure -0.433 0.171 -0.186 -2.523 .012* Emphasis 0.304 0.13 1.787 0.075

RESULTS Significance of the model ANOVAa Model Sum of Squares Df Mean Square F Sig. Regression 97.49 4 24.373 20.801 .000b Residual 324.555 277 1.172   Total 422.046 281 a. Dependent Variable: ability perception stratification b. Predictors: (Constant), Emphasis, Grade Last Sem, Task Structure, Teacher Report

Std. Error of the Estimate RESULTS Model Summary   Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate 1 .481a 0.231 0.22 1.08244 a. Predictors: (Constant), Emphasis, Grade Last Sem, Task Structure, Teacher Report

RESULTS Comparison of self-perception stratification of students by track TRACK N Mean Std. Deviation CV ABM 71 3.82 1.107 28.98 GAS 3 3.78 0.385 10.19 HUMSS 60 3.03 1.338 44.16 STEM 134 3.72 1.188 31.94 TVL/ARTS 14 3.86 1.13 29.27 Total 282 3.61 1.223 33.88

RESULTS ANOVA table of Comparison of self-perception stratification of students by track   Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Between Groups 25.974 4 6.494 4.541 .001* Within Groups 396.072 277 1.43 Total 422.046 281

RESULTS Tukey’s Method of Multiple Comparison (I) track (J) track Mean Difference Std. Error Sig. HUMSS ABM -.78912* 0.20969 .002* GAS -0.75 0.70743 0.827 STEM -.69362* 0.18575 TVL/ARTS -0.82937 0.35491 0.136

Student's self-perception   Student's self-perception Teacher's report Mean 4.836298932 4.519572954 Variance 0.137391967 1.72193696 Observations 281 Pooled Variance 0.929664464 Hypothesized Mean Difference Df 560 t Stat 3.893666348 P(T<=t) one-tail 5.53241E-05 t Critical one-tail 1.647579178 P(T<=t) two-tail 0.00011064* t Critical two-tail 1.964209198 RESULTS Comparison of student’s self-perception and teacher’s report of student’s math talent.

CONCLUSIONS Most of the students enrolled in senior high school are still interested in taking courses under STEM when they pursue college as revealed in the result of the survey where in the largest population of the students are enrolled under the STEM track. Although most of the students are enrolled under STEM track, the performance of the students in their last math subject taken is fairly good only, not excellent but not bad at all. The student’s rate of math self-concept is fairly good only. In terms of the teacher’s report on math structure, it’s “always” been a practice in class that most of the students in the class use the same math textbooks/materials.

CONCLUSIONS In terms of the teacher’s report on the emphasis of grade, it’s “always” been a practice in class that the teacher gives grade on math homework/assignments. The math talent of the majority of students are just in the middle between very little and a lot of talent in Math as perceived by the teachers. The significant predictors of self-perception stratification are the teacher’s report on student’s math talent and the math structure practiced in class. Among the different tracks offered, the highest level of self-perception stratification is among the students under HUMSS track.

CONCLUSIONS The self-perception stratification varies between HUMSS and ABM, and between HUMSS and STEM. The student’s self-perception is not consistent with the teacher’s report on their math talent.

RECOMMENDATIONS: A similar study should be conducted to the senior high school students on a large- scale basis, say across municipalities to cater the variation of respondents including those who are in public schools. A similar study should be conducted to the senior high school students using other factors that can be attributed to the formation of ability perception stratification. The teachers in senior high school should avoid as much as possible a standardized activity to be given to the whole class to somehow minimize the formation of ability perception stratification in class.

RECOMMENDATIONS: The way the teachers rate the talent of the students in math is a significant predictor of developing ability perception stratification in class. It is therefore recommended that the teachers should give more challenge to those who are already good in math and at the same time encourage those who are not that good to strive harder. More importantly, the choice of words can either make or break a student, so the teachers should avoid negative comments to the students especially in their math talent. Instead, the words should be encouraging.

THANK YOU!