Presented at the DLSU Research Congress 2015

De La Salle University, Manila, Philippines

March 2-4, 2015

Assessing the Mathematics Performance of Grade 8 Students

as Basis for Enhancing Instruction and
Aligning with K to 12 Curriculum

Romee Nicker A. Capate* and Minie Rose C. Lapinid, PhD

De La Salle University, Manila
* romee_capate@dlsu.edu.ph

Abstract: This study sought to determine the performance and the difficulties of the
Grade 8 students during the first conduct of the new K to 12 Mathematics. Results of
this study served as basis for enhancing instruction and aligning the Grade 8
Mathematics competencies to Instruction and Assessment. Students’ scores in the
Formative Tests (FT) and the Mathematics Achievement Test (MAT) measured their
mathematics performance while interpretation of their mistakes in the least-
mastered contents of the new K to 12 Mathematics identified their difficulties.
Results indicate that most of the Grade 8 students were in the Beginning level of
achievement only. Moreover, half of the tested contents were least-mastered.
Incorrectly applying the formulas, properties, theorems, and/or laws and
incompletely solving the problem despite correctly doing the initial procedure are
their common difficulties. The general recommendation to align the Grade 8
Mathematics Competencies to Instruction and Assessment was to include the missed
instructional objectives during the past instruction in the next Curriculum Planning.
The recommended strategies to improve instruction included needs assessment, more
practice for automation, conduct review classes for mastery and retention, explicit
instruction, and peer-assisted mathematics instruction.

Key Words: mathematics performance; instructional enhancement; curriculum

alignment; K to 12 Mathematics Curriculum

1. INTRODUCTION (Philippine Institute for Developmental Studies,

2012). More so, there is a need to highlight the
competence of students in subjects that prepares
Education plays an important role to every them for the world, including Mathematics.
individual because it equips him/her with the Mathematics is one subject that pervades life
necessary knowledge and skills needed to become a at any age and in any circumstance. Thus, its value
functional member of the society. According to the goes beyond the classroom and the school.
World Bank, education can also be one of the Mathematics as a school subject, therefore, must be
strongest instruments for reducing poverty, learned comprehensively and with much depth
thereupon improving the well-being of the people. (Department of Education, 2013).
However, to establish and maintain a high-quality The achievement scores, whether in local or
education system, proper investments must be made international examinations, are means to measure

LLI-II-020 1

Proceedings of the DLSU Research Congress Vol. 3 2015

 Presented at the DLSU Research Congress 2015
De La Salle University, Manila, Philippines
March 2-4, 2015

comprehension on different subject areas and

highlight students’ over-all academic performance.
The National Achievement Test (NAT) results for
grade 6 in SY 2009-2010 showed only a 69.21%
passing rate while the NAT results for high school is
at a low 46.38%. Moreover, in international test
results such as the 2003 TIMSS (Trends in
International Mathematics and Science Study), the
Philippines ranked 34th out of 38 countries in HS II
Math and ranked 43rd out of 46 countries in HS II
Science; for grade 4, the Philippines ranked 23rd out
of 25 participating countries in both Math and
Science. In 2008, even with only the science high
schools participating in the Advanced Mathematics
category, the Philippines ranked lowest (Department Figure 1. The principle of alignment
of Education, 2010).
As part of the efforts of the government to
respond to the perceived needs of the education Thus, this research would address the need
sector, the Department of Education (DepEd) had of identifying of the level of success of the
pushed for the change in the basic education implementation of the Enhanced K to 12 Basic
curriculum—the implementation of the “Enhanced K Education Program through the assessment of Grade
to 12 Basic Education Program”. 8 students’ performance in K to 12 Mathematics.
Truly, in the Philippine context, education
remains a top priority. However, in implementing
academic curricular changes specifically in 2. METHODS
Mathematics, many factors need to be considered.
For one, there is a need for carefully planned The descriptive design was used in this study
programs of exchange in the curriculum. Also, there to determine the mathematics performance of the
must be an examination of the place of formative Grade 8 students. This design is the most
process and summative evaluation of curriculum appropriate since this study deals with recording and
programs and of the practical materials for the tabulating data to come up with factual results.
actual process of installing new curricula in schools A research and development study was also
(Andres and Francisco, 2008). utilized because of the recommendations that were
As presented by Biggs (2003), the proposed and developed after finding out the least-
implementation of the curriculum should follow the mastered and most-mastered competencies of the
Principle of Alignment. It describes teaching as a Grade 8 students in MAT.
balanced system in which all components support The respondents of the study were one of the
each other, as they do in any ecosystem. To work pioneer batches of K to 12 in the Philippines—the
properly, the three components, namely Objectives, two hundred seventy-nine (279) Grade 8 students of
Instruction, and Assessment, must be aligned with Don Bosco Technical Institute – Makati (DBTI). This
each other. study used total enumeration so that below average,
In aligned teaching, there is maximum average, and above average students are well-
consistency throughout the system. The objectives represented.
must be clearly stated in a manner that the level of Two research instruments were used in this
understanding is properly defined and not simply a study—the Formative Tests (FT) and the
list of topics to be covered. The instruction or the Mathematics Achievement Test (MAT). Both
teaching and learning tasks chosen must be those instruments have the same competencies being
that are likely to realize the stated objectives. tested. However, their difference is only in test type.
Finally, the assessment tasks must address the FTs were mostly given in open-ended form—
objectives so that one can identify if the students Problem Solving. Although there were still some type
have learned what was intended for them to learn. of tests such as True or False, Multiple Choice,
Imbalance in the system will lead to poor Identification, and Fill-in the Blank. The MAT, on
teaching and surface learning. Non-alignment is the other hand, were all given in Multiple Choice
signified by inconsistencies, unmet expectations, and type.
practices that contradict what we preach. The FTs being described in this study were
all designed by the two Grade 8 Mathematics

LLI-II-020 2

Proceedings of the DLSU Research Congress Vol. 3 2015

 Presented at the DLSU Research Congress 2015
De La Salle University, Manila, Philippines
March 2-4, 2015

teachers and validated by the Mathematics Proficient level (85.00% - 89.99%); and Advanced
Coordinator of Don Bosco Technical Institute– level (90.00% and above).
Makati. They are experts in the field of Mathematics To determine the least-mastered and most-
Teaching and are in the business for more than 15 mastered contents of the students according to MAT,
years. this research adopted the parameters used in
On the other hand, the Mathematics determining the level of difficulty of an item as
Achievement Test (MAT) was designed by the Grade recommended by Gabuyo (2012).
8 Mathematics Area teachers of Salesian Philippines The students have mastered a specific
North Province, wherein the researcher is a member. content the least if only less than sixty percent (60%)
A round-table discussion was organized to of them got an item correctly. On the other hand, the
consolidate the constructed multiple choice test items students have mastered a specific content the most if
for MAT. The distractors in these questions were sixty percent (60%) of them or more got an item
based on the students’ common mistakes in their correctly.
problem solving. In order to determine the students’
The first draft of MAT was then validated by misconception in a specific content in MAT, the
the other grade/year level Mathematics Area researchers analyzed the test items’ distractors
Teachers and the Mathematics Area Heads of which were answered more than the correct answer.
Salesian Philippines North Province using Face The analysis of the misconception was validated by
Validation and Content Validation. They ensured the other experts in the field of mathematics. This
that the items were based on the competencies procedure was only done in the least-mastered
required by the Department of Education (2013) for contents. For contents with more than one
Grade 8. From their evaluation, test items which competency being tested, the average percentage of
were out of scope were deleted or revised. correct responses was obtained.
Furthermore, some items which were completely
deleted had been replaced by those in their Item
Bank. These processes completed the final draft of 3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
the MAT.
Consequently, the reliability of the final test
Table 1 shows the mean score, standard
draft was established using Internal Consistency
deviation, and level ofachievement of the Grade 8
Method. This was the most appropriate method to
students in the Formative Tests (FT).
use since the test consists of dichotomously scored
Among the three areas, Patterns and
items—the examinee either passes or fails in an
Algebra turned out to be the more mastered content
item. The computed reliability of the instrument was
area (77.45%). Meanwhile, both Geometry and
0.84 using Cronbach Alpha, indicating that the
Statistics and Probability are below the passing 75%
instrument has a good internal consistency (George
mark by just a significant value, which could mean
& Mallery, 2003).
that students had difficulty grasping content of these
The MAT required students to answer 70
areas during discussions.
multiple choice questions. It was limited to the
Summarizing the level of achievement of the
competencies for Grade 8—Patterns and Algebra,
Grade 8 students in the overall FT, they are placed
Geometry, and Probability and Statistics.
at the Developing level of achievement (75.72%). It
The students’ responses to MAT were scored
means that in general, students have minimum
as one (1) point for correct answer and no point for
knowledge and skills and core understandings in
incorrect answer. This gives seventy (70) points as
during the conduct of the FTs.
the highest possible score and zero (0) as the lowest
possible score. After utilizing the 70-item Table 1. Mean score, standard deviation, and level of achievement of
Mathematics Achievement Test (MAT), the the Grade 8 students in the FTs (𝑁 = 279)
descriptive method was applied using mean, FT FT Level of
Content Area Mean Standard
standard deviation, frequency, percentage Score Deviation
Achievement
distribution, and normalized gain. Patterns and Algebra 77.45% 8.30 Developing
To interpret qualitatively the formative test Geometry 74.59% 8.22 Beginning
scores and the mathematics achievement test score of
Statistics and Probability 74.56% 7.30 Beginning
the students, the grading system in the K to 12
curriculum, as prescribed by DepEd Order No. 31, s. Overall 75.72% 7.71 Developing
2012 was adopted—Beginning level (74.99% and
below); Developing level (75.00% - 79.99%);
Approaching Proficiency level (80.00% - 84.99%);

LLI-II-020 3

Proceedings of the DLSU Research Congress Vol. 3 2015

 Presented at the DLSU Research Congress 2015
De La Salle University, Manila, Philippines
March 2-4, 2015

Table 2 probes on the Mathematics guidance is present. If this premise is to be held true,
Achievement Test (MAT) scores of the students. we could therefore say that Patterns and Algebra is
Mean scores were determined to facilitate the easier for students, since results on formative tests
performance evaluation. are higher. However, since it garnered the lowest
Contrary to the results of the formative score in the summative test, it may be attributed to
tests, Geometry has been determined as highest in another factor which is retention of information
the MAT (78.92%). It could be assumed that this area (Nickson, 2004).
has been more mastered by the students. Meanwhile, Calculating the Average Normalized Gain in
Patterns and Algebra was lowest (72.73%). This the students’ score to determine whether there is a
could be the least mastered. However, it is a fact that gain or loss in students’ scores in MAT from FT, it
the turnout of the examination was low, the level of showed that there was no gain in scores (-0.12) since
achievement only being in the Beginning and the result was negative.
Developing stages. These figures signify that there is Based from the result of the Average
difficulty among students on mastering the content Normalized Gain, it can be concluded that students
areas because they differ slightly from each other. really lack retention of the skills learned before
Summarizing the level of achievement of the instruction. The lack of retention of the skills learned
Grade 8 students in the overall MAT, they are only by the students should therefore be addressed as
at the Beginning level of achievement (74.08%). This their performance to the next assessments may yield
means that students struggle with their a low score again.
understanding; pre-requisite and fundamental Looking into the least-mastered contents of
knowledge and/or skills have not been acquired or the Grade 8 students according to the results of their
developed adequately to aid understanding. MAT in Figure 2, the number of least-mastered and
most-mastered contents for the three areas was of
Table 2. Mean score, standard deviation, and level of achievement of equal degree. Overall, 50% of the contents were most-
the Grade 8 students in the MAT (𝑵 = 𝟐𝟕𝟗)
mastered (got a 60% and above correct response)
MAT MAT Level of while the remaining 50% were least-mastered (got
Content Area Mean Standard
Score Deviation
Achievement lower than 60% correct response). When analyzed per
Patterns and Algebra 72.73% 7.73 Beginning area, Patterns and Algebra has the most number of
Geometry 78.92% 8.50 Developing least-mastered contents, with 11 out of 17 (64.71%)
contents falling below the mastery level. Geometry
Statistics and Probability 75.38% 9.77 Developing
meanwhile got the least, with only 2 out of 9 (22.22%)
Overall 74.08% 7.29 Beginning
content considered as least-mastered. Number of
least-mastered and most-mastered content areas for
When results for both FTs and MAT are the Statistics and Probability is on a 50:50 ratio.
compared, it is clear that results during regular Noteworthy to mention, the extremities of
classroom works and quizzes (FTs) may not be the result appear that the most mastered content is
reciprocal with that of the the summative test (MAT). the “Rectangular Coordinate System” (91.04%) under
As shown in Table 1, Patterns and Algebra was the umbrella of the Patterns and Algebra area. On
highest. However, when the result of the MAT is the other hand, the content “Quadrilaterals that are
investigated, it was ranked lowest. The remaining Parallelograms” of the Geometry area was least-
two content areas—Geometry and Statistics and mastered of all (21.15%).
Probability—both yielded below passing results in The results were quite alarming because of
the formative tests but turned out positive in the the low results in students’ achievement and
summative. mastery. As Biggs (1996) presented in his Principle
Formative tests are, in nature, easier than of Alignment, if expectations were unmet, there
summative tests simply because lessons are still might be misalignment among Objectives,
fresh from students’ memories and teacher’s Instruction, and Assessment.

LLI-II-020 4

Proceedings of the DLSU Research Congress Vol. 3 2015

 Presented at the DLSU Research Congress 2015
De La Salle University, Manila, Philippines
March 2-4, 2015

Figure 2. Percentage of correct responses in each of the tested contents

The planned curriculum objectives previously discussed least-mastered contents,

(Objectives) and the instructional objectives Quadrilaterals that are Parallelograms became least-
(Instruction) were compared. The basis of the mastered of all.
planned curriculum objectives are the objectives The misconception and/or difficulty of the
stated in the Curriculum Guide prepared by the students in answering some questions in the
Grade 8 Mathematics Teachers during the start of Mathematics Achievement Test (MAT) were also
the School Year. On the other hand, the instructional probed. The teachers’ previous encounter of students'
objectives are based on the objectives stated in the common mistakes in their problem solving was the
Instructional Plans drafted by the Grade 8 basis for the construction of the distractors. Thus, the
Mathematics Teachers and are implemented weekly. misconceptions and/or difficulties were already pre-
Upon comparing Objectives to the empted by the teachers. The analysis of the
Instruction, there were discrepancies between them misconceptions was also validated by two experts in
on the seven contents namely, Rational Algebraic the field of Mathematics Teaching.
Expressions; Slope of a Line; (Solving Systems of When the incorrect responses of the students
Linear Inequalities; Properties of Parallelograms and in some of the least-mastered contents were
their Special Type; Quadrilaterals that are examined, it could be noted that misconceptions and
Parallelograms; Measures of Variation; and difficulties vary in many forms. In most cases,
Experimental/Theoretical Probability. especially in the items for Patterns and Algebra and
If there were discrepancies in any of the Geometry, what is common is that they were just
three components, there will be imbalance in the missing to completely solve the problem but they
system. This had been evident in the results of the were correctly doing the procedure. This shows that
Mathematics Achievement Test (MAT). The 7 the expected students’ attitude of rechecking their
contents which were said to have discrepancies answer to the problems is not evident.
between the Objectives and the Instruction were also In some other cases for Patterns and Algebra
part of the 15 least-mastered contents of the MAT. and Statistics and Probability, students were
Noteworthy to mention, the 3 contents, incorrectly applying the formulas, properties,
namely, Solving Systems of Linear Inequalities; theorems, and/or laws. This is evident in the items
Quadrilaterals that are Parallelograms; and about Integral Exponents, Rational Algebraic
Experimental/Theoretical Probability, had Expressions, Equation of a Line, and Experimental
completely dissimilar planned curriculum objectives and Theoretical Probability.
and instructional objectives. Looking into the In terms of the nature of assessment, test

LLI-II-020 5

Proceedings of the DLSU Research Congress Vol. 3 2015

 Presented at the DLSU Research Congress 2015
De La Salle University, Manila, Philippines
March 2-4, 2015

items’ distractor which was answered more than the students have learned what was intended for them to
correct answer shows only that these are good learn.
distractors. However, many students were answering To sum up, whatever objective is stated, it
an incorrect distractor. It only reflects that they are should be realized during instruction. Consequently,
not critical problem solvers. It could really be the assessment method should be according to how a
reiterated that the root cause of misconceptions is specific mathematical problem is taught and should
retention of skills learned during instruction as the be according to the stated objective. Teachers must
Objectives and the Instruction are misaligned. not change the Planned Curriculum Objectives as
this will be the basis for assessment.
Thus, as a general action in the next school
4. CONCLUSIONS years, the following are recommended:
1. Don Bosco Technical Institute – Makati should
already include the misses in the past
Based on the findings of the study, the
instruction to the next Curriculum Planning, on
researcher derived the following conclusions:
the following contents, Rational Algebraic
1. The results of the formative tests and the
Expressions; Slope of a Line; Solving Systems of
Mathematics Achievement Test (MAT) showed
Linear Inequalities; Properties of Parallelograms
that students’ achievement is in the Beginning
and their Special Type; Quadrilaterals that are
and in the Developing level for the three Parallelograms; Measures of Variation; and
content areas of the Grade 8 Mathematics Experimental/Theoretical Probability.
curriculum. These imply that they struggle 2. The Subject Coordinator should ensure the
with their understanding or possess only the alignment among the K to 12 Mathematics
minimum knowledge and skills and core Competencies provided by DepEd to the stated
understandings; pre-requisite and fundamental instructional objectives of the teachers in their
knowledge and/or skills have not been acquired Instructional Plan and to the constructed
or developed adequately to aid understanding. assessment tool being administered to the
2. Most of the least-mastered contents of the students.
Mathematics Achievement Test were because of
the non-alignment between the Objectives and The following strategies are also
the Instruction. There was an imbalance in the recommended according to stating learning
system that led to poor surface learning. The objectives, developing teaching and learning
non-alignment signified inconsistencies, unmet activities, and constructing assessment methods
expectations, and practices that contradict (Entwistle & Tait, 1990; Trigwell & Prosser, 1991; De
what is preached. Winstanley & Bjork, 2002; Lizzio et al., 2002;
3. In terms of the nature of assessment, test Newmaster, et al., 2006; Weiman, 2007; Kember,
items’ distractor which was answered more et.al., 2008; Revell & Wainwright, 2009).
than the correct answer shows only that these
are good distractors. However, many students Developing Constructing
Stating Objectives
were answering an incorrect distractor. It only Instruction Assessment
reflects that they are not critical problem
 Establish and  Conduct review  Provide
solvers to be able discern the correct answer. communicate clear classes for opportunities to
Furthermore, the root cause of misconceptions learning objectives mastery and receive frequent
is retention of skills learned during instruction. throughout the retention Provide feedback and to
course opportunities for scaffold learning
 Establish and peer interaction  Identify the prior
communicate clear and discussion knowledge of the
5. RECOMMENDED ACTIONS standards for  Repeat and space students before
performance (e.g. key information learning the new
rubrics and within and concept through
In order to address the low performance of grading between lectures diagnostic
the Grade 8 students in K to 12 Mathematics, firstly, guidelines)  Vary and teaching
 Provide structure  Use the
the objectives must be clearly stated in a manner
opportunities for learning information on
that the level of understanding is properly defined independence and activities to focus students’
and not simply a list of topics to be covered. Secondly, choice in learning attention formative
the instruction or the teaching and learning tasks content and  Model each step mathematics
process in the process of performance to
chosen must be those that are likely to realize the reaching the identify what
stated objectives. Finally, the assessment tasks must solution to a they needed
address the objectives so that one can identify if the problem and more. Teachers

LLI-II-020 6

Proceedings of the DLSU Research Congress Vol. 3 2015

 Presented at the DLSU Research Congress 2015
De La Salle University, Manila, Philippines
March 2-4, 2015

think aloud could then decide George, D., & Mallery, P. (2003). SPSS for Windows
about the whether a re-
strategies they teaching should step by step: A simple guide and reference. 11.0
use during be done or update (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
problem solving whether to
 Discuss the proceed to the
common next lesson Kember, D., Ho, A., & Hong, C. (2008). The
misconceptions of
the students
importance of establishing relevance in
when solving a motivating student learning. Active Learning in
specific problem
Higher Education, 9 (3), 249-263.

Lizzio, A., Simons, R., & Wilson, K. (2002).

University students’ perceptions of the learning
6. REFERENCES environment and academic outcomes:
implications for theory and practice. Studies in
Andres, T., & Francisco, F. (2008). Curriculum
Higher Education, 27(1), 27-52.
development in the Philippine setting. Quezon
City: National Bookstore.
Newmaster, S., Lacroix, C., & Rossenboon, C. (2006).
Authentic learning as a mechanism for learner
Biggs, J. (1996). Enhancing teaching through
centredness. International Journal of Learning,
constructive alignment. Higher Education, 32,
13 (6), 103-112.
347-364.

Nickson, M. (2004). Teaching and learning

Biggs, J. (2003). Teaching for quality learning at
mathematics: A teacher's guide to recent
university (2nd ed.). Buckingham: The Society
research and its application. New York:
for research into Higher Education and Open
Continuum.
University Press.
Philippine Institute for Developmental Studies.
De Winstanley, P., & Bjork, R. (2002). Successful
(2012). Enhanced K to 12 Basic Education
lecturing: presenting information in ways. New
Program: opportunities and challenges.
Directions for Teaching and Learning, 89, 19-32.
Economic Issue of the Day, 12 (2).

Department of Education. (2010). Discussion paper

Revell, A., & Wainright, E. (2009). What makes
on the enhanced K to 12 education program.
lectures ‘unmissable’? Insights into teaching
Pasig City: CEAP.
excellence and active learning. Journal of
Geography in Higher Education, 33 (2), 209-233.
Department of Education. (2012). Retrieved June 12,
2014, from Official Gazette: http://www.gov.ph/k-
Trigwell, K., & Prosser, M. (1991). Improving the
12/#about
quality of student learning: the influence of
learning context and student approaches to
Department of Education. (2013). K to 12 Curriculum
learning on learning outcomes. Higher
Guide (Mathematics). Pasig City: Department of
Education, 22, 251-266.
Education.
Weiman, C. (2007). Why not try a scientific approach
Entwistle, N., & Tait, H. (1990). Approaches to
to science education? Change: The Magazine of
learning, evaluations of teaching, and
Higher Learning, 39 (5), 9-15.
preferences for contrasting academic
environments. Higher Education, 19, 169-194.

LLI-II-020 7

Proceedings of the DLSU Research Congress Vol. 3 2015