CHAPTER I

THE PROBLEM AND ITS BACKGROUND

Introduction

Mathematics education for all people is not only the goal, but also the

fundamental priority of mathematics taught in basic education. Once imparted, numeracy

enables the development of the mathematical knowledge and competencies necessary for

integrated and active participation in a given society and for adaptation to foreseeable

changes. It gives access to a world broader than that in which people were educated and

prepares them to find their place in today’s world.

National and international evaluations show that, on completion of basic

education, many students’ mathematics knowledge and competencies fall short of the

expected level United Nations Education Scientific and Cultural Organization

(UNESCO), 2012.

A Science and Education Institute study on Trends in Mathematics and Science

Study (TIMSS) in 2003 showed that Philippines’ 8th grade (2nd year high school)

students’ skills and competencies in Math ranked a pitiful 42nd out of 46 participating

countries while the Philippine 4th grade students placed 23rd out of 25 participating

countries. The 2004 executive report on Philippine TIMSS showed that in four years

since the Third International Mathematics and Science Study Repeat (TIMSS-R) in 1999,

only seven regions showed improvements in Math competencies among the 8th grade

students. Results of the student achievement test indicate very poor performance in each

content domain at this early education stage.

1
 Filipino students find word problems difficult (Brawner et al., 1999), and the

language factor is identified as one of the “what-else-is-new” reasons for student failure

(Philippine Executive Report on the TIMSS, Carteciano, 2005). Multiple studies have

shown that Filipino students find word problems in English more difficult than those in

Filipino (Bautista, Mitchelmore, & Mulligan, 2009; Bautista & Mulligan, 2010;

Bernardo, 1999). It is also well-known that word problems in English are more difficult

for students who are still in the process of learning English than for native English

speakers (Martiniello, 2008).

To adhere with the problems concerning the Mathematics Education in the

Philippines, CHED (Commission on Higher Education) formed memorandum orders to

address the problems. One of these is the CMO 12, s. 2015 Standards for the selection of

Centers of Excellence (COEs) and Centers of Development (CODs) criteria for Science

and Mathematics programs.

In the Philippines, one of the ways to adhere the problems concerning the

Mathematics Education is by assessment. Assessment is essential to allow individuals to

get the educational support they need to succeed, to see the effectiveness of different

educational methods, and to ensure that education budgets are being spent effectively.

Inevitably, assessment also risks marking teachers, learners and institutions as successes

or failures. It is helpful to make a distinction, here, between the intended use, or uses, of

assessment data, and their actual uses. Assessments are often designed quite differently

to ensure their fitness for different purposes. Or, to put it another way, results that are fit

to be used for one particular (intended) purpose may not be fit to be used for another,

2
regardless of whether they are actually used for that additional purpose ARG(Assessment

Reform Group),2009.

The researcher aims to determine the students’ difficulty in solving Mathematical

problem and to foster post thinking using the steps in problem solving by Krulik and

Rudnick.

Statement of the Problem

This study aims to determine the “Difficulties encountered by the students in

solving Mathematical problem.

Specifically, it seeks to answer the following questions:

1. What are the difficulties encountered by the students in solving

mathematical problem?

2. What are the causes of the errors committed by the students?

Significance of the study:

This study “Difficulties Encountered by the students in solving Mathematical

Problems” is deemed necessary for the teachers, curriculum makers, students, and future

researchers.

To the teachers, this study can be used to analyze the students’ ability in solving

mathematical problems, and to address the students’ difficulties in word problems. This is

helpful for the teachers especially in teaching the steps in problem solving.

3
 To the curriculum makers, this study can be used and can be added to the

curriculum design to present and create a new and easier approach in problem solving

that will cater the students’ needs and to help teachers to teach the problem solving more

comprehensive to the students.

To the students, this study can help them understand their own difficulties on

mathematics problems and solve worded problems easier and accurately through the use

of the steps presented in this study.

To the future researchers, it would be helpful for them to use this study as a

starting point to formulate actions to also address the concerns of the students with regard

to problem solving.

Scope and Delimitation

The study focused on the difficulties encountered by students in solving

Mathematical problems.

The study involves Bachelor of Secondary Education students at Isabela State

University – Cauayan Campus. The research included the Difficulties of the students in

the steps in problem solving. The research also includes the mistakes committed by the

students in their Mathematics examination. The study is conducted during the first

semester of the academic year 2015 – 2016.

4
DEFINITION OF TERMS

To help readers get a clear view of this study, the following terms are to be defined

operationally:

Assessment – the act of making a judgment about the work of someone or about

something.

Analysis – a careful study of the work of someone or of something which is done by

parts.

Difficulties – are task that are not easy to deal with or not easy to do.

Explore - is when one looks for patterns or attempts to determine the concept or principle

at play within the problem.

Problem- Solving – a mental process that involves discovering, analyzing and solving

problem.

Read - it is when the student identifies the problem.

Review and Extend - is where the student verifies his or her answers and looks for

variations in the method of solving the problem.

Select a strategy - is where one draws a conclusion or makes a hypothesis about how to

solve the problem.

Solve - once the method has been selected the student applies it to the problem.

5
 CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

This chapter presents the review of related literature and studies, which

includes both foreign and local studies. The researcher also consulted and perused as

references number of refereed journals, articles, and internet materials to gather pertinent

documents that are very relevant to the conceptualization of this paper.

Problem Solving Process

Problem solving is a cognitive processing directed at achieving a goal when no

solution method is obvious to the problem solver; it is applying an old knowledge to a

new situation and a task in which the student is interested and engaged for which he

wishes to obtain a resolution, (Krulik & Rudnick, 1987; Schoenfeld, 1989;Mayer, 1992;

Bottge, 2004).

The importance of having the knowledge of misconceptions which appears as

knowing the subject specific misconceptions of students has drawn attention from

different researchers and misconceptions are used as the perceptions or conceptions

which are in conflict with those generally accepted by experts (Zembat 2008; Ball and

Bass 2000; Ball and Mcdiarmid 1990; Carlsen 1999; Carpenter et al. 1988; Cornu 1991;

Grossman 1990; Kovarik 2008; Schmidt et al. 1996; Schoenfeld 1998, 2000; Shulman

1987; Smith and Neale 1989; Szydlik 2000; Wagner 2003; Williams and Ryan 2000; You

2006; Guza 2013).

6
 Problem solving is central to inquiry and application and should be interwoven

throughout the mathematics curriculum to provide a context for learning and applying

mathematical ideas (NCTM, 2000).

Problem solving is a major part of mathematics. It is the sum and substance of our

discipline and to reduce the discipline to a set of exercises and skills devoid of problem

solving is misrepresenting mathematics as a discipline and shortchanging the students.

(Wilson, Fernandez & Hadaway, 2002).

According to Candelaria (2002), a problem solving process is referred to as a

heuristic. For Polya (1945), problem solving heuristics are not clear-cut rules in coming

up with the correct answers, rather they are possible solutions for certain problems.

Lester and Kehle (2003) defined problem solving as an activity that involves the

students’ engagement in a variety of cognitive actions including accessing and using

previous knowledge experience.

Problem solving is regarded as one of the primary skills that students must take

with them when they leave the classrooms and enter the real world (Krulik and Rudnick

1996).

Limjap (1996) reported that as students are given the opportunity to reflect on

their experiences when they confront problem situations, they learn to construct their own

ways of reasoning in mathematics. She further added that the students come to

understand their own learning process and are able to deal with problem situations which

facilitate their understanding of the mathematics concepts.

7
 According to Mayer and Wittrock (2006), students need to have five kinds of

knowledge in order to be successful problem solvers: facts, concepts, strategies,

procedures, and belief similar to the findings of Khalid and Tengah ( 2007) said that It

needs to be recognized that the ability to solve a problem is not exclusively dependent on

linguistic competence but also relies on students’ understanding of concepts, procedures,

prior knowledge and experiences.

According to Ibrahim (1997), there are two main procedural steps in problem-

solving: i) transforming the problem into mathematical sentences; and ii) computation of

the operational involved in the mathematical sentences.

Moreover, if learning approaches and teaching strategies applied did not fulfill the

intellectual needs of the students, these could lead to students’ difficulties in learning

mathematics. Teachers need to understand students’ potential, problems and learning

difficulties in order to implement effective teaching strategy and to produce meaningful

learning among students (Meese 2001).

Difficulties in Problem Solving

Newman (1983), difficulty in problem solving may occur at one of the following

phases, namely reading, comprehension, strategy know-how, transformation, process

skills and solution.

The ability to use cognitive abilities in learning is crucial for a meaningful

learning to take place (Stendall 2009). However, many students have hindrance in using

these cognitive abilities in learning effectively. They were reported to face difficulties in

making the accurate perceptions and interpretations, memorizing and retrieving facts,

8
giving concentrations and using their logic thinking (Zahara et al. 2009; Tarzimah 2005;

Ismail 2009; Andersson & Lyxell 2007; Bryant 2006).

Miranda (2006) stated that students might experience difficulties in thinking and

learning when they demonstrated difficulty in giving attention, describing orientation of

shape and space, making perception by visual and auditory, memorizing simple things

and understanding language.

Students’ more efficient word problem solving skill seemed to rely on the ability

to shift between operations and to instantly activate and retrieve information from long-

term memory (andersson, 2002). Research tended to attribute difficulties in solving

problems to the various tasks variables such as content and context variables, structure

variables, syntax variables, and heuristic behavior variables (Goldin & McClintoch,

1979).

Students have difficulty in problem solving due to lack of comprehension of the

problem posed, lack of strategy knowledge, inability to translate the problem into a

mathematical form, inability to use the correct mathematics, inappropriate strategy used,

incorrect formulation of the mathematical form, computational errors, imperfect

mathematical knowledge, and misinterpretation of the problem ( Kaur, 2001; Baroody

,1993; Stacey and Southwell, 1996 ; Fong 1994, lee 2005).

Students with learning difficulties in mathematics often experience greater

difficulty than their peers without disabilities. Many of them have encountered frequent

mathematical failures that result in the development of learned helplessness in

mathematics (Ee & Chan, 1994; Parmar & Cawley, 1991). Their repeated failure and lack

9
of mathematical understanding lead to dependency on the teacher or their peers for help.

(Ee, Moore and Atputhasamy, 2001; Ee and Chan, 1994) indicated that pupils with

learning difficulties are more likely to have work avoidance tendencies and attribution

beliefs that things are not within their personal control.

Arthur Ellis (2005) notes that the research base on problem solving lacks

definition, possesses measurement validity problems and questionable causality, and it

fails to answer the claim that successful problem solvers must have a wealth of content-

specific knowledge.

The students can correctly find solutions to basic problems but struggle with

understanding when to use higher order concepts such as multiplication or division, they

cannot follow through with multi-step problems that require the use of more than one

computation method much less correctly decipher which method should be used first and

they struggle with understanding mathematical terms, their meanings, how to describe

their thought processes and computations (Poore 2008).

A Science and Education Institute study on Trends in Mathematics and Science

Study (TIMSS) in 2003 showed that Philippines’ 8th grade (2nd year high school)

students’ skills and competencies in Math ranked a pitiful 42nd out of 46 participating

countries while the Philippine 4th grade students placed 23rd out of 25 participating

countries. The 2004 executive report on Philippine TIMSS showed that in four years

since the Third International Mathematics and Science Study Repeat (TIMSS-R) in 1999,

only seven regions showed improvements in Math competencies among the 8th grade

10
students. Results of the student achievement test indicate very poor performance in each

content domain at this early education stage.

Mohd Johan (2002) stated that many students could not bring meaning to

the problems and did not know how to plan and perform the problem-solving strategies.

However, not many studies emphasized on the difficulties of mathematics problem

solving related to mathematics skills deficit. If the difficulties in mathematics skills

involved are understood, better programmes to overcome the difficulties could be

prepared.

Difficulty in mathematics skills experienced by students is a challenge for

students to overcome. In adequate language skill, information skill and in mastery of

number fact skill inhibits the efficiency of problem solving process. These lacking, result

in uncertainty, confusion and inaccuracy in the decision making and making connection

among information. These would lead to errors in mathematics problem-solving.

Moreover, facts recall, was found to be difficult during making meaningful connection in

the problems and could influence the efficiency of each phase in problem-solving

(Tarzimah, Tambychika, Thamby Subahan, Mohd Meerahb, 2010).

Krulik and Rudnick Model

Krulik and Rudnick (1980), steps in problem solving are read, explore, select a

strategy, solve and review and extend. Wherein, the first step, Read, is when one

identifies the problem. The problem solver does this by noting key words, asking oneself

what is being asked in the problem, or restating the problem in language that he or she

can understand more easily. The second step, Explore, is when one looks for patterns or

11
attempts to determine the concept or principle at play within the problem. This is

essentially a higher form of step one in which the student identifies what the problem is

and represents it in a way that is easier to understand. In this step, however, the student is

really asking, “What is this problem like?” He or she is connecting the new problem to

prior knowledge. The student might draw a picture of what the situation would look like.

The third step, Select a Strategy, is where one draws a conclusion or makes a hypothesis

about how to solve the problem based on the what he or she found in steps one and two.

One experiments, looks for a simpler problem, and then conjectures, guesses, forms a

tentative hypothesis, and assumes a solution. The fourth step is Solve the Problem. Once

the method has been selected the student applies it to the problem. The final step, Review

and Extend, is where the student verifies his or her answers and looks for variations in the

method of solving the problem.

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

Read

Explore

Select a Strategy Problem Solving

Difficulty

Solve

Review and Extend

12
 According to Ismail Hj Raduan, 2010 in his study “Error analysis and the

corresponding cognitive activities committed by year five primary students in solving

mathematical word problems”. The usual problems faced by students are they don’t

understand the language, the sentences and the words they read. Thus, the students must

do the exploring, planning and select certain strategies (Krulik & Rudnick 1996) in

solving the problem.

Based from the study of Nakin Satchakett , Sitthipon, 2013, “Development of

Heuristics Problem Solving, and learning achievement of grade 9 students by using

learning management focusing on Heuristics Approach in Thailand” . The researcher

used Heuristics Approach developed by Krulik & Rudnick (1995) consisted of 5 problem

solving steps as: 1) Read and Think, 2) Explore and Plan, 3) Select a Strategy, 4) Find an

Answer, and 5) Reflect and Extend in measuring the Learning Management, Heuristics

Problem Solving Ability and Learning Achievement in Mathematics Learning Area.

According to Jamin Carson in his research, “A Problem With Problem Solving:

Teaching Thinking Without Teaching Knowledge”. Problem solving theory and practice

suggest that thinking is more important to solving problems than knowledge and that it is

possible to teach thinking in situations where little or no knowledge of the problem is

needed and advocates to champion content-less heuristics as the primary element of

problem solving while relegating the knowledge base and the application of concepts or

transfer to secondary status. The researcher used the model of Krulik and Rudnick as a

problem solving heuristic in his study.

13
 According to Zanzali and Nam in their research, “Evaluating the levels of

problem solving abilities in mathematics”, the students’ level of abilities in using basic

knowledge, standard procedures and problem solving skills were evaluated from their

written responses. The questions are made based from the Krulik and Rudnick problem

solving steps.

According to Foong Pui Yee in his research, “Teaching Heuristics and

Metacognition in Mathematical Problem Solving”, what one needs to become an

effective problem solver is a repertoire of heuristics that are likely to be useful in a

variety of problem situations, along with meta-knowledge about situations in which

specific heuristics are appropriate. In this study the Krulik and Rudnick model is

acknowledge.

14
 CHAPTER III

METHODS OF RESEARCH AND PROCEDURES

Research Design

A Multiple Case study design will be used in this research. It will find out the

difficulties encountered by the students in solving mathematical problems. Qualitative

method is needed to be gathered in order to resolve the research problems. It shall be

used to analyze and explain the difficulties in problem solving, mistakes in the steps in

problem solving and the problem solving steps that can facilitate the solver in solving the

problem.

Respondents of the Study

The respondents of the study were three Bachelor of Secondary Education

students. The researcher used a purposive sampling in the selection of respondents and

considered the non performing students in mathematics.

Research Instrument

The researcher made use of the test questionnaire and recorded interview to

answer the problems of the study.

The study used a set of test questions to identify the difficulties of students in

solving mathematical problems. The set of test questions consists of 5 word problems in

Geometry. The questionnaire was made by the researcher and undergone the process of

validation and test of reliability. The content validity of the material was validated by a

set of teachers who is teaching and an expert on this subject for several years. For the

15
reliability of the test, it was floated to the 40 first year BEED students. The Kuder –

Richardson formula 20 was utilized to test the reliability of the set of test to establish

internal consistency. The Kuder – Richardson formula 20 value of the reliability of the 5-

item test was 0.36. The test covers 5 word problems to answer with complete solution.

Those topics included were: ratio and proportion, number problems, perimeter of

polygon, least common multiple and word problems involving linear inequalities. Table

of Specification was used to ensure that a fair and representative sample of questions

appear on the test.

Table 1 Two-way Table of Specification for a 5 – item Geometry test

Topic No. Percentage No. of R U A A E C

of Allocation Items
Hour (%)
s
Number Problems 1 20 1 1

Ratio and Proportion 1 20 1 2

Perimeter of Polygon 1 20 1 3

Least Common Multiple 1 20 1 4

Word Problems Involving 1 20 1 5

Linear Inequalities

Total 5 100 5 5

Note* R – Remembering, U – Understanding, A – Applying, A – Analyzing, E –

Evaluating, C - Creating

Table 1 presents the two- way table of specification for a 5 – item Geometry test.

It shows that 1 or 20% was considered for Number Problems, 1 or 20% for ratio and

16
proportion, 1 or 20% for perimeter of polygon, 1 or 20% for least common multiple and 1

or 20% for word problems involving linear inequalities. The test was designed to find the

correct and incorrect responses of the students.

In determining why students make mistakes with written mathematics questions,

recorded interview was utilized. The interview was based on the model of Stephen Krulik

and Jesse Rudnick which consists of five steps on problem solving. These questions

where:

Table 1.1 Krulik and Rudnick Interview questions

1. Please read the question to me. (Pakibasa ang tanong sa akin)

2. (a.) What are the given on the question? ( ano ang mga detalyeng naitala sa

tanong?)

(b.) Tell me what the question is asking you to do.( ano ang nais ipagawa sa iyo

ng tanong?)

3. Will you state the problem in your own words?(maaari mo bang isalin ang tanong

sa iyong sariling pag unawa?)

4. What strategy did you use to find the answer?(anong stratehiya o paraan ang

iyong ginamit para malaman ang kasagutan?)

5. Show me how you work out for the answer. Tell me what you are doing as you

work.(Ipakita mo sa akin kung paano mo kinuha ang sagot. Sabihin mo sa akin

kung ano iyong ginagawa habang sumasagot)

6. What is now the answer?(ano na ngayon ang kasagutan?)

7. (a.) How can you say that your answer is correct?(paano mo masasabing tama ang

17
 sagot mo?)

(b). Did you do checking? If so, will you tell me how did you check your answer?

( Maari mo bang ipakita sa akin kung paano mo binerepika ang iyong sagot?)

Data Gathering Procedure

The researcher used test questionnaire and recorded interview as a data gathering

technique. The test questionnaire was used to determine the difficulties of the students in

solving the problem and the interview was used to analyze the data coming from the test

questionnaire. The interview was based on the steps of problem solving proposed by

Krulik and Rudnick. The researcher made a letter for permission in conducting the

research and was signed by the associate dean and the program chair of the Institute of

the Teacher Education. After that, the researcher floated the questionnaire to the 40

students for the reliability testing. When the reliability has been identified, the researcher

proceeds in gathering the data needed for the research. The respondents were excused

from their teacher. The test questionnaire was first administered individually to the

respondents. The respondents took the test with enough time to answer all the questions.

Calculators are not allowed in the test. After the questionnaire has been administered,

interview took place. During the conduct of the interview, the researcher made sure that

the environment was conducive for the students to express themselves freely. All

interview responses were transcribed and analyzed. Finally, to determine the difficulties

in problem solving, the errors and correct responses in every category were counted using

simple frequency.

18
 CHAPTER IV

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Exploration Error

In this case, the students were not able to comprehend the problems well especially the
terms such as “more than” and “thrice”.

The Case of Michael

Anjo planted 27 okra and 13 egg plant on his rectangular plot. He decided to use a wire as a
fence around the plot to avoid the animals in eating the vegetables. How many meters of
wire does he need to fence the rectangular plot, if the length of the lot is 25m more than the
12m – width?

During the interview Michael identified the given as 27 okra, 13 eggplant, length of 25m
and the width 12m but as shown in the solution he only used the 25m length and 12m
width. For that, he really did not understand the problem because of the error in
identifying the given. He also disregards the word “more than” in which, it must be
considered and it means that he has to add the measurement of the width onto the 25m to
get the measurement of the length. Yet, Michael committed an exploration error.

Here is an excerpt of the interview that supports the answer of the respondent:
Researcher: What are the given on the question?
Michael: 27 okras, 13 egg plants ahm the length is 25m and the width is 12m.

The Case of Angel

Twenty – four more than thrice a number is six times the number. What is the
number?

Angel did not answer the question because she did not understand the problem
especially the terms “more than”, “thrice” and “six times the number”. In mathematics,
when we say more than you have to add, and when we say thrice it means

19
three times and when we say six times the number you have to multiply the number into
six. Thus, Angel committed Exploration error.

Here is an excerpt the interview that supports the answer of the respondent:
Researcher: What are the given on the question?
Angel: ahm …. 24 and more than thrice tapos six times
Researcher: tell me what the question is asking you to do.
Angel: ano po?
Researcher: Tell me what the question is asking you to do or sabihin mo sa akin kung
anong pinapagawa ng tanong.
Angel: ahm,… find the value of the number.
Researcher: Will you state the problem in your own words .
Angel: wala kasi akong answer sa number 1.. 24 ahm 24 ang alam ko po kasi ate eh 24
times..Next question na ate.
Researcher: Bakit wala kang sagot?
Angel : ahm. Either with confusion po kasi ano.. ginugulo ako ng mga terms ng word na
nakalagay.
Researcher: ano yung mga terms na magulo para sayo?
Angel: ahm.. gaya ng more than thrice tapos six times the number.

Note: Some other cases similar to this are located in appendices (pages xiv - xx)

SELECTING STRATEGY ERROR

In this case, the students have a dilemma in selecting a strategy. It is difficult for
them to choose what strategy to use and they don’t know what to do with the problem.

The Case of Joseph

Mr. Cruz, an accountant, is off – duty every sixth day. His wife, a doctor gets a day off, every
ninth day. If both of them are off – duty on march 4, 2016, then what day will be the off- duty together next
time?

Joseph found it difficult to choose a strategy; he does not know what strategy to
use. That is why he just counted the days in the calendar and that is how he find his
answer. He made use of the least common multiple and then proceeded to addition.
Hence, he committed error in selecting strategy.

Here is an excerpt the interview that supports the answer of the respondent:
Researcher: What strategy did you use to find the answer?
Joseph: amh.. tinignan ko lang po yung calendar tsaka ano binilang ko kung… di ba
nagsimula sila ng march 4, 2016 nag sabay, so ibig sabihin march 4? March 4 Friday
nagsisimula sa lunes 1, 7, 8, 9, 10,11……, so mag de day off ngaun si mr. cruz sa march
14, march 14. Tapos si ms.. Mrs. Cruz 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7… mag de day off siya sa march 17 ,
tapos susunod po 1,2, 1, 2. 3, 4, 5, 6, march 22 … susunod po si ano march 30 na siya,
tapos susunod po ulit si Mr. Cruz march 30 so ganun lang po tinignan ko lang yung
calendar kasi hindi ko po alam kung may formula ba ditto para makuha yung ano… meron
siguro pero hindi ko po alam kung ano yung gagamitin kong formula so tumingin nalang
po ako dun sa calendar tapos binilang ko nalang.

20
The Case of Michael

Mr. Cruz, an accountant, is off – duty every sixth day. His wife, a doctor, gets a day off
every ninth day. If both of them are off – duty on march 4, 2016, then what day will they
be off – duty together next time?

As shown in his solution Michael drew a calendar and used addition. He added
the number of days he counted to come up to his answer. Thus, he committed error in
selecting strategy.

Here is an excerpt the interview that supports the answer of the respondent:
Researcher: What strategy did you use to find the answer?
Michael: I drew a calendar on my paper.
Researcher: Show me how you work out for the answer and tell me what you are doing as you
work.
Michael: ok simply I draw a calendar,4,5,6 ………. 24,25,26,27, 28,29,30,31.. ahm kinount ko
kung pano sila kwan..so nagsimula ako nag count sa march 4 then 1,2,3,4,5,6 every six day kasi
ang Mr.Cruz.. ninth day is misis niya then bilang ulit six day mr.cruz then 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 Misis
niya then bibilang nanaman ako ng anim ulit 1,2,3,4,5,6. So 22 then bibiling na naman ako ng
1,2,3,4, 1,2,3,4,5,6 yan yung first vacation ni mr.cruz then 1,2,3,4,5,67,8,9 yan yung first day din
ni misis cruz. 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,6 second vacation ni mister. 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9, to yung second
1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 ito yug 3rd ….. 30 yung misis niya third then bibilang nanaman ulit 1,2,3,4,5,6 4 th
na ito 123456 123456 4 then hindi ko parin siya nakuha nag draw na naman ako then 31 .
……….. keep counting….
Researcher: What is now your answer?
Michael: I guess April 17…2016.

Note: Some other cases are located in the appendices (pages xx - xxii)

SOLVING PROCESS ERROR OR COMPUTATIONAL ERROR

In this case, the student knows what strategy to use but failed to use it correctly.

The Case of Michael

Anjo planted 27 okra and 13 egg plants on his rectangular plot. He decided to use a
wire as a fence around the plot to avoid the animals in eating the vegetable. How many meters
of wire does he need to fence the rectangular plot, if the length of the lot is 25m more than the
12-width?

21
Michael selected a correct strategy in solving the problem but he did not solve the
problem correctly. He use the perimeter for rectangle which is P = 2l + 2w, but instead of
multiplying the length by 2 and add the product of the width and 2, he squared the length
and add it to the square of the width. He used the formula incorrectly and interchanged
“twice” and “square”. Hence, Michael committed solving process error.

Note: Some other cases is located in the appendices (pages xxii - xxiii)

CARELESS ERROR

In this case, the student committed an error in solving the problem. However, the student
was able to solve the problem during the interview. Thus, making the student realize that
his/her first answer is incorrect.

The Case of Joseph

Anjo planted 27 okra and 13 egg plant on his rectangular plot. He decided to use a wire as a
fence around the plot to avoid the animals in eating the vegetables. How many met meters of
wire does he need to fence the regular rectangular plot, if the length of the lot is 25 more than the
12m – width?

Joseph identified the given correctly, he even translated the problem correctly and he
selected the correct strategy in solving the problem but he got the final answer incorrect
because he added 25 and 12 and he got 27 instead of getting 37 and when he applied the
formula he forgot to put the measurement for length . But during the interview, he
realized that he committed an error in his process and rectified it on his latter answer. Yet
Joseph committed an error due to carelessness.

22
Here is an excerpt the interview that supports the answer of the respondent:

Researcher: what are the given on the question?

Joseph: Given po yung ano yung width tsaka yung length, length is equal to 25 more than
the 12m width. So 25 plus 12 is equal to twen.. umph… 25. So mali yung nilagay ko dun?
Researcher: Ano yung nais ipagawa sayo ng tanong?
Joseph: Hanapin ko po yung ano yung how many meters of wire does he need to fence the
rectangular plot.
Researcher: anong hinahanap?
Joseph : Yung Perimeter po.
Researcher: will you state the problem in your own words?
Joseph: yun lang po?
Researcher: oo
Joseph: Ahm… ok lang po ba kahit tagalog nalang?
Researcher: tagalog nalang
Joseph: How many meters of wire….. ilang metro ng wire ang kailangan upang
mabakuran yung plot na may length na may length na… 25 meter mas madami sa 12
meter na width.
Researcher: Anong strategy yung ginamit mo para masagot yung tanong?
Joseph: Ginamit ko lang po yung ano yung formula para makuha yung perimeter which is
P is equal to two length plus two width .
Researcher: will you show me how you work out for the answer?
Joseph: amh… eto po .. 37 74 24 8 9 98..
Researcher: what is now the answer?
Joseph: 98 meters po.
Note: Some other cases are located in the appendices (pages xxiii - xxiv)

23
Table 2 Simple frequency for the errors committed by the students

ERRORS FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE (%)

Exploration Error 8 57.14%

Selecting Strategy Error 4 28.57%

Solving Process Error 1 7.14%

Careless Error 1 7.14%

Total 14 100%

Table 2 presents the simple frequency of the errors committed by the students. It shows

that 8 or 57.14% committed an error in exploration, 4 or 28.57% committed an error in

selecting a strategy, 1 or 7.14% committed an error in solving process or computational

process and 1 or 7.14% committed an error for being careless.

24
Table 2.1 BSE student’s responses and initial error on worded problems test (n=3)

Number of responses to worded questions

Questions Correct
Incorrect

Initial Error Cause

R E SS S R&E CE total
1 1 - 2 - - - - 2

2 2 - 1 1 - - - 2

3 0 - 2 - 1 - 1 4

4 0 - - 3 - - - 3

5 0 - 3 - - - - 3

Total 3 0 8 4 1 0 1 14

Note* R – Read, E – Explore, SS- Selecting Strategy, S – Solve, R &E – Review &
Extend, CE - Careless Error

Table 2.1 presents the summary of the identified initial errors on the 5 word problems.

The most common errors types were Exploration (8), Selecting Strategy (4), Solving

Process (1), and careless error (1).

25
 CHAPTER V

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Summary

The study, “Difficulties encountered by the students in solving Mathematical

Problems” was conducted at the Institute of Teacher Education, Isabela State University

– Cauayan Campus.

The respondents of the study were three Bachelor of Secondary Education

students of Isabela State University – Cauayan Campus and were chosen through

purposive sampling.

The researcher used test questionnaire and recorded interview as a data gathering

technique. The test questionnaire was used to determine the difficulties of the students in

solving the problem and the interview was used to analyze the data coming from the test

questionnaire. The interview was based on the steps of problem solving proposed by

Krulik and Rudnick. The researcher made a letter for permission in conducting the

research and was signed by the associate dean and the program chair of the Institute of

the Teacher Education. After that, the researcher floated the questionnaire to the 40

students for the reliability testing. When the reliability has been identified, the researcher

proceeds in gathering the data needed for the research. The respondents were excused

from their teacher. The test questionnaire was first administered individually to the

respondents. The respondents took the test with enough time to answer all the questions.

Calculators were not allowed in the test. After the questionnaire has been administered,

the interview took place and conducted one by one to the respondents. During the

conduct of the interview, the researcher made sure that the environment was conducive

26
for the students to express themselves freely. All interview responses were transcribed

and analyzed. Finally, to determine the difficulties in problem solving, the errors and

correct responses in every category were counted using simple frequency.

Findings of the study were summarized and interpreted as follows:

Table 2 presents the simple frequency of the errors committed by the students. It

shows that 8 or 57.14% committed an error in exploration, 4 or 28.57% committed an

error in selecting a strategy, 1 or 7.14% committed an error in solving process or

computational process and 1 or 7.14% committed an error for being careless.

Table 2.1 presents the summary of the identified initial errors on the 5 word

problems. The most common errors types were Exploration (8), Selecting Strategy (4),

Solving Process (1), and careless error (1). The table shows student’s responses and

initial error on worded problems test. A total of 14 errors were examined during the

interview. Majority of the students committed an Exploration error (8). As none of the

students interviewed had any reading difficulty, there are no examples of difficulties at

this stage which may have led to the inability of the students to go beyond this stage

during the interview. One careless error was examined. It is observed that a significant

number of Selecting Strategy errors were examined during the interview. Some errors at

this stage indicate the students’ difficulty in choosing and implementing the strategy. One

student committed both solving process error and careless error due to the careless adding

of numbers. Most of the students know how to use the fundamental operations but they

did not know when to use it.

Additionally, the student did not use the information in the question correctly that

lead to inability to solve the problem.

27
. Moreover, most of the students commonly commit errors due to disregarding

important mathematical terms such as “more than” and “no more than”. They also

commit errors because of not considering each information on the given problem. They

just look at the numbers given and not considering key terms. This is parallel to the study

of (Jesse Ee, 2010), Diagnosing students with learning difficulties in mathematics, which

shows that students are lack of understanding in the basic concepts of mathematics, lack

of understanding in basic facts, mathematical terms and the knowledge of selecting

operations.

It was also observed during the interviews that students were solving the problem

using only one strategy. They did not try another strategy. Students who worked their

solutions using an inappropriate strategy were often not aware that the solution was

wrong. Furthermore, students made no attempt to check that their solutions were correct

or whether the solutions satisfied the conditions in the problem. The results of the data

analysis showed that students were not successful in obtaining solutions for the following

reasons:

Lack of exploration or comprehension of the problem posed

Some students were impeded in their progress in solving the problem as they did

not understand the problem and they have a little knowledge on the terms that are being

used in mathematics, they even find it difficult to understand the terms in English and

they often misinterpret the words or terms used in the problem but they understand the

problem when it is translated in Filipino language. Indeed, to a student with very little

mathematical knowledge, this problem would be extremely difficult to solve

(Ormrod,1999).

28
Difficulty in selecting strategy

Most of the students can’t proceed due to their difficulty in selecting strategy, due

to the cause that they don’t know the different strategies used to solve mathematical

problem and due to the reason that they don’t know the nature of the problem. Some

students, who had no difficulty comprehending the problem, were impeded in their

progress in solving the problem as they appeared to have no knowledge of ways in which

an unfamiliar or non-routine as well routine problem might be approached (Kai Kow

Joseph YEO, 2004).

Omits significant terms or words

Students omit some important terms like: more than, no more than, and entire.

Conclusion

Mathematics problem-solving difficulties of BSE students reveal that errors occur

frequently in exploring the problem. Students find difficulties in comprehending specific

terms of the problem that is presented in English language. Filipino students find word

problems in English more difficult than those in Filipino Language (Bautista,

Mitchelmore, & Mulligan, 2009; Bautista & Mulligan, 2010; Bernardo, 1999).

Also, they were unable to use appropriate strategy or show any flexibility in solving the

problems using more than one heuristic; they even committed mistakes in solving process

and make errors due to carelessness because there is no evident checking of their own

solution

In total, this study shows that students must possess relevant knowledge and be

able to coordinate their use of appropriate strategies to solve problems and they must also

know and understand the terms. Furthermore, students need to have five kinds of

29
knowledge in order to be successful problem solvers: such as algorithmic, linguistic,

conceptual, schematic knowledge and strategic knowledge are vital traits of problem-

solving ability.

Recommendations

From the findings of the study, the following recommendations were presented

for consideration:

1. Teachers must require more than one strategy to the students in solving a

problem;

2. Teachers must help the student express the problem in their own word and

must help the student in identifying and recognizing the terms in the problem,

3. Teachers must encourage their students to check if their solutions were correct

or whether the solutions satisfied the conditions in the problem and;

4. To the future researcher, they can continue the study by testing the

effectiveness of using Filipino language in problem solving and identify errors

in the problems that are translated in Filipino language.

30