000 09040nam a2201297Ia 4500
000 07193ntm a2200205 i 4500
001 69904
003 0
005 20250920174325.0
008 171227n 000 0 eng d
010 _z
_z
_o
_a
_b
015 _22
_a
016 _2
_2
_a
_z
020 _e
_e
_a
_b
_z
_c
_q
_x
022 _y
_y
_l
_a2
024 _2
_2
_d
_c
_a
_q
028 _a
_a
_b
029 _a
_a
_b
032 _a
_a
_b
035 _a
_a
_b
_z
_c
_q
037 _n
_n
_c
_a
_b
040 _e
_erda
_a
_d
_b
_c
041 _e
_e
_a
_b
_g
_h
_r
043 _a
_a
_b
045 _b
_b
_a
050 _a
_a
_d
_b2
_c0
051 _c
_c
_a
_b
055 _a
_a
_b
060 _a
_a
_b
070 _a
_a
_b
072 _2
_2
_d
_a
_x
082 _a
_a
_d
_b2
_c
084 _2
_2
_a
086 _2
_2
_a
090 _a
_a
_m
_b
_q
092 _f
_f
_a
_b
096 _a
_a
_b
097 _a
_a
_b
100 _e
_e
_aMontibon, Milagros S.
_d
_b4
_u
_c0
_q16
110 _e
_e
_a
_d
_b
_n
_c
_k
111 _a
_a
_d
_b
_n
_c
130 _s
_s
_a
_p
_f
_l
_k
210 _a
_a
_b
222 _a
_a
_b
240 _s
_s
_a
_m
_g
_n
_f
_l
_o
_p
_k
245 0 _a
_aComparative effectiveness of the JIGSAW II model and the traditional method in teaching business calculus /
_d
_b
_n
_cMilagros S. Montibon.
_h6
_p
246 _a
_a
_b
_n
_i
_f6
_p
249 _i
_i
_a
250 _6
_6
_a
_b
260 _e
_e
_a
_b
_f
_c
_g
264 _3
_3
_a
_d
_b
_c46
300 _e
_e
_c28 cm.
_axvii, 134 pages
_b
310 _a
_a
_b
321 _a
_a
_b
336 _b
_atext
_2rdacontent
337 _3
_30
_b
_aunmediated
_2rdamedia
338 _3
_30
_b
_avolume
_2rdacarrier
340 _2
_20
_g
_n
344 _2
_2
_a0
_b
347 _2
_2
_a0
362 _a
_a
_b
385 _m
_m
_a2
410 _t
_t
_b
_a
_v
440 _p
_p
_a
_x
_v
490 _a
_a
_x
_v
500 _a
_aThesis (M.A.) -- Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila, 2001.;A thesis presented to the faculty of the Graduate School of Arts, Sciences and Education in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree Master of Science in Mathematics Education.
_d
_b
_c56
504 _a
_a
_x
505 _a
_a
_b
_t
_g
_r
506 _a
_a5
510 _a
_a
_x
520 _b
_b
_c
_aABSTRACT:
521 _aThis study aimed to compare the relative effectiveness of using the JIGSAW II and the traditional method in teaching Business Calculus. Specifically, this study has the following objectives: 1.
525 _aTo determine the profile of the respondents who were exposed to JIGSAW II model and the traditional method with respect to the following: 1.1.
530 _aGrades in College Algebra; and 1.2.
533 _eGrades in Business Statistics. 2.
536 _aTo determine the pretest and the posttest achievement and Mathematics Attitude mean scores of the students who are exposed to: 2.1.
540 _cJIGSAW II model; and 2.2.
542 _gTraditional method in teaching Business Calculus. 3.
546 _aTo determine if there is a significant difference between the pretest and posttest achievement mean scores of the students who are exposed to: 3.1.
555 _aJIGSAW II model; and 3.2.
580 _aTraditional method in teaching Business Calculus. 4.
583 _5To determine if there is a significant difference between the posttest achievement mean scores of the students who had undergone the JIGSAW II model and the traditional method in teaching Business Calculus. 5.
588 _aTo determine if there is a significant difference between the pretest and the posttest Mathematics Attitude Scale mean scores of the students who were exposed to: 5.1.
591 _aJIGSAW II model; and 5.2.
598 _aTraditional method in teaching Business Calculus. 6.
600 _bTo determine if there is a significant difference between the posttest Mathematics Attitude Scale mean scores of the students who had undergone the JIGSAW II model and the traditional method in teaching Business Calculus.
610 _bThis study was conducted at De La Salle - Dasmariñas, Cavite using two intact sections of third year Hotel and Restaurant Management students who were enrolled in Business Calculus during the second semester of the school year 2000-2001.
611 _aThis study used the quasi-experimental design, known as the Pretest-Posttest Nonequivalent Control Group Design. It made used of two instruments namely: the achievement test, prepared by the researcher, and a validated instrument known as Mathematics Attitude Scale (MAS). The statistical methods applied were the t-test for independent samples and the t-test for dependent samples. Validation of the achievement test was done through content validation, item analysis and by the Kuder-Richardson Formula 20.
630 _xThe findings of the study are as follows: 1.
648 _2The profile of both groups were not significantly different. 2.
650 _xThe mean of the achievement posttest is higher than the pretest. On the other hand, the mean of the Mathematics Attitude pretest is higher than the posttest. 3.
651 _xThere is a significant difference in the pretest and posttest of the achievement mean scores of the students who were exposed under the experimental group. Similarly, there is a significant difference between the pretest and posttest achievement mean scores of the students under the control group in teaching Business Calculus. 4.
653 _aAlthough the posttest achievement mean score of the students exposed to the JIGSAW II is higher by 0.51 than the mean score of the students who were exposed to the traditional method, the difference was found to be not significant at 0.05 level of significance. 5.
655 _0A decrease in the MAS mean score of the students after the treatment has significant effect at a level of significance of 0.05 using 18 degree of freedom. A slight decrease in the posttest MAS mean score of the students under the control group has no significant effect at a level of 0.05. 6.
700 _iA mean difference of 0.06 in the posttests of both groups with respect to the MAS has no bearing at a level of 0.05. This implies that the null hypothesis of no significant difference between the posttests of the Mathematics Attitude Scale mean scores of the students who had undergone the JIGSAW II model and the traditional method is accepted.
710 _bThe findings of the study led to the following conclusions on the relative effectiveness of the JIGSAW II model and the traditional method in teaching Business Calculus: 1.
711 _aLearning took place when JIGSAW II model was used in teaching Business Calculus. This further guarantees that JIGSAW II model is an effective tool in teaching Business Calculus. 2.
730 _sThe mean difference between the posttests achievement scores of both experimental and control groups is not significant. This proves that JIGSAW II model is as effective as the traditional method in teaching Business Calculus. 3.
740 _eThe mean difference between the pretest and posttests MAS mean scores of the students who were exposed to JIGSAW II model is significant in teaching Business Calculus. 4.
753 _cThe mean difference between the pretest and posttests MAS mean scores of the students who were exposed to traditional method is not significant in teaching Business Calculus. 5.
767 _tThe mean difference between the posttests MAS mean scores of both experimental and control groups is not significant. This shows that attitude is not easily affected by either of the teaching methodology - JIGSAW II model and traditional method.
770 _tBased on the findings and conclusions the following recommendations were formulated: 1.
773 _aJIGSAW II model may be used as an alternative strategy in teaching Business Calculus. 2.
774 _tSimilar studies may be conducted to determine other factors that might affect the performance of the students who will be exposed to JIGSAW II model such as character traits, study habits and others. 3.
775 _tThe study may be replicated with an emphasis on the possible effects of individual accountability and group accountability in students' achievements and behavior. 4.
776 _sOther studies employing specific cooperative learning method should be done using larger sample and longer time frame to investigate the possible effects of time and heterogeneity of samples in students' achievements and behavior. 5.
780 _xFurther studies should be done to test the effectiveness of other cooperative learning techniques in other fields of mathematics and in other areas of science. 6.
785 _tWith the success of the strategy in improving the achievements of students, it is proposed that seminars on JIGSAW II model and other cooperative learning be conducted for teachers and student-teacher as enhancement to the presently used classroom strategies.
_u
787 _x
_a
_b
830 _x
_e
_a
_d
_b
_n
_c
999 _c27761
_d27761