The ChalkboardPresenter Name

By PresenterMedia.com

A COMPARATIVE STUDY ON THE EFFECTS OF FISHBOWL METHOD

AND DISCUSSION METHOD IN UNDERSTANDING MEASURES

OF VARIABILITY

Bachelor of Secondary EducationMajor in Mathematics

VANESSA JANE T. TABULACARINA Y. ANCHETAROSELYN T. UDANI

The ChalkboardPresenter Name

By PresenterMedia.com

To introduce new Method in teaching Measures of Variability

To improve the understanding of the students on Measures of Variability

To compare Discussion Method and Fishbowl Method

Background

Statement of the Problem What is the level of understanding of Grade VIII – Jade students in the measures of variability before and after their exposure to Discussion and Fishbowl Methods? Is there a significant difference between the

pretest and posttest mean scores of the students exposed to:Discussion Method andFishbowl Method?

Is there a significant difference between the students’ understanding of Measures of Variability after the use of the Discussion and Fishbowl Methods?

Theoretical Framework Kong(2002) found Fishbowl Method to be an effective strategy to foster student engagement in book discussions. On the study of Maier,(1993)entitled ‘’Problem

solving discussion on angle sums and distances’’,she stated that Discussion Method is also effective in problem solving.

Konchar(1985) identifies two major types of Discussions which are foemL and informal.

Conceptual framework

METHODOLOGY

Research Design

METHODOLOGY

Research InstrumentA 25-item teacher rate research instrument validated by experts was used

Summary of the Result on the Effects of Discussion Method in Teaching Measures of Variability

Performance Level

Pretest Posttest

No. of students

18 18

Lowest score 0 8Highest score 2 24Mean Score (DR)

1.17 (NI) 

19.5 (VS) 

Standard Deviation

0.51 4.55

Gain Ratio 135%

Results and Discussion

Summary of the Result on the Effects of Discussion Method in Teaching Measures of Variability

Performance Level

Pretest Posttest

No. of students

18 18

Lowest score 0 8Highest score 2 24Mean Score (DR)

1.17 (NI) 

19.5 (VS) 

Standard Deviation

0.51 4.55

Gain Ratio 135%

Summary of computation of Students’ Scores before and after Fishbowl and Discussion Method

STATISTICS

Fishbowl Method Discussion Method

Pretest Posttest Pretest Posttest

d 19.83 16.49

Sd 5.10 4.39Df 17 17

Computed t 16.49 15.94Tabulated t 2.101

Decision Reject Ho Reject Ho

Statistics Fishbowl Method Discussion Method

No. of Students 18 18Posttest scores 20.94 17.66

Standard Deviation

4.82 4.55

df 34Computed t-

value2.10

Tabular t- value 2.028Decision Reject Ho

Comparative Effects of Fishbowl Method and The Discussion Method

Results and Discussion

Results and Discussion

The computed t-test value for the Discussion Method Group is 15.94, which is greater than the is rejected. This shows that the Discutabular value of 2.101. Therefore the null hypothesis ssion Method is effective in teaching the different Measures of Variability.

The computed mean score in the posttest of Fishbowl Method group is 20.94 and greater than the computed mean score during the pretest which is 1.11. This also shows that the students performed better in the posttest through Fishbowl Method.

Results and Discussion

The computed t-test value for the Discussion Method Group is 16.49, which is greater than the tabular value of 2.101. Therefore the null hypothesis is rejected. This shows that the Discussion Method is effective in teaching the different Measures of Variability

The computed t-test value for the post test scores of the two groups’ is 2.10 which is greater than the tabular value of 2.028. Therefore the null hypothesis is rejected. This means that the Fishbowl Method is more effective than the Discussion Method.

Results and Discussion

The computed t-test value for the Discussion Method Group is 16.49, which is greater than the tabular value of 2.101. Therefore the null hypothesis is rejected. This shows that the Discussion Method is effective in teaching the different Measures of Variability

The computed t-test value for the post test scores of the two groups’ is 2.10 which is greater than the tabular value of 2.028. Therefore the null hypothesis is rejected. This means that the Fishbowl Method is more effective than the Discussion Method.

1. The significant difference between the mean scores of both groups in the pre test and the post test indicates an improvement in the mathematical performance of Grade 8 Jade students on Measure of Variability.

2. Discussion Method is an effective strategy in improving the understanding of students in the Topic Measures of Variability.

3. Fishbowl Method is more effective than the Discussion Method in improving the understanding of students on Measures of Variability.

Conclusions

1. Fishbowl Method can be used as an alternative method in teaching the different subject areas as it encourages active participation of students.

2.Other methods in teaching Measures of Variability can be studied and implemented by Mathematics Teachers

3.A similar research on Fishbowl Method can be conducted to different areas to compare or strengthen the result for this study.

Recommendations:

Unpublished Materials•Ragual, Ciriaco T. 1999.Effectivesness of Peer Teaching on the Performance in Plane Trigonometry of Mariano Marcos State University College Students. (Unpublished Masteral Thesis, UNP, Vigan City)•Kong, A. (2002, April). Scaffolding in a learning community ofpmctice: l. case study of a gradual release of responsibility from the teacher to the students. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the International Reading Association, San Francisco.

Online References•Maier, N.R.F. (1993) “Problem Solving discussion on Angles Sum and Distances” retrieved on September 12, 2013 from http:www.jstor.org?distances?ancgles?1002120•Karen D, Wood (2007) “Fostering engaging and Active Discussion in Middle School Clasrooms”. Retrieved on February 21, 2014 from http://www.fosteringengaging(BT).pdf

REFERENCES