The Effect of Team Teaching on the Mathematics Achievement of Grade Seven Learners
Keywords:
Teaching, Mathematics Achievement, control group
Abstract
This study aimed to determine the effect of team teaching on the mathematics achievement of Grade 7 learners. Quasi – experimental study with non-equivalent groups, which includes pre-test, post-test, pre-survey and post-survey design was used involving 20 learners for the experimental group and 16 learners for the control group. The experimental group had an intervention of team teaching while the control group had individual teaching. Same achievement test was used to both groups, but on the experimental group survey questionnaires were distributed to know their perception on team teaching. The data were statistically analyzed using mean per score, mean, paired t-test and t-test for independent samples. The findings showed that team teaching is more effective than individual teaching. Also, team teaching is an effective intervention in teaching mathematics to Grade 7 learners. The survey revealed that, learners learned more and enjoyed having two teachers in the class. This study recommended that team teaching should be used if the teachers have a teaching load less than 360 minutes. Also, an In-Service Training in team – teaching should be administered by the school if it will be implemented. Furthermore, an action research in different aspects of co – teaching should be administered by different schools within the Division of City of San Jose del Monte. This is to compare the results they get and the results obtained in this action research
References
The gathered data have identified the following conclusions based in the findings.
1. The MPS of pre – test scores on both control and experimental groups were 35.15 and 38.25 respectively. Both groups got a descriptive equivalent of “Average Mastery”.
2. The MPS of post – test scores on both control and experimental groups were 35.95 and 49.88 respectively. Both groups got a descriptive equivalent of “Average Mastery”.
3. On the perception of students in Team Teaching using a Pre and Post Survey Questionnaire, there were no changes in the verbal interpretation on the “I received more help in this class than in classes taught by just one teacher”, ”All students were treated as equals”, “This class is better behaved when we have two teachers”, “I feel comfortable asking both teachers for help”, “The teachers demonstrated teamwork” and “The teachers shared the same rules and consequences”. The acceptance of the students about team teaching is remarkably good because of the verbal interpretation of “Agree”
4. On the perception of students in Team Teaching using a Pre and Post Survey Questionnaire, there were three perceptions noticeably changed before and after team teaching. These were: “I enjoyed having two teachers in the class”, “I liked the variety of activities in this class”, and “I think I learned more when I have two teachers”. These are the positive effects in team teaching because of its verbal interpretation of “Strongly Agree”.
5. There is no significant difference in the Pre – test Scores on both Control and Experimental Groups. Since the p-value is greater than 0.05, thus, the null hypothesis was accepted.
6. There is significant difference in the Post – test Scores on both Control and Experimental Groups. Since the p-value is less than 0.05, thus, the null hypothesis was rejected.
7. There is significant difference in the Pre – test and Post – test Scores on the Experimental Group. Since the p-value is less than 0.05, thus, the null hypothesis was rejected.
8. There is no significant difference in the Pre – Survey and Post – Survey Questionnaire on the items, It can be seen from the previous table that “I received more help in this class than in classes taught by just one teacher” has a t – value of -1.000 with a p – value which is equal to 0.330, “All students were treated as equals” has a t-value of -1.097 with p – value equals to 0.287,” I liked the variety of activities in the class” has a t-value of -0.737 with a p-value which is equal to 0.470,” This class is better well behaved when we have two teachers” has a t-value of -0.535 with a p – value which is equal to 0.599,” I feel comfortable asking both teachers for help” has a t-value of -0.134 with a p-value which is equal to 0.895,” The teacher demonstrate teamwork” has t-value of 1.143 with a p-value which is equal to 0.267.” The teachers share the same rules and consequences” with a t-value of -0.940 with a p-value which is equal to 0.359. Since p-values are greater than 0.05, the null hypothesis was accepted. This means that statistically, there is no significant difference when the students are grouped into pre – survey experimental group and post- survey experimental group with their levels of perception.
9. There is significant difference in the Pre – Survey and Post – Survey Questionnaire on the items, “I enjoyed having two teachers in the class” has a t-value of -2.707 with a p-value of 0.014 and “I think I learn more when I have two teachers” has t-value of -3.387 with a p-value which is equal to 0.003. Since all these p-values are less than 0.05, the assumed level of significance, the null hypothesis was rejected. This means statistically, there is significant difference, when the students are grouped into pre – survey experimental group and post- survey experimental group.
Recommendations
Based on the gathered data, the following recommendations were suggested by this study.
1. Team Teaching should be used as an intervention in teaching students in Mathematics because it improves their achievement in classroom.
2. Team teaching is useful for teachers in managing the classroom.
3. Team teaching is useful in overcrowded students in a classroom.
4. Team teaching should be used if the teachers have a teaching load less than 360 minutes. This is to maximize the teaching load of teachers.
5. Team teaching will be accepted by the students if ever the school will be having this kind of intervention.
6. Survey questionnaires should be given to the teachers to test whether they will accept this kind of intervention.
7. An In-Service Training in co – teaching should be administered by the school if it will be implemented.
8. An action research in different aspects of co – teaching should be administered by different schools within the Division of City of San Jose del Monte. This is to compare the results they get and the results obtained in this action research.
References
Bogdan, R. C. & Biklen, S. K. (2006). Qualitative research in education: An introduction to theory and methods. Allyn & Bacon. ISBN 978-0-205-51225-6.
Bouck, E.C. (2016), Co – teaching… Not Just a Textbook Term : Implications for Practice. Preventing School Failure v51 no2 p 46 – 51. ( Wilson Web No. 0734901133012 Retrieved September 25, 2009),
Chiu, M. M. (2004). Adapting teacher interventions to student needs during cooperative learning. American Educational Research Journal, 41, 365-399.
Denzin, N. (2006). Sociological Methods: A Sourcebook. Aldine Transaction. ISBN 978-0-202-30840-1. (5th edition)
DeVellis, R.F. (2012). Scale development: Theory and applications. Los Angeles: Sage. pp. 109–110.
Dieker, Lisa and Murawski (2003), Wendy, 50 Ways to Keep your Co – teaching Strategies for Before, During and After Co – teaching. Teaching Exceptional Children v40 no. 4 p 408, (Retrieved from Wilson Web ISSN : 0040-0599 on October 6, 2009 ).
Dugan, Kimberly and Letterman, Margaret, (Winter 2008), Student Appraisals of Collaborative Teaching, College Teaching, v56 no. 1, p 11 – 15. (ERIK Document)
Kozulin, A. (2014). Dynamic assessment in search of its identity in Yasnitsky, A., van der Veer, R., & Ferrari, M. (Eds.). (2014). The Cambridge Handbook of Cultural-Historical Psychology. Cambridge University Press (pp. 126-147)
Mathis, William J(2016)., Research-Based Options for Education Policymaking: The Effectiveness of Class Size Reduction. National Education Policy Center, University of Colorado. Retrieved from National Education Policy Center website : https://nepc.colorado.edu/sites/default/files/publications/Mathis%20RBOPM-9%20Class%20Size.pdf
Department Of Education Memorandum
DepEd Memorandum No. 80 s. 2014
Department Of Education Order
DepEd Order#08, s. 2015
Journals
"Table 209.30". Digest of Education Statistics. National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved 31 July 2015
Websites
https://www.deped.gov.ph
http://www.netrc.sysportal.net
https://www.simplypsychology.org/vygotsky.html
https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/WVY7K8F
1. The MPS of pre – test scores on both control and experimental groups were 35.15 and 38.25 respectively. Both groups got a descriptive equivalent of “Average Mastery”.
2. The MPS of post – test scores on both control and experimental groups were 35.95 and 49.88 respectively. Both groups got a descriptive equivalent of “Average Mastery”.
3. On the perception of students in Team Teaching using a Pre and Post Survey Questionnaire, there were no changes in the verbal interpretation on the “I received more help in this class than in classes taught by just one teacher”, ”All students were treated as equals”, “This class is better behaved when we have two teachers”, “I feel comfortable asking both teachers for help”, “The teachers demonstrated teamwork” and “The teachers shared the same rules and consequences”. The acceptance of the students about team teaching is remarkably good because of the verbal interpretation of “Agree”
4. On the perception of students in Team Teaching using a Pre and Post Survey Questionnaire, there were three perceptions noticeably changed before and after team teaching. These were: “I enjoyed having two teachers in the class”, “I liked the variety of activities in this class”, and “I think I learned more when I have two teachers”. These are the positive effects in team teaching because of its verbal interpretation of “Strongly Agree”.
5. There is no significant difference in the Pre – test Scores on both Control and Experimental Groups. Since the p-value is greater than 0.05, thus, the null hypothesis was accepted.
6. There is significant difference in the Post – test Scores on both Control and Experimental Groups. Since the p-value is less than 0.05, thus, the null hypothesis was rejected.
7. There is significant difference in the Pre – test and Post – test Scores on the Experimental Group. Since the p-value is less than 0.05, thus, the null hypothesis was rejected.
8. There is no significant difference in the Pre – Survey and Post – Survey Questionnaire on the items, It can be seen from the previous table that “I received more help in this class than in classes taught by just one teacher” has a t – value of -1.000 with a p – value which is equal to 0.330, “All students were treated as equals” has a t-value of -1.097 with p – value equals to 0.287,” I liked the variety of activities in the class” has a t-value of -0.737 with a p-value which is equal to 0.470,” This class is better well behaved when we have two teachers” has a t-value of -0.535 with a p – value which is equal to 0.599,” I feel comfortable asking both teachers for help” has a t-value of -0.134 with a p-value which is equal to 0.895,” The teacher demonstrate teamwork” has t-value of 1.143 with a p-value which is equal to 0.267.” The teachers share the same rules and consequences” with a t-value of -0.940 with a p-value which is equal to 0.359. Since p-values are greater than 0.05, the null hypothesis was accepted. This means that statistically, there is no significant difference when the students are grouped into pre – survey experimental group and post- survey experimental group with their levels of perception.
9. There is significant difference in the Pre – Survey and Post – Survey Questionnaire on the items, “I enjoyed having two teachers in the class” has a t-value of -2.707 with a p-value of 0.014 and “I think I learn more when I have two teachers” has t-value of -3.387 with a p-value which is equal to 0.003. Since all these p-values are less than 0.05, the assumed level of significance, the null hypothesis was rejected. This means statistically, there is significant difference, when the students are grouped into pre – survey experimental group and post- survey experimental group.
Recommendations
Based on the gathered data, the following recommendations were suggested by this study.
1. Team Teaching should be used as an intervention in teaching students in Mathematics because it improves their achievement in classroom.
2. Team teaching is useful for teachers in managing the classroom.
3. Team teaching is useful in overcrowded students in a classroom.
4. Team teaching should be used if the teachers have a teaching load less than 360 minutes. This is to maximize the teaching load of teachers.
5. Team teaching will be accepted by the students if ever the school will be having this kind of intervention.
6. Survey questionnaires should be given to the teachers to test whether they will accept this kind of intervention.
7. An In-Service Training in co – teaching should be administered by the school if it will be implemented.
8. An action research in different aspects of co – teaching should be administered by different schools within the Division of City of San Jose del Monte. This is to compare the results they get and the results obtained in this action research.
References
Bogdan, R. C. & Biklen, S. K. (2006). Qualitative research in education: An introduction to theory and methods. Allyn & Bacon. ISBN 978-0-205-51225-6.
Bouck, E.C. (2016), Co – teaching… Not Just a Textbook Term : Implications for Practice. Preventing School Failure v51 no2 p 46 – 51. ( Wilson Web No. 0734901133012 Retrieved September 25, 2009),
Chiu, M. M. (2004). Adapting teacher interventions to student needs during cooperative learning. American Educational Research Journal, 41, 365-399.
Denzin, N. (2006). Sociological Methods: A Sourcebook. Aldine Transaction. ISBN 978-0-202-30840-1. (5th edition)
DeVellis, R.F. (2012). Scale development: Theory and applications. Los Angeles: Sage. pp. 109–110.
Dieker, Lisa and Murawski (2003), Wendy, 50 Ways to Keep your Co – teaching Strategies for Before, During and After Co – teaching. Teaching Exceptional Children v40 no. 4 p 408, (Retrieved from Wilson Web ISSN : 0040-0599 on October 6, 2009 ).
Dugan, Kimberly and Letterman, Margaret, (Winter 2008), Student Appraisals of Collaborative Teaching, College Teaching, v56 no. 1, p 11 – 15. (ERIK Document)
Kozulin, A. (2014). Dynamic assessment in search of its identity in Yasnitsky, A., van der Veer, R., & Ferrari, M. (Eds.). (2014). The Cambridge Handbook of Cultural-Historical Psychology. Cambridge University Press (pp. 126-147)
Mathis, William J(2016)., Research-Based Options for Education Policymaking: The Effectiveness of Class Size Reduction. National Education Policy Center, University of Colorado. Retrieved from National Education Policy Center website : https://nepc.colorado.edu/sites/default/files/publications/Mathis%20RBOPM-9%20Class%20Size.pdf
Department Of Education Memorandum
DepEd Memorandum No. 80 s. 2014
Department Of Education Order
DepEd Order#08, s. 2015
Journals
"Table 209.30". Digest of Education Statistics. National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved 31 July 2015
Websites
https://www.deped.gov.ph
http://www.netrc.sysportal.net
https://www.simplypsychology.org/vygotsky.html
https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/WVY7K8F
Published
2021-05-07
How to Cite
[1]
Teodoro Jr, C. 2021. The Effect of Team Teaching on the Mathematics Achievement of Grade Seven Learners. International Journal on Integrated Education. 4, 5 (May 2021), 244-256. DOI:https://doi.org/10.17605/ijie.v4i5.1803.
Section
Articles
Copyright (c) 2021 Canaria Teodoro Jr.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
In submitting the manuscript to the International Journal on Integrated Education (IJIE), the authors certify that:
- They are authorized by their co-authors to enter into these arrangements.
- The work described has not been formally published before, except in the form of an abstract or as part of a published lecture, review, thesis, or overlay journal.
- That it is not under consideration for publication elsewhere,
- The publication has been approved by the author(s) and by responsible authorities – tacitly or explicitly – of the institutes where the work has been carried out.
- They secure the right to reproduce any material that has already been published or copyrighted elsewhere.
- They agree to the following license and copyright agreement.
License and Copyright Agreement
Authors who publish with International Journal on Integrated Education (IJIE) agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the International Journal on Integrated Education (IJIE) right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0) that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors can enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the International Journal on Integrated Education (IJIE) published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or edit it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) before and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.
