Chapter 4: Results
4.1 First Research Question
4.1.3 Third Sub-question
males and females in the experimental group. This allowed further comparison with the trend of the OECD. This can be done by answering the following question:
hoc analyses. Table 17 shows the adjusted mean scores for mathematical literacy for the tenth-grade female and male students in the experimental and control groups using pretest as a covariate.
Table 17: Adjusted and unadjusted means for ML for all students
Unadjusted Adjusted
Groups No. M SD M SE
Female students 24 18.17 5.00 15.77 0.764
Male students 27 12.81 4.39 14.85 0.706
Based on the results, one-way ANCOVA failed to reject the null hypothesis to demonstrate that there is no statistically significant difference between the means of the female and male groups regarding their mathematical literacy results due to MEP.
This indicated that male and female students gained a nearly similar increase in their level of mathematical literacy. However, the adjusted means showed that females outperformed males, but the difference was very small, so it was not significant.
Generally, based on the answers to the previous three sub-questions, it was found that MEP has a positive effect on the students of the experimental groups of the tenth grade, whether they were male or female. Although there was no statistically significant difference between males and females’ mathematical literacy, it was necessary to identify their performance in the test according to the six levels, four content areas, four contexts, and three processes and reasoning as addressed in the MLT based on the PISA mathematical literacy framework provided by OECD as follows:
Firstly, to study students' performance levels for MLT, the percentages of student performance at each level for males, females, and all students for the
experimental and control group for both the pretest and the posttest were performed.
The PISA performance levels are from level 1 to level 6 where level 6 is the highest.
Table 18 displays the frequencies and percentages of students who answered the problems at each level below.
Table 18: The percentages of students’ performance levels of MLT MLT
Levels
Experimental group Control group Pretest Posttest Pretest Posttest
Students N F % F % N F % F %
Level 1 (n=4)
All 51 138 68 194 95 51 132 65 157 77
Female 24 87 91 95 99 25 78 78 88 88
Male 27 51 47 99 92 26 54 52 69 66
Level 2 (n=3)
All 51 83 54 110 72 51 78 51 69 45
Female 24 52 72 66 92 25 41 55 42 56
Male 27 31 40 44 56 26 37 47 27 35
Level 3 (n=7)
All 51 105 29 181 51 51 83 23 133 37
Female 24 61 36 105 63 25 46 26 68 39
Male 27 44 23 76 40 26 37 20 65 36
Level 4 (n=5)
All 51 26 10 122 48 51 21 8 35 14
Female 24 22 18 75 63 25 18 14 22 18
Male 27 4 3 47 35 26 3 2 13 10
Level 5 (n=4)
All 51 12 6 39 19 51 9 4 8 4
Female 24 12 13 34 35 25 9 9 6 6
Male 27 0 0 5 5 26 0 0 2 2
Level 6 (n=3)
All 51 3 2 4 3 51 3 2 0 0
Female 24 3 4 3 4 25 3 4 0 0
Male 27 0 0 1 1 26 0 0 0 0
As indicated in Table 18, mathematical literacy test results showed that performance at all six levels improved overall. The experimental group in both male and female students showed an increase at all levels compared to the control groups.
Female students recorded greater improvement than male students at all levels. The
most noticeable improvement was at the lower levels, where performance at level 1 improved the most and then gradually decreased to Level Six. At higher levels of the MLT test, the males in the experimental group failed to answer any of the questions at levels 5 and 6 of the pretest, while they showed little improvement on the post-test as they answered only 5% and 1% of levels 5 and 6, respectively. Female students showed better performance than males. They showed a marked improvement from 13% to 35%
at level 5 but their performance at level 6 remained stable with 4% indicating no improvement. This can be clarified by Figure 18 below.
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
All Female Male All Female Male All Female Male All Female Male All Female Male All Female Male
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Level 6
Experimental pretest Experimental posttest Control pretest Control posttest
Figure 18: The percentages of students’ performance levels of MLT
Likewise, Table 19 shows the frequencies for processes on MLT.
Table 19: The percentages of students’ performance in processes of MLT MLT
processes
Experimental group Control group Pretest Posttest Pretest Posttest
Students N F % F % N F % F %
Formulate (n=8)
All 51 68 21 143 33 51 60 15 88 22
Female 24 50 26 81 42 25 36 18 44 22
Male 27 18 8 62 29 26 24 12 44 21
Employ (n=14)
All 51 161 23 313 44 51 134 19 157 22
Female 24 100 30 202 60 25 81 23 94 27
Male 27 61 16 111 29 26 53 15 63 17
Interpret (n=4)
All 51 140 67 199 98 51 132 65 146 72
Female 24 85 89 95 99 25 79 79 86 86
Male 27 55 51 104 96 26 53 51 60 58
Reasoning (n=8)
All 51 61 15 132 32 51 52 13 98 24
Female 24 46 24 58 30 25 35 18 44 22
Male 27 15 7 74 34 26 17 8 54 26
As demonstrated in Table 19, the results also showed that females outperformed males in each of the modeling processes (formulate, employ, and interpret). The “Formulate process” scored the lowest score, while both genders scored the highest score in the “interpret” process. However, males scored higher than females in problems that require reasoning as presented in Figure 19 below.
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
All Female Male All Female Male All Female Male All Female Male
Formulate Employ Interpret Reasoning
Experimental pretest Experimental posttest Control pretest Control posttest
Figure 19: The percentages of students’ performance in processes of MLT
Moreover, students' performance was analyzed in four major components of the Mathematical Literacy Test namely: change and relationship, quantity, space and shape, and uncertainty and data. The results are presented in Table 20 below:
Table 20: The percentages of students’ performance in content of MLT MLT
Content
Experimental group Control group Pretest Posttest Pretest Posttest
Students N F % F % N F % F %
Change and Relationsh ip (n=7)
All 51 57 16 83 23 51 47 13 41 11
Female 24 34 20 69 41 25 30 17 25 14
Male 27 23 12 14 7 26 17 9 16 9
Quantity (n=7)
All 51 100 28 201 56 51 83 23 139 39 Female 24 64 38 101 60 25 55 31 75 43
Male 27 36 19 100 53 26 30 16 70 38
Space and shape (n=8)
All 51 68 17 172 42 51 65 16 76 19
Female 24 52 27 118 61 25 38 19 46 23
Male 27 16 7 54 25 26 27 13 30 14
Uncertaint y and Data (n=4)
All 51 140 69 199 98 51 132 65 146 72 Female 24 85 89 95 99 25 79 79 86 86
Male 27 55 51 104 96 26 53 51 60 58
The results as revealed in Table 20 showed improvement in all four content areas. Female students scored higher than males in all four content areas. The highest percentage of male and female students scored in the "uncertainty and data" content area, where students answered almost all questions of this type of question content, while the lowest performance was in the "change and relationship" content area for both male and female students. This can be represented in Figure 20.
Figure 20: The percentages of students’ performance in content of MLT
Furthermore, student performance was analyzed in four mathematical literacy contexts. Contexts included: personal, occupational, scientific, and societal, based on the PISA framework. The results of the frequencies and percentages are presented in Table 21 below:
Table 21: The percentages of students’ performance in contexts of MLT.
MLT Context
Experimental group Control group Pretest Posttest Pretest Posttest
Students N F % F % N F % F %
Personal (n=8)
All 51 150 37 228 56 51 109 27 153 38 Female 24 86 45 124 65 25 67 34 88 44 Male 27 64 30 104 48 26 42 20 65 31 Occupati
onal (n=4)
All 51 37 18 78 38 51 37 18 39 19
Female 24 31 32 52 54 25 25 25 23 23
Male 27 6 6 26 24 26 12 12 16 15
Scientific (n=6)
All 51 36 12 100 33 51 36 12 47 15
Female 24 27 19 58 40 25 22 15 29 19
Male 27 9 6 42 26 26 14 9 18 12
Societal (n=8)
All 51 144 35 244 60 51 144 35 163 40 Female 24 93 48 144 75 25 81 41 86 43 Male 27 51 24 100 46 26 63 30 77 37
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
All Female Male All Female Male All Female Male All Female Male Change &
Relationship
Quantity Space &s= Shape Uncertanity & Data
Experimental pretest Experimental posttest Control pretest Control posttest
Table 21 demonstrates that the improvement was evident in all four contexts where females outperformed males. The highest percentage of male and female students scored in "societal" contexts, while the performance was lowest in “scientific”
contexts but very close to occupational contexts as presented in Figure 21 below.
Figure 21: The percentages of students’ performance in contexts of MLT
As a result of all the previous analysis, it can be concluded that MEP could improve the students’ mathematical literacy performance. The experimental group in both male and female students showed better improvement at all levels, processes, content, and contexts compared to the control groups. Female students recorded greater improvement than male students in all areas except for reasoning.
Similarly, the statistical analysis of ANCOVA used separately in female and male schools to answer the first question was followed to answer the second question after controlling the motivation pretest score as follows:
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
All Female Male All Female Male All Female Male All Female Male
Personal Occupational Scientific Societal
Experimental pretest Experimental posttest Control pretest Control posttest