Practices of Self-Supported Student in Doing Distance Learning Modality

INTRODUCTION
According to the definition by the United States Distance Learning Association (USDLA), distance learning is
any mediated instruction that occurs at a distance – regardless of the technology involved. So although you
probably imagine online degrees that involve using websites, email, and videocasts, corresponding through
regular mail or talking over the phone are methods that also technically qualify.

Still, in practical terms, most of what constitutes distance learning today is done by using electronic means.
Teaching programs utilize not only computers, but satellites, video phones, interactive graphics, response
terminals, and more.

It is also something that occurs in a wide variety of fields and locations, reaching well beyond K-12 and college
campuses to include corporate, government, and military training, telemedicine, and anyone interested in
lifelong learning. Distance learning is especially important for those who lived in rural or otherwise underserved
communities, as well as individuals whose own physical and mental limitations impair their ability to attend
traditional educational settings.

Key players in distance education typically include students, faculty, facilitators, support staff, and
administrators, each of whom have very different roles. Meeting the instructional needs of students is the main
goal of every effective distance education program. Regardless of the educational context, the primary role of
the student is to learn. But the success of any distance education effort depends primarily on its faculty. Special
challenges confront those teaching at a distance. For example, the instructor must:

Develop an understanding of the characteristics and needs of distant students with little first-hand experience
and limited, if any, face-to-face contact.
Adapt teaching styles taking into consideration the needs and expectations of multiple, often diverse, audiences.
Develop a working understanding of delivery technology, while remaining focused on their teaching role.
Function effectively as a skilled facilitator as well as content provider.
Because of these challenges, faculty often find it beneficial to rely on a site facilitator to bridge the gap between
students and instructor. Where budget and logistics permit, the role of on-site facilitators has increased even in
classes in which they have little, if any, content expertise. At a minimum, they set up equipment, collect
assignments, proctor tests, and act as the instructor’s on-site eyes and ears. In addition, most successful distance
education programs hire support staff to manage student registration, materials duplication and distribution,
textbook ordering, securing of copyright clearances, facilities scheduling, processing grade reports, managing
technical resources, and other tasks. Finally, administrators work closely with technical and support service
personnel, ensuring that technological resources are effectively deployed to further the institution’s academic
mission. Most importantly, they maintain an academic focus, realizing that meeting the instructional needs of
distant students is their ultimate responsibility.
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
The figure below shows the schematic diagram of the conceptual framework of the study. It has three
significant components: Input, Process and Output. The Input includes learner’s difficulty in translating worded
problems into Mathematical symbol. The Process shows the instrument used in gathering the data through test
questions of the four fundamental operations. Output identified learner’s difficulty in translating worded
problems into Mathematical symbol and the solutions/remedy formulated to address the problem.
 learner’s difficulty in translating worded problems into
Mathematical symbol
Input Learner's nature and ability to solve

Four fundamental operation test

Assessment of the problems encountered
Process

Assessed learner’s difficulty in translating worded problems

into Mathematical symbol
Output Remedy/Solutions Formulated

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

This study aimed to determine learner’s difficulty in translating worded problems into Mathematical symbol of
Grade 3 in Dammang East Elementary School.
The study specifically sought to answer the following questions:
 What are the difficulties of the respondents in translating worded problems into Mathematical symbol?
 Which of the factors greatly affect mathematics achievement of respondents in translating worded
problems into Mathematical symbol?

HYPOTHESIS OF THE STUDY

Based on the question which the study seeks to answer the following hypothesis are forwarded.
 The difficulties of the learners in translating worded problems into Mathematical symbols are
“misinterpretation of the problem” and “lack of comprehension of the problem posed”.
 The factors that greatly affect mathematics achievement of respondents in translating worded problems
into Mathematical symbol is “lack of comprehension of the problem posed”.
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

If the researchers and educators can learn about teaching as it is actually practiced, it will be much easier for
them to identify factors that might enhance learners’ learning opportunities (Stigler et al., 1999).

This study may:

 help the learners become aware of the factors that affect their performance in mathematics. Knowing
such factors can help them identify their strengths and weaknesses that constantly interfere their
performance in mathematics. This will, in turn inspire the learners to overcome their weaknesses and
hence, results to a good performance of learners toward Mathematics.
 provide teachers teaching mathematics with a better understanding of, and a deeper insight into the
needs and problems of their students.
 serve as springboard for administrators to revise the mathematics curriculum that may improve
mathematics instruction.
 provide more accurate assessment of their children’s ability, and information they need in order to
properly address their children’s academic problems.

OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

The objectives of this study is to:

 Determine difficulties of learners in translating worded problem into Mathematical symbols
 Make generalizations and solutions to the difficulties encountered by the learners in translating worded
problems into Mathematical symbols
LIMITATIONS AND DELIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY

This study involves intact classrooms in natural settings; thus, it cannot approach true experimental conditions
and contains limitations within the research design that reduce the generalizability of results to a population
other than the one studied. The choice of research design was based on an attempt to explain learner’s difficulty
in translating worded problems into Mathematical symbol within one specific grade and school only. And as
Walberg (1984) explains, there are many other factors that affect learner’s achievement that are beyond the
control of the teacher and the researcher. Factors such as learners’ grade level and prior ability level in
mathematics may be intervening variables that affect the external validity of this study.

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

According to Polya (1957) solving problem is a practical skill. Students will learn problems when they observe
and imitate what other people do when solving problems. Our conception of the problem is getting differ when
we are shifting point of view in the problem.
Krulik & Rudnick (1996), on their book about teaching reasoning and problem solving, found that the ability of
students to recognize words is fundamental to reading. Being able to visualize the problem can lead to a
successful problem solving.
The elementary grade students’ ability in solving word problems according to Bardillion Jr. (2004) depends on
how students translate phrases into mathematical symbols. Polya distinguished four phases in solving a
problem. The first is to understand the problem so that we could see clearly the given tasked, the second is
devising a plan, third is to carry out the plan and Translating worded problems nowadays is one of the most
difficult tasks for a student especially in the elementary level. It is considered a big hindrance in learning
Mathematics. Translation from words to symbols is undeniably one of the solution processes in solving word
problems that can be considered critical. The study of Bardillion Jr. embarked on symbolic translation of the
students exposed to Filipino verbal translation is directly related to problem solving ability and attitude of first
year high school students.
According to Mayer (1989, as cited by Yared, 2003), one common problem in translating sentences into
symbolic language is that individuals end up remembering materials that are consistent only with their prior
schemas. Bardillon Jr. cited Yared (2003) that the ability to mathematize expression is the most directly linked
with success in problem solving.
Yeo (2009) found that some students have slow progress in solving the problem due to their inability to
translate the problem into a mathematical form. Some students have also difficulties in solving the
problem because they do not comprehend the problem as they found the problem confusing.
In the study conducted by Aniano (2010), the level of difficulties in translating phrases to symbols was one of
the factors that determine the problem solving skills of students. It was seconded by Vista (2010) that students’
comprehension in translating phrases into symbols affects the students’ performance in problem solving.
Yared(2003) on the other hand, cited Mayer (1982, 1989) and Matlin (1992) that problem solver ends up to
simplifying problems even to the extent of misrepresenting the information given. This study addressed the
performance level of grade five students in translating worded problems into mathematical symbols and
the difficulties encountered by grade five students in translating worded into mathematical symbols.

METHODOLOGY
The study will use of both quantitative and qualitative methods.

Participants
Grade three learners of Dammang East Elementary School will be chosen as respondents. There were only one
section in grade three level and is heterogeneous. All 18 learners in grade three will participate in the study.
Research Instrument
The data of the study will be obtained through a researcher-made test. The test consisted of twenty (20) items
involving four fundamental operations in which every operation consisted of five (5) items. A table of
specification was also used to ensure that the number of items was equally distributed. Each item was given a
weight of one (1) point. This researcher- made test measured the performance level of Grade 3 learners in
translating worded problems into mathematical symbols. Learners will be required to translate the worded
problems into mathematical symbols. Content will be validated by researcher’s adviser and two Mathematics
experienced teachers.

Procedures
The researcher will request for permission from the participating school’s Director and Principal. The
researcher-made test will be distributed at the time when students have already covered addition, subtraction,
multiplication and division of numbers during the third quarter of the school year. The test will be administered
by the researcher himself. Learners will be instructed to write the mathematical equation of each word problem
in the questionnaire. They will be tasked to determine which operation that could best be performed to solve the
word problem. Learners were given sixty (60) minutes to answer the entire questionnaire.
Data Analysis
The researcher will adopt norms for interpretation from the school’s standard of the participating school to
answer the performance level translating worded problems into mathematics symbols of Grade 3 learners.
Table 1 shows the norms for interpretation adopted from the school’s standards.

Table 1 Norms for Interpretation

Score Description

18-20 Outstanding
14-17 Very Satisfactory
10-13 Satisfactory

The common mistakes 6-9 Poor respondents had in each item will
determined and 0-5 Very Poor interpreted to determine students’
difficulties in their translation. The following difficulty
categories “misinterpretation of the problem”
and “lack of comprehension of the problem posed” were adopted from the work of Yeo (2009). Other
difficulties which the researcher deemed not falling under Yeo’s framework will also be documented and
analyzed, such as the use of incorrect operation, carelessness, interchanging values, and unfamiliar words.