Home⇛Journal of Interdisciplinary Perspectives⇛vol. 4 no. 6 (2026)

Mathematics Achievement of Grade 9 Students During the Implementation of Structured Problem-Solving Instruction

Marcel-ono A. Palad

Discipline: Education

 

Abstract:

This study examined changes in Grade 9 students’ mathematics achievement during the implementation of structured problem-solving instruction (SPSI) in a public secondary school in Masbate, Philippines. Specifically, it aimed to describe students’ mathematics performance, determine whether significant differences existed between pretest and posttest scores on the Rapid Mathematics Assessment (RMA) and Albay Numeracy Assessment Tool (ALNAT), and describe students’ perceptions of the instructional approach. Using a quantitative one-group pretest–posttest design, the study involved 90 Grade 9 students for the pretest–posttest analyses, while 49 students with complete matched data were included in the perception, correlation, and regression analyses. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, paired-samples t-tests, Pearson correlation, and multiple regression. Results showed that RMA scores increased from pretest (M = 20.56, SD = 11.38) to posttest (M = 25.36, SD = 16.59), t(89) = –3.39, p = .001. ALNAT scores also increased from pretest (M = 27.73, SD = 7.36) to posttest (M = 38.42, SD = 13.37), t(89) = –7.02, p < .001. Students generally reported positive perceptions of SPSI, particularly regarding classroom support and step-by-step problem-solving. However, perception variables were not significantly correlated with RMA or ALNAT gains, and the regression model did not significantly predict RMA improvement, F(4, 44) = 1.20, p = .326, adjusted R2 = .016. The findings indicate that students’ mathematics achievement increased during the year in which SPSI was implemented, but the design does not permit strong causal claims. The results suggest that SPSI may be a promising classroom approach, while further studies using comparison groups are needed to isolate its effect.



References:

  1. Adonis, A. (2020). Contextualized strategic intervention materials in Grade 9 mathematics. People International Journal of Social Sciences, 5(3), 850–868. https://doi.org/10.20319/pijss.2020.53.850868
  2. Agbata, B.C., Obeng-Denteh, W., Kwabi, P.A., Abraham, S., Okpako, S.O., Arivi, S.S., ... & Adu Gyamfi, W.K. (2024). Everyday uses of mathematics and the roles of a mathematics teacher. Science World Journal, 19(3), 819–827. https://scienceworldjournal.org/article/view/24035
  3. Ajani, O. (2024). Enhancing problem-solving skills among pre-service teachers in higher education: A systematic literature review. Journal of Pedagogical Sociology and Psychology. https://doi.org/10.33902/jpsp.202424002
  4. Aquino, J., Barong, K., Sapotalo, R., & Panerio, S., Jr. (2025). Exploring disparities of mathematics education: A comparative study of challenges faced by rural and urban educational settings in Digos City. ResearchGate. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/393424313
  5. Baybayan, J., & Cabanes, A. (2024). Flipped classroom: Effect on the academic performance and motivation of Grade 8 students in mathematics. International Journal of Multidisciplinary Applied Business and Education Research, 5(4), 1304–1330. https://doi.org/10.11594/ijmaber.05.04.17
  6. Brisson, B., Hulleman, C., Häfner, I., Gaspard, H., Flunger, B., Dicke, A., ... & Nagengast, B. (2020). Who sticks to the instructions—and does it matter? Antecedents and effects of students’ responsiveness to a classroom-based motivation intervention. Zeitschrift Für Erziehungswissenschaft, 23(1), 121–144. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11618-019-00922-z
  7. Caraan, D.R., Dinglasan, J.K., & Ching, D. (2022). "Realistic mathematics education approach on improving problem-solving skills of students." The Research Probe, 2(2), pp. 88–96. https://tinyurl.com/yfdkwce7
  8. Chen, D., Zhang, Y., Luo, H., Gao, Z., Yu, L., & Lin, Y. (2025). Exploring the impact of scaffolding in programming on students’ computational thinking: Evidence from a three-level meta- analysis. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 64(1), 208–237. https://doi.org/10.1177/07356331251386618
  9. Cortes, S. (2020). Flexible learning as an instructional modality in environmental science course during COVID-19. Aquademia, 4(2), ep20024. https://doi.org/10.29333/aquademia/8444
  10. Dorimana, A., Uworwabayeho, A., & Nizeyimana, G. (2022). Enhancing upper secondary learners’ problem-solving abilities using problem-based learning in mathematics. International Journal of Learning Teaching and Educational Research, 21(8), 235–252. https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.21.8.14
  11. Endlich, D., Lenhard, W., Marx, P., & Richter, T. (2023). Differential switch costs in typically achieving children and children with mathematical difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 57(4), 255–271. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194231204619
  12. Etcuban, J., Mendoza, M., Catalan, J., & Ruiz, K. (2024). Academic performance and attitudes toward mathematics challenge of junior high school students. British Journal of Teacher Education and Pedagogy, 3(1), 58–73. https://doi.org/10.32996/bjtep.2024.3.1.6
  13. Etcuban, J., Peteros, E., Columna, D., Almerino, P., & Almerino, J. (2019). Attitude and academic achievement of high school students in mathematics under the conditional cash transfer program. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 14(3). https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/5770
  14. Exintaris, B., Karunaratne, N., & Yuriev, E. (2023). Metacognition and critical thinking: Using ChatGPT-generated responses as prompts for critique in a problem-solving workshop (SMARTCHEMPer). Journal of Chemical Education, 100(8), 2972–2980. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.3c00481
  15. Güner, P., & Erbay, H.N. (2021). Metacognitive skills and problem-solving. International Journal of Research in Education and Science, 7(3), 715–734. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1308166
  16. Jahudin, J., & Siew, N. (2023). Infusion of Polya and digital bar model: An algebraic thinking module for seventh graders. Problems of Education in the 21st Century, 81(4), 481–500. https://doi.org/10.33225/pec/23.81.481
  17. Kadir, K. (2023). Students' mathematics achievement based on performance assessment through problem solving-posing and metacognition level. Mathematics Teaching Research Journal, 15(3), 109-135. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1408243
  18. Kareem, J., Thomas, R., & Nandini, V. (2022). A conceptual model of teaching efficacy and beliefs, teaching outcome expectancy, student technology use, student engagement, and 21st- century learning attitudes: A STEM education study. Interdisciplinary Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 18(4), e2282. https://doi.org/10.21601/ijese/12025
  19. Khair, I. (2022). Realities and impacts of teaching approach and method in bilingual classroom in Indonesia. Parole Journal of Linguistics and Education, 12(1), 103–118. https://doi.org/10.14710/parole.v12i1.103-118
  20. Koponen, T., Aunola, K., & Nurmi, J. (2019). Verbal counting skill predicts later math performance and difficulties in middle school. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 59, 101803. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2019.101803
  21. Lindström-Sandahl, H., Samuelsson, J., Danielsson, H., Samuelsson, S., & Elwér, Å. (2024). A randomized controlled study of a second grade numeracy intervention with Swedish students at-risk of mathematics difficulties. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(4), 1052–1071. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12705
  22. Lu, H., Chen, X., & Qi, C. (2022). Which is more predictive: Domain- or task-specific self-efficacy in teaching and outcomes?. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(1), 283–298. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12554
  23. Luces, C. (2022). A Glimpse of Project NumerALS Journey: SESSION 5: Knowing and understanding the numeracy assessment tools: Rationale, framework and features DepEd Region. https://tinyurl.com/55bvfee3
  24. Malaluan, L., Espinosa, A., & Duad, V. (2022). Manifestations of environmental principles in bridging scientific context, reasoning and behaviour: Framework in the development of environmental education programmes in the Philippines. Australian Journal of Environmental Education, 39(2), 199–212. https://doi.org/10.1017/aee.2022.49
  25. Mamolo, L. (2022). Online learning and students’ mathematics motivation, self-efficacy, and anxiety in the “new normal”. Education Research International, 2022, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/9439634
  26. Mamolo, L., & Sugano, S. (2023). Digital interactive app and students’ mathematics self-efficacy, anxiety, and achievement in the “new normal”. E-Learning and Digital Media, 21(5), 427–443. https://doi.org/10.1177/20427530231167646
  27. Manouchehri, A., & Sriraman, B. (2020). Mathematical cognition: In secondary years [13–18] part 2. In: Lerman, S. (eds) Encyclopedia of Mathematics Education. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-15789-0_100039
  28. Ngu, B., & Phan, H. (2024). Instructional approach and acquisition of mathematical proficiency: Theoretical insights from learning by comparison and cognitive load theory. Asian Journal for Mathematics Education, 3(3), 357–379. https://doi.org/10.1177/27527263241266765
  29. Nhan, L.K. (2024). Enhancing teaching and learning through formative assessment. International Journal of Science and Management Studies, 7(3), 356–365. https://tinyurl.com/599u7f7t
  30. OECD. (2023). PISA 2022 Results (Volume III) - Factsheets: Philippines. OECD. https://tinyurl.com/4utfabjv
  31. Padayon UP. (2023). UP NISMED develops rapid mathematics assessment toolkits for DepEd’s National Mathematics Program. Padayon UP. https://publicservice.up.edu.ph/news-3/
  32. Rojo, M., Gersib, J., & Powell, S. (2024). A meta-analysis of mathematics interventions: Examining the impacts of intervention characteristics. Educational Psychology Review 36, 9 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-023-09843-0
  33. Roorda, G., de Vries, S., & Smale-Jacobse, A. (2024). Using lesson study to help mathematics teachers enhance students’ problem-solving skills through problem-solving teaching. In Frontiers in Education (Vol. 9, p. 1331674). Frontiers Media SA. https://tinyurl.com/99ajy595
  34. Ruzek, E., Aldrup, K., & Lüdtke, O. (2022). Assessing the effects of student perceptions of instructional quality: A cross-subject within-student design. Contemporary Educational Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2022.102085
  35. Safa, M., & Motaghi, F. (2021). Cognitive vs. metacognitive scaffolding strategies and EFL learners’ listening comprehension development. Language Teaching Research, 28(3), 987–1010. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688211021821
  36. Sana, F., & Fenesi, B. (2025). Working memory and instructional fit: Reintroducing aptitude–treatment interaction in education research. Behavioral Sciences, 15(6), 765. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs15060765
  37. Santos, J., & Boyon, M. (2020). Effect of inquiry-based lessons on STEM students’ learning competencies on limits and continuity. People International Journal of Social Sciences, 5(3), 782– 792. https://doi.org/10.20319/pijss.2020.53.782792
  38. Santos, K.C., Cagasan, L., Jr., Loberiza, K.B., Tenorio, A., Angeles, A.J., & Lapitan, M.A. (2025). Examining the DepEd’s national assessments: A review of framework, design, development, psychometric properties, and utilization (Discussion Paper Series No. 2025-25). Philippine Institute for Development Studies. https://tinyurl.com/y8vxkhrz
  39. Sentz, J., Stefaniak, J., & Baaki, J. (2019). How do instructional designers manage learners’ cognitive load? An examination of awareness and application of strategies. Educational Technology Research and Development, 67, 199–245. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-018-09640-5
  40. Tuazon, A.C. (2024). Climate-proof learning. Philippine Daily Inquirer. https://tinyurl.com/2s7kht4b
  41. UP NISMED. (2023). UP NISMED takes part in DepEd’s National Mathematics Program.
  42. Vo, K., Sarkar, M., White, P., & Yuriev, E. (2025). Exploring problem-solving scaffolds in general chemistry: A systematic review of scaffolding goals and instructional approaches. Journal of Chemical Education, 102(3), 1004-1018. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.4c01327
  43. Ward, E. (2024). Seven-year itch: Sustaining and scaling a cognitively guided instruction initiative. https://doi.org/10.3102/ip.24.2110280
  44. Wu, T., Lee, H., Chen, P., Wang, W., & Huang, Y. (2025). Integrating computational thinking diagnostic mechanism and reflective learning: An innovative approach to enhance learning outcomes in introductory programming. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 41(5). https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.70121
  45. Xu, E., Wang, W., & Wang, Q. (2023). The effectiveness of collaborative problem solving in promoting students’ critical thinking: A meta-analysis based on empirical literature. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 10(1). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01508-1
  46. Yang, X., Yan, M., Ruan, Y., Ku, S., Lo, J., Peng, P., ... & McBride, C. (2022). Relations among phonological processing skills and mathematics in children: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 114(2), 289-307. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000710
  47. Živković, M., Pellizzoni, S., Doz, E., Cuder, A., Mammarella, I., & Passolunghi, M. (2023). Math self-efficacy or anxiety? The role of emotional and motivational contribution in math performance. Social Psychology of Education, 26(3), 579–601. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-023-09760-8

Tools


Copyright © 2026  KITE Digital Educational Solutions |  Exclusively distributed by CE-Logic