Photo Gallery

A validated teacher made pretest was administered to both the control and experimental groups. The pretest/posttest exams were used to determine qualitatively the effectiveness of the teaching method.

Orientation of the students on the new approach to be employed. This step was undertaken to reduce anxiety and clarify expectations, roles and goals. A new method of assessing the process product was discussed.

Students were divided into groups. Students were allowed to choose their groups to facilitate interaction and of carrying out of roles and tasks.

A problem trigger scenario was presented to the group. This problem embedded previous knowledge but did not contain all information needed to solve it.

Each group read, discussed and analyzed the problem. This phase utilized basic reading and metacognitive strategies.

For additional input, students attended a seminar on Metacognitive Learning facilitated by Prof. Tadeo of St. Scholasticas College. This is a part of the breakout activity. Students were taught on how to maximize their capacity to think and make use of multiple intelligences in solving mathematical problems. She also emphasized that teachers need to touch the heart first before the mind.

Prof. Jess Reyes of the Physics Department was invited to give inputs on Newton’s Second Law of Motion. Prof. Villaos was around to relate math with physics. This was termed as Peer Teaching.

**
Prof. Utanes of
Physics Department was invited for collaborative teaching, which is a part of
the breakout activity. He presented to the class a simple manipulative example
of the application of the scenario given. Prof. Cunanan provided insights on
Differential Equations as related to the Second Law of Motion**

**
Dr. Acelajado of
De La Salle University shared with the students her expertise on the importance
of innovative teaching and learning in mathematics. This was done as a part of
the breakout activity. Students became more aware of concept mapping,
flowcharting and journal writing**

Further discussions allowed the students to go over their new information acquired from the breakout activity. The information was sorted and organized by the students for presentation.

The students presented their solution to the program trigger. The professor required students to communicate their findings and recommendations both orally and in writing.

The final presentation included how and why certain steps and solutions were undertaken by the students. The professor encouraged the students to evaluate their classmates utilizing the scoring rubric grid as an alternative assessment tool.

**
The closure was a
brief session which was intended to gather insights gained from the activity.
Dr. Dadigan was invited to observe closely the behavior of students as they work
in groups and help them organize their thoughts**

**
Finally, a
posttest exam was given to both groups to assess qualitatively the effectiveness
of the intervening factor which is the MetaMath Problem-Solving Techniques as
compared to the traditional lecture discussion method**

The proponents