Journal of Innovations in Teaching and Learning
ISSN (Print): ISSN Pending ISSN (Online): ISSN Pending Website: http://www.sciepub.com/journal/jitl Editor-in-chief: Laila S. Lomibao
Open Access
Journal Browser
Go
Journal of Innovations in Teaching and Learning. 2021, 1(2), 127-130
DOI: 10.12691/jitl-1-2-10
Open AccessArticle

Project MC2: Raising Students’ Procedural Fluency along Concepts of Forces and Motion

Michael C. Bagay1, Windsor A. Eugenio2, Ma. Victoria C. Soriano2 and Romiro G. Bautista1, 3,

1College of Teacher Education, Quirino State University, Quirino, Philippines

2Quirino General High School, Department of Education, Quirino, Philippines

3Office of the University Director for Instruction, Quirino State University, Quirino, Philippines

Pub. Date: July 14, 2021

Cite this paper:
Michael C. Bagay, Windsor A. Eugenio, Ma. Victoria C. Soriano and Romiro G. Bautista. Project MC2: Raising Students’ Procedural Fluency along Concepts of Forces and Motion. Journal of Innovations in Teaching and Learning. 2021; 1(2):127-130. doi: 10.12691/jitl-1-2-10

Abstract

The promotion of learners’ mastery on concepts and carry out procedures is one of the mainstreams of authentic learning in the pace of student-centered instruction. The ability of the learner to constantly learn and improve in every discipline and intertwined discipline is associated with its primordial learning of concepts and procedures. This study aims to further improve the procedural understanding of students along the selected concepts of forces and motion using the Project MC2 (Modelling, Comprehension, and Collaboration). Moreover, it determines the significant difference between the control and experimental groups with regard to their conceptual and procedural understanding. The data gathered revealed that; (1) the experimental group earned higher mean gain score. This posted a great margin for consideration; (2) there is a significant difference between the procedural fluency of the students which is hypothesized to be affected by the Intervention Program (Program MC2). This is construed with the eta value of .701 accounting to at least 70.10% of the measured effects of the intervention program; and (3) the improvement of students’ procedural fluency includes devising appropriate diagrams and solutions in answering problem solving and applying it to real life activities. This implies that the implementation of the Project MC2 significantly enhanced the procedural fluency of the respondents on the concepts of forces and motion.

Keywords:
Project MC2 conceptual understanding procedural fluency action research

Creative CommonsThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

References:

[1]  Bautista, RG. (2012). The convergence of Meyer’s Model and Constructivist Model towards problem solving in Physics. Journal of Education and Practice, 3(10), 33-41.
 
[2]  Ginsburg, D. (2012). Building procedural fluency and conceptual understanding in Mathematics. Edutopia.org: University of Phoenix
 
[3]  Graven, M., & Stott, D. (2012). Conceptualizing procedural fluency as a spectrum of proficiency. Rhodes University, South Africa. Presented at: Proceedings of 18th Annual National Congress of the Association for Mathematical Education of South Africa (AMESA).
 
[4]  Ginsburg, D. (2012). Procedural fluency: More than memorizing Math facts. Edweek.org.
 
[5]  Lange, K.E., Booth, J.L., & Newton, K.J. (2014). Learning algebra from worked examples. Math Teachers, 107(7), 535-540.
 
[6]  Becerra-Labra, C., Gras-Marti, A., & Martinez-Torregrosa, J. (2012). Effects of a problem-based structure of Physics contents on conceptual learning and the ability to solve problems. International Journal of Science Education, 34(8), 1235-1253.
 
[7]  Bautista, Romiro G. (2013). The students’ procedural fluency and written mathematical explanation on constructed response tasks in Physics. Journal of Technology and Science Education, 3(1), 49.
 
[8]  Booth, J.L., Lange, K.E., Koedinger, K.R., & Newton, K.J. (2013). Using example problems to improve students learning in algebra: Differentiating between correct and incorrect examples. Learning and Instruction, 25, 24-34.
 
[9]  Zakaria, E., Chung Chin, L., & Daud, Y. (2010). The effects of cooperative learning on students’ Mathematics achievement and attitude towards Mathematics. Journal of Social Sciences, 6(2), 272-275.
 
[10]  Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
 
[11]  Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The Development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univerity Press.
 
[12]  Woolfolk, A.E. (1993). Educational psychology. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Cited: Kurt, S. “Constructivist Learning Theory,” in Educational Technology, February 21, 2020. Retrieved from https://educationaltechnology.net/constructivist-learning-theory/.
 
[13]  Swastika, G.T., Asári, A., Irawan, E.B., & Nusantara, T. (2018). Representation translation analysis of Junior High School students in solving Mathematics problem. International Journal of Insights for Mathematics Teaching, 1(2), 115-129.
 
[14]  Liang, L.L., Fulmer, G.W., Majerich, D.M., Clevenstine, R., & Howanski, R. (2012). The effects of a model-based physics curriculum program with a physics first approach: a causal-comparative study. J Sci Educ Techno, 21(1): 114-124.
 
[15]  Kling, G. & Bay-Williams, J.M. (2014). Assessing basic fact fluency. Teaching Children Mathematics, 20(8).