Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Olitan
PROBABILITY & STATISTICS – Final Examination
Masters in Engineering Management
Thesis Title: Effectiveness of Teaching Factoring Polynomials through Geometric Physical Models
Statistical Data:
Table 3
Profile of Third Year High School Students
in Terms of their Pre-test Results in Factoring Polynomials
No. of Control Experimental
Factoring Polynomials
Items Group Group
1. Common Monomial Factors 6 1.7 2.47
2. Perfect Square Trinomials 8 2.62 3.47
3. Quadratic Trinomial 9 2.72 3.62
4. Cubic Polynomial 7 2.30 2.45
Total Mean 9.30 12.01
Table 4
Profile of Third Year High School Students
in Terms of their Post-test Results in Factoring Polynomials
No. of Control Experimental
Factoring Polynomials
Items Group Group
5. Common Monomial Factors 6 3.55 4.20
6. Perfect Square Trinomials 8 4.12 6.08
7. Quadratic Trinomial 9 6.45 8.25
8. Cubic Polynomial 7 5.08 6.12
Total Mean 19.20 24.65
Null Hypothesis:
1. There is no significant difference between the means of the pre-test and post-test of the control group and the
means of the pre-test and post-test of the experimental group.
Computed Values:
Table 7
Test of Significance Between the Means of the Pre-test and Post-test of the Experimental and Control Group
Group Pre-test Post-test Mean Gain Computed Critical Significance
t-test t-ratio Level
1. Experimental 12.01 24.65 12.64 21.53 2.02 0.05
2. Control 9.34 19.20 9.86 13.92 2.02 0.05
Statistical Data:
Null Hypothesis:
1. There is no significant difference between the mathematical errors committed by the grade six at risk pupils in
the diagnostic test and those obtained in the diagnostic interview along the following aspects:
a. Comprehension
b. Transformation
c. Process Skill
d. Encoding Ability
Computed Values:
Interpretation of the Statistic:
There is a significant difference in comprehension and transformation errors committed by grade six “at risk”
pupils in diagnostic test and diagnostic interview.
However, for process and encoding, no significant difference exists. Hence the null hypothesis is accepted. There
is no significant difference in the errors committed by the “at risk” pupils I the diagnostic test and diagnostic interview
along process and encoding.