1. CLASSROOM ENVIRONMENT AND THE STRATIFICATION OF SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENT’S MATHEMATICS ABILITY PERCEPTIONS
Nelda a. nacion
5th international scholars’ conference
Asia-pacific international university, Thailand
October 30-31, 2017

2. INTRODUCTION
Mathematics is one of the subjects that students tend to avoid.
One of the reasons is that they believe that they are poor in the said subject .
The students’ self-perception of their math ability is sometimes due to factors like the frequency of their teacher’s comment on their ability.
Sometimes because of how they see themselves based on the ability of their classmates.
According to Rosenholtz and Simpson (1986), task structures, ability grouping practices and evaluation practiced inside the classroom are important factors of the degree to which student’s ability perceptions were stratified within the classroom.

3. Scope and Limitation
The study was conducted to the senior high school students of De La Salle University- Dasmariñas, Dasmariñas City, Cavite during the second semester of school year

4. Definition of Terms
Classroom Environment- In this paper, classroom environment includes task structure, grouping practices, feedback and evaluation procedures used by the teachers in the classroom.
Task Structures - This refers to the type of tasks given to the students by their teachers. Teachers can give only one task to the whole class, or the students are given different tasks based on abilities.
Ability Stratification- This term refers to the student’s perception about themselves or others in terms of mathematical ability.
Talent Dispersion- This refers to the heterogeneity of student’s ability level in the class.

5. Significance of the study
To prevent or as much as possible avoid the formation of self-perception ability stratification of students in terms of mathematical ability.

6. Objective of the Study (general):
Generally, the purpose of this study is to determine the effect of task structure, frequency and salience of grading, grade dispersion, and talent dispersion on the measures of the stratification of students’ self-perceptions of math ability.

7. Objectives of the Study (Specific):
The characteristics of the students in terms students’ track and grade.
The students rate of math self-concept .
The teachers’ report task structure.
The teachers report on the emphasis of grade.
The teacher’s report of the student’s talent in math.
The main effects of task structure, grade and emphasis of grades on ability perception stratification.
The differences in the self-perception of the students when grouped according to track.
The difference between student’s self-perception and teacher’s report of student’s math talent.

8. METHODOLOGY RESEARCH DESIGN
The study utilized quantitative type of research through the use of survey.
SAMPLING AND RESPONDENTS
Stratified Random Sampling
A total of 282 students

9. METHODOLOGY INSTRUMENT
A modified instrument was used to collect information from the respondents.
The instrument was checked and validated by some experts in the field of Mathematics and Education.
Reliability Analysis was also utilized in order to check the consistency of the instrument. A Cronbach’s Alpha of was obtained using 30 samples.

10. METHODOLOGY STATISTICAL TOOLS Frequency and percentage
Weighted mean and the standard deviation
Multiple linear regression
ANOVA and TUKEY’S (posthoc)
T-test

11. RESULTS Demographic profile of the respondents Track Frequency
Percentage
ABM 71
25.2
GAS 3
1.1
HUMSS 60
21.3
STEM
134
47.5
TVL/ARTS 14 5
Total
282
100

12. RESULTS Grades of Students Grade Frequency Percentage 66 to 70 2 0.7012
4.30
76 to 80 47
16.70
81 to 85 79
28.00
86 to 90
91 to 95 51
18.10
96 to 100
Total
282
100

13. RESULTS Grade Last Semester N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation 282
Descriptive Statistics N
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Std. Deviation
Grade Last Semester
282 66 99
85.493
5.9426

14. RESULTS Student’s rate of Math self-concept Item Mean
Standard Deviation
Interpretation
1. How good are you at math?
 3.67
 1.228
Fairly Good
2. If you were to rate all the students in your class, how would you rate yourself?
 3.60
 1.298
 Fairly Good
3. Compared to most of your other subjects, how good are you at math?
3.54
1.509
Over-all
3.61
1.226

15. RESULTS Teacher’s report on Math Structure Item Mean
Standard Deviation
Interpretation
1. Most of the students in this class use the same math textbooks/materials.
4.84 
0.370 
Always 
2. Students are given several alternative math assignments from which they can choose the ones to work on for that period.
 2.53
 0.597
 Sometimes
3. Students are given the opportunity to work on their own in math for several days before checking with me.
 3.71
 0.681
 Often
4. Students work on a variety of different math activities and assignments at the same time in a class.
 3.02
 1.289
Over-all
3.52
0.528
Often

16. RESULTS Teacher’s report on the emphasis of grade Item Mean
Standard Deviation
Interpretation
1. I give grades on math homework/ assignments.
 5.00
0.000
Always 
2. I give grades on math classwork.
4.20 
0.481 
 Often
3. I give stress on the importance of getting good grades in math.
 4.26
1.378 
4. Students are asked to show low grades or unsatisfactory work to their parents.
 1.89
1.129 
 Seldom
Over-all
3.84
0.524
Often

17. RESULTS Student's Talent Frequency Percentage 1 4 1.40 2 8 2.80 3 51
Teacher’s report on student’s talent in math
Student's Talent
Frequency
Percentage 1 4
1.40 2 8
2.80 3 51
18.10 83
29.40 5 65
23.00 6 53
18.80 7 18
6.40
Total
282
100

18. RESULTS Descriptive Statistics N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. DeviationN
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Std. Deviation
Teacher Report
282 1 7
4.518
1.3103

19. Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients
RESULTS
The main effects of task structure, grade and emphasis of grades on ability perception stratification.
Model
Unstandardized Coefficients
Standardized Coefficients T
Sig. B
Std. Error
Beta
(Constant)
-0.262
1.626
-0.161
0.872
Grade Last Sem
0.035
0.022
0.17
1.601
0.11
Teacher Report
0.274
0.097
0.293
2.813
.005*
Task Structure
-0.433
0.171
-0.186
-2.523
.012*
Emphasis
0.304
0.13
1.787
0.075

20. RESULTS Significance of the model ANOVAa Model Sum of Squares Df
Mean Square F
Sig.
Regression
97.49 4
24.373
20.801
.000b
Residual
277
1.172
Total
281
a. Dependent Variable: ability perception stratification
b. Predictors: (Constant), Emphasis, Grade Last Sem, Task Structure, Teacher Report

21. Std. Error of the Estimate
RESULTS
Model Summary
Model R
R Square
Adjusted R Square
Std. Error of the Estimate 1
.481a
0.231
0.22
a. Predictors: (Constant), Emphasis, Grade Last Sem, Task Structure, Teacher Report

22. RESULTS
Comparison of self-perception stratification of students by track
TRACK N
Mean
Std. Deviation CV
ABM 71
3.82
1.107
28.98
GAS 3
3.78
0.385
10.19
HUMSS 60
3.03
1.338
44.16
STEM
134
3.72
1.188
31.94
TVL/ARTS 14
3.86
1.13
29.27
Total
282
3.61
1.223
33.88

23. RESULTS
ANOVA table of Comparison of self-perception stratification of students by track
Sum of Squares df
Mean Square F
Sig.
Between Groups
25.974 4
6.494
4.541
.001*
Within Groups
277
1.43
Total
281

24. RESULTS Tukey’s Method of Multiple Comparison (I) track (J) track
Mean Difference
Std. Error
Sig.
HUMSS
ABM *
.002*
GAS
-0.75
0.827
STEM *
TVL/ARTS
0.136

25. Student's self-perception
Student's self-perception
Teacher's report
Mean
Variance
Observations
281
Pooled Variance
Hypothesized Mean Difference Df
560
t Stat
P(T<=t) one-tail
E-05
t Critical one-tail
P(T<=t) two-tail *
t Critical two-tail
RESULTS
Comparison of student’s self-perception and teacher’s report of student’s math talent.

26. CONCLUSIONS
Most of the students enrolled in senior high school are still interested in taking courses under STEM when they pursue college as revealed in the result of the survey where in the largest population of the students are enrolled under the STEM track.
Although most of the students are enrolled under STEM track, the performance of the students in their last math subject taken is fairly good only, not excellent but not bad at all.
The student’s rate of math self-concept is fairly good only.
In terms of the teacher’s report on math structure, it’s “always” been a practice in class that most of the students in the class use the same math textbooks/materials.

27. CONCLUSIONS
In terms of the teacher’s report on the emphasis of grade, it’s “always” been a practice in class that the teacher gives grade on math homework/assignments.
The math talent of the majority of students are just in the middle between very little and a lot of talent in Math as perceived by the teachers.
The significant predictors of self-perception stratification are the teacher’s report on student’s math talent and the math structure practiced in class.
Among the different tracks offered, the highest level of self-perception stratification is among the students under HUMSS track.

28. CONCLUSIONS
The self-perception stratification varies between HUMSS and ABM, and between HUMSS and STEM.
The student’s self-perception is not consistent with the teacher’s report on their math talent.

29. RECOMMENDATIONS:
A similar study should be conducted to the senior high school students on a large- scale basis, say across municipalities to cater the variation of respondents including those who are in public schools.
A similar study should be conducted to the senior high school students using other factors that can be attributed to the formation of ability perception stratification.
The teachers in senior high school should avoid as much as possible a standardized activity to be given to the whole class to somehow minimize the formation of ability perception stratification in class.

30. RECOMMENDATIONS:
The way the teachers rate the talent of the students in math is a significant predictor of developing ability perception stratification in class. It is therefore recommended that the teachers should give more challenge to those who are already good in math and at the same time encourage those who are not that good to strive harder. More importantly, the choice of words can either make or break a student, so the teachers should avoid negative comments to the students especially in their math talent. Instead, the words should be encouraging.

31. THANK YOU!