Home⇛Psychology and Education: A Multidisciplinary Journal⇛vol. 37 no. 4 (2025)

Analyzing Grade 11 Students’ Performance in General Mathematics Using CEM Assessment Results

Raymart Gorosin | Dolly Joy Valenzuela

Discipline: Education

 

Abstract:

Mathematics serves as a foundational discipline for academic success and career readiness, yet persistent disparities in student performance highlight the need for deeper insights into mathematical competencies. This study rigorously examines the proficiency levels of Grade 11 students in General Mathematics using the Center for Educational Measurement (CEM) assessment results. Specifically, it evaluates students’ performance across three critical domains—Functions and Their Graphs, Basic Business Mathematics, and Logic—determines the association between sex and mathematical achievement through Chi-square analysis, and investigates the correlation among these competencies using Spearman’s rank-order correlation. A random sample of 145 students was analyzed. Normality testing via the Shapiro-Wilk test confirmed that the data were not normally distributed, necessitating nonparametric statistical techniques. Findings reveal that the majority of students fall within the Average and Moving Towards Average performance levels, signaling a pressing need for targeted intervention. No statistically significant association was found between sex and mathematical performance (X² = 1.98, p = .577), reinforcing the argument that achievement differences are not inherently sex-driven but influenced by instructional and environmental factors. Moreover, strong positive correlations among the three mathematical domains suggest that competency in one area enhances performance in others. These findings have profound implications for curriculum development, pedagogical strategies, and policy-making, advocating for data-driven instructional reforms to bridge learning gaps and elevate students’ mathematical proficiency. This study provides a critical foundation for reshaping mathematics education through evidence-based interventions, ensuring equitable learning opportunities and fostering academic excellence.



References:

  1. Bozkurt, A., & Ruthven, K. (2017). Classroom-based interactions in technology-supported mathematics teaching: The mediating role of the teacher. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 94(3), 309–326. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-016-9734-1
  2. Brown, P., & Johnson, R. (2020). Exploring the effects of instructional methods on students’ mathematical performance. Journal of Mathematics Education, 12(2), 45–63.
  3. Cabahug, R., Santos, M., & Dizon, L. (2020). The role of standardized assessments in shaping mathematics instruction in the Philippines. Philippine Journal of Education, 95(1), 112–130.
  4. Field, A. (2018). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics (5th ed.). SAGE Publications.
  5. Ganley, C. M., & Lubienski, S. T. (2016). Mathematics achievement gaps: The role of sex and socioeconomic status in early elementary school. Educational Researcher, 45(1), 46–58. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X16679161
  6. Garcia, M., & Torres, L. (2019). Enhancing student comprehension in business mathematics through real-world applications. Journal of Applied Mathematics Education, 14(3), 89–104.
  7. Hansen, V., Berger, A., & Smith, T. (2020). The interplay of algebraic reasoning and logical problem-solving skills. Mathematics Education Review, 28(4), 277–296.
  8. Hattie, J. (2018). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. Routledge.
  9. Hyde, J. S., Lindberg, S. M., Linn, M. C., Ellis, A. B., & Williams, C. C. (2008). Sex similarities characterize mathematics performance. Science, 321(5888), 494–495. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1160364
  10. Hyde, J. S., Lindberg, S. M., Linn, M. C., Ellis, A. B., & Williams, C. C. (2019). Gender similarities and differences in mathematics: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 145(5), 432–465. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000191
  11. Hyde, J. S., Lindberg, S. M., Linn, M. C., Williams, C. C., & Ellis, A. B. (2019). Sex and mathematics performance: Patterns and explanations. Annual Review of Psychology, 70, 375–399. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010418-103217
  12. Inglis, M., & Attridge, N. (2017). Does mathematical ability predict logical reasoning performance? Thinking & Reasoning, 23(2), 170–192. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2016.1217275
  13. Kilpatrick, J., Swafford, J., & Findell, B. (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. National Academy Press.
  14. Kilpatrick, J., Swafford, J., & Findell, B. (2019). Proficiency in mathematics: A framework for understanding key domains. Journal of Mathematics Education, 17(1), 14–29.
  15. Lamb, R., Akmal, T., & Petrie, K. (2019). The role of project-based learning in business mathematics education. Journal of STEM Education, 20(2), 30–42.
  16. Li, Y., & Koch, A. (2017). The predictive power of mathematical self-efficacy on student achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 109(1), 115–128. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000106
  17. Lindberg, S. M., Hyde, J. S., & Hirsch, L. E. (2019). Sex differences in mathematics: Myths and realities. Psychological Bulletin, 145(2), 98–120. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000175
  18. Lindberg, S. M., Hyde, J. S., Petersen, J. L., & Linn, M. C. (2019). New trends in gender and mathematics performance: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 145(6), 537–565. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000192
  19. Liu, O. L., & Wilson, M. (2017). Examining the validity of mathematics assessment using chi-square analysis. Educational Assessment, 22(3), 184–198. https://doi.org/10.1080/10627197.2017.1344892
  20. Livy, S., Herbert, S., & Vale, C. (2021). Inquiry-based learning in mathematics classrooms: A systematic review. International Journal of Mathematics Education, 26(1), 52–74.
  21. Lusardi, A., & Mitchell, O. S. (2017). Financial literacy and business mathematics: A critical connection. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 31(3), 123–144. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.31.3.123
  22. National Research Council. (2018). The role of standardized testing in education reform. National Academies Press.
  23. Papageorgiou, E., & Christou, C. (2019). The role of logical reasoning in mathematical problem-solving. Journal of Mathematical Thinking, 21(2), 67–82.
  24. Reilly, D., Neumann, D. L., & Andrews, G. (2017). Gender differences in mathematics and science achievement: A meta-analysis of National Assessment of Educational Progress assessments. Journal of Educational Psychology, 109(6), 841–860. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000176
  25. Rittle-Johnson, B., & Schneider, M. (2017). Developing conceptual understanding and procedural fluency in mathematics. Journal of Educational Psychology, 109(5), 599–621. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000164
  26. Siegler, R. S., & Lortie-Forgues, H. (2017). Numerical development. Annual Review of Psychology, 68, 187–213. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010416-044101
  27. Singh, R., Sharma, P., & Gupta, M. (2021). Students’ struggles with abstract mathematical concepts: A cognitive perspective. International Journal of Mathematics and Science Education, 19(4), 501–522.
  28. Stoet, G., & Geary, D. C. (2018). The gender-equality paradox in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education. Psychological Science, 29(4), 581–593. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617741719
  29. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2019). Using multivariate statistics (7th ed.). Pearson.
  30. Tan, M., Cruz, J., & Reyes, P. (2021). Sex disparities in mathematics achievement in the Philippines: A longitudinal analysis. Philippine Journal of Psychology, 36(1), 23–39.

Tools


Copyright © 2025  KITE Digital Educational Solutions |  Exclusively distributed by CE-Logic