Home⇛Isabela State University Linker: Journal of Education, Social Sciences and Allied Health⇛vol. 2 no. 2 (2025)

Enhancing Students’ Mathematics Performance Through Contextualized Instruction and Technology Integration

Lovelyn R. Barcelo | Cathy S. Duliente | Jaypee D. Gamaru | Marisol S. Madday | Pee-jay S. Villamor | Jose B. Rosario

Discipline: Education

 

Abstract:

Enhancing the mathematics performance of students remains a challenge for mathematics teachers. To address this challenge, this study explored the effect of a contextualized instruction and technology integration approach in mathematics employing a parallel groups pretest-posttest experimental design. A content-validated, researcher-made 60-item multiple-choice test was the primary instrument used in this study. A split-half reliability test was conducted to ensure the internal consistency of the test items. Normality check of the data gathered from the control and experimental groups, consisting of 35 Grade 10 students each, was done using the Shapiro-Wilk test before the conduct of different statistical tests to test the hypotheses of the study. Results showed that both groups demonstrated considerable improvement in their mathematics performance after the intervention. Moreover, the results of the comparison of the posttest scores of the two groups revealed that the experimental group performed significantly better than their peers in the control group. Thus, contextualizing instruction and integrating technology in teaching mathematics can be a promising approach to improving students’ learning and achievement. This finding underscores the critical need for teachers’ professional development focusing on effective pedagogical use of technology to facilitate active learning and contextualized instruction to promote meaningful learning among students.



References:

  1. Aribbay, A. J., Baccay, I. R., Cordova, J. T., Lopez, K. K. G., Tandayu, C. B., Villamor, C. I. S., & Rosario, J. B. (2024). Differentiating mathematics instruction: Teachers’ experiences in inclusive classroom. Isabela State University Linker: Journal of Education, Social Sciences and Allied Health, 1(2), 20–32. https://doi.org/10.65141/jessah.v1i2.n3
  2. Bal, A. P. (2023). Assessing the impact of differentiated instruction on mathematics achievement and attitudes of secondary school learners. South African Journal of Education, 43(1), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.15700/saje.v43n1a2065
  3. Boehm-Fischer, A., & Beyer, L. M. (2024). Blended learning, flipped classroom, and peer teaching as a combination to meet the increasing diversity in higher education. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 14(2), 310–317. https://www.ijiet.org/show-200-2673-1.html
  4. Bottge, B. A., & Cho, S. J. (2013). Effects of enhanced anchored instruction on skills aligned to Common Core Math standards. Learning Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 19(2), 73–83. https://doi.org/10.18666/LDMJ-2013-V19-I2-4796
  5. Calo, I. C. (2025). Contextualized teaching: Challenges and opportunities in teaching secondary school mathematics in Puerto Rico [Unpublished manuscript]. ERIC. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED665237
  6. Canonizado, I. C. (2024). Technology-aided teaching approaches in mathematics among elementary teachers and learners’ learning motivation: Basis for an Education 5.0-inspired instructional program. International Journal of Education Humanities and Social Science, 7(06), 672-698. https://doi.org/10.54922/IJEHSS.2024.0870
  7. Cheung, A. C., & Slavin, R. E. (2013). The effectiveness of educational technology applications for enhancing mathematics achievement in K-12 classrooms: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 9, 88–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2013.01.001
  8. Egara, F. O., & Mosimege, M. (2024). Effect of flipped classroom learning approach on mathematics achievement and interest among secondary school students. Education and Information Technologies, 29(7), 8131–8150. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-12145-1
  9. Grab, M. O. (2025). Teaching for equity: An exploration of AI's role in culturally responsive teaching in higher education settings. Innovative Higher Education, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-025-09801-4
  10. Hidayat, A., & Firmanti, P. (2024). Navigating the tech frontier: A systematic review of technology integration in mathematics education. Cogent Education, 11(1), 2373559. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2024.2373559
  11. Hidayat, R., Qi, T. Y., Ariffin, P. N. A. B. T., Hadzri, M. H. B. M., Chin, L. M., Ning, J. L. X., & Nasir, N. (2024). Online game-based learning in mathematics education among Generation Z: A systematic review. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 19(1), Article em0763. https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/14024
  12. Jong, T., Lazonder, A. W., Chinn, C. A., Fischer, F., Gobert, J., Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Koedinger, K. R., Krajcik, J. S., Kyza, E. A., Linn, M. C., Pedaste, M., Scheiter, K., & Zacharia, C. Z. (2023). Let’s talk evidence – The case for combining inquiry-based and direct instruction. Educational Research Review, 39, 100536. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2023.100536
  13. Kurt, U., & Sezek, F. (2021). Investigation of the effect of different teaching methods on students' engagement and scientific process skills. International Journal of Progressive Education, 17(3), 86–101. https://doi.org/10.29329/ijpe.2021.346.6
  14. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press.
  15. Mahmuti, A., Hamzic, D. K., & Thaqi, X. (2025). The impact of contextual teaching and learning on improving student achievement in economic mathematics. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 20(3), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/16233
  16. Main, P. (2024, July 4). Contextual teaching and learning. Structural Learning. https://www.structural-learning.com/post/contextual-teaching-and-learning
  17. Manaud, J. P., & Aggabao, A. H. G. (2024). Self-directed learning approach in mathematics. Kasetsart Journal of Social Sciences, 45(1), 53–62. https://doi.org/10.34044/j.kjss.2024.45.1.06
  18. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x
  19. OECD. (2023). PISA 2022 results (Volume I): The state of learning and equity in education. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/53f23881-en
  20. Ran, H., Kasli, M., & Secada, W. G. (2021). A meta-analysis on computer technology intervention effects on mathematics achievement for low-performing students in K-12 classrooms. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 59(1), 119–153. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633120952063
  21. Serin, H. (2023). The integration of technological devices in mathematics education: A literature review. International Journal of Social Sciences & Educational Studies, 10(3), 54-59. https://doi.org/10.23918/ijsses.v10i3p54
  22. Stockard, J., Wood, T. W., Coughlin, C., & Rasplica Khoury, C. (2018). The effectiveness of direct instruction curricula: A meta-analysis of a half century of research. Review of Educational Research, 88(4), 479–507. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654317751919
  23. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.

Tools


Copyright © 2026  KITE Digital Educational Solutions |  Exclusively distributed by CE-Logic