Improving the Understanding of Grade 11 ICT Learners on Function Operations through the Use of Colored Pens as Visual Aid

Abstract

This study aimed to increase the level of understanding on function operations of the Grade 11 ICT learners of the Sto. Rosario National High School through the use of colored pens as visual aids. Specifically, it sought answers to the following questions: 1) What is the level of performance of the learners before and after the intervention?; 2) What is the mean gain difference in the level of performance of the learners before and after the intervention?; and 3) Is there a significant difference between the level of performance of the learners before and after the intervention? The study made use of true-experimental design two group research design particularly the pretest-posttest design. Data were gathered through a research instrument which have undergone validation and reliability test. Salient findings were the following: 1) the level of performance of the students both groups improved into average and high; 2) there is an increase on the mean gain difference of both groups; and 3) there is a significant difference between the posttest scores of the control group and the experimental group.

Introduction

The study investigates the use of colored pens as a visual learning aid to improve senior high school students’ understanding of operations on functions, including addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, and composition. Students often struggle with these topics because of the abstract symbols, multiple steps, and difficulty remembering algebraic procedures. Initial assessment showed very low mastery among HUMSS, ABM, and TVL-ICT learners, supporting the need for an alternative teaching strategy.

The researchers used a true-experimental pretest-posttest design involving 30 randomly selected Grade 11 students: 15 in the experimental group and 15 in the control group. The control group was taught using the lecture method, while the experimental group used colored pens and worksheets. Different colors were assigned to different parts of mathematical expressions to make the steps easier to identify and organize. The intervention lasted about three to four weeks, after which the use of colors was gradually reduced to prevent students from becoming dependent on the visual cues.

A 60-item test on operations of functions was used as the research instrument. It was validated by three master teachers and pilot-tested with 30 learners. The instrument obtained a very high validity rating of 5.0 and a high reliability coefficient of 0.82 using the Kuder-Richardson 20 formula.

Key Results

• The control group improved from a pretest mean of 22 to a posttest mean of 30, with a mean gain of 8 points.
• The experimental group improved from a pretest mean of 23 to a posttest mean of 37, with a mean gain of 14 points.
• Before the intervention, there was no significant difference between the two groups, indicating that they had comparable initial performance.
• After the intervention, there was a significant difference between the groups (t = 6.2708, p = 0.0000008 < 0.05), with the experimental group performing better.
• The control group progressed from Low Understanding to Average Understanding, while the experimental group progressed from Low Understanding to High Understanding.

Conclusion

The data indicate that: 1) Both groups began at comparable levels of understanding; 2) Instruction improved learning in both groups; 3) The Experimental Group demonstrated significantly greater improvement; and 4) The intervention led to higher achievement and reduced performance variability. The results suggest that the implemented strategy enhanced not only achievement levels but also conceptual understanding and equity in learning outcomes. From a constructivist perspective, learning is optimized when students actively construct knowledge rather than passively receive information. The higher mean gain in the Experimental Group implies that the intervention likely fostered deeper cognitive processing, consistent with constructivist and socio-cultural learning theories.

References

[1] Department of Education, Basic Education Statistics, 2020. [2] N. Baya’a and W. Daher, “Learning mathematics in an authentic mobile environment: The perceptions of students,” International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 6–14, 2009. [3] R. Bautista, “Students’ common errors in solving operations on functions,” Journal of Mathematics Education, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 45–56, 2018. [4] M. Padilla, R. Santos, and L. Reyes, “Conceptual understanding of functions among senior high school students,” Asia Pacific Journal of Multidisciplinary Research, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 15–23, 2021. [5] J. Sweller, “Cognitive load theory: Recent theoretical advances,” Educational Psychology Review, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 123–145, 2010. [6] R. Kusuma, A. Putri, and F. Rahman, “The role of color in enhancing students’ attention and memory,” Journal of Educational Psychology Studies, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 33–45, 2022. [7] J. Krüger, K. Reiss, and W. Schnotz, “Color coding in learning materials: Effects on cognitive load and learning outcomes,” Educational Psychology Review, vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 589–615, 2021. [8] H. van der Meij, J. van der Meij, and R. Harmsen, “Effects of color-coded instructional materials on learning and cognitive load,” Computers & Education, vol. 190, p. 104597, 2023. [9] D. R. Parker and K. Boutelle, “Executive function coaching for college students with ADHD,” Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 57–69, 2012. [10] T. Seufert, “The guidance reversal effect,” Educational Psychology Review, vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 1113–1134, 2021. [11] L. P. Calmorin, Research Methods and Thesis Writing, 2nd ed. Rex Book Store, 2006. [12] A. Quinay, Methods of Research and Thesis Writing. Katha Publishing, 2008. [13] J. Espinueva, Educational Measurement and Evaluation. Great Books Publishing, 2012. [14] D. T. Campbell and J. C. Stanley, Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research. Houghton Mifflin, 1963. [15] D. P. Ausubel, Educational Psychology: A Cognitive View. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1968. [16] J. Piaget, Science of Education and the Psychology of the Child. Orion Press, 1970. [17] B. S. Bloom, “Learning for mastery,” Evaluation Comment, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 1–12, 1968. [18] J. Hattie, Visible Learning: A Synthesis of Over 800 Meta-Analyses Relating to Achievement. Routledge, 2009. [19] L. S. Vygotsky, Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Harvard University Press, 1978. [20] J. S. Bruner, “The act of discovery,” Harvard Educational Review, vol. 31, pp. 21–32, 1961.

Copyright

Copyright © 2026 Nelson C. Laconsay, Nora A. Oredina. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.