Hypothesizing the Outcome of the EFA Goal No. 6 for 2015

A Deductive Consequence of a Proposed Quality Instruction

Keywords: cluster analysis, conceptual knowledge, quantitative model, quality instruction


This is a descriptive study which uses hierarchical cluster analysis to group 17 teacher respondents to establish similarity of their characteristics in terms of procedural and conceptual knowledge, and their ability to examine errors in procedure and reasoning. The data suggested that conceptual and procedural knowledge plus the ability to correct misconception are important in increasing the likelihood of quality instruction. The Quality instruction index suggests that respondents have a surface level conceptual knowledge. These limited conceptual knowledge of the respondents affected their assessment. It was hypothesized that the Education for All (EFA) goal no. 6 of improving all aspects of the quality of education and ensuring excellence for 2015 cannot be achieved.


1. Bailey, D. H., Hoard, M. K., Nugent, L., & Geary, D. C. (2012). Competence with fractions predicts gains in mathematics achievement. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 113(3), 447-455.

2. Ball, D. L., Lubienski, S., & Mewborn, D. (2001). Research on Teaching Mathematics: The unsolved problem of Teachers’ Mathematical Knowledge. In V. Richardson (E.D), Handbook of Research on Teaching (4th ed.) New York: McMillan

3. Booth, J. L., Newton, K. J., & Twiss- Garrity, L. K. (2014). The impact of fraction magnitude knowledge on algebra performance and learning. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 118(1), 110-118.

4. Cochran,W. G. (1991). Teknik Penarikan Sampel. Penerbit Indonesia: Universitas Indonesia.

5. Cochran, K., DeRuiter, J. & King, R. (1993). Pedagogical content knowing: An integrative model for teacher preparation, Journal of Teacher Education, 44 (4), 263-272

6. Dauda, B., Jambo, H. E., & Umar, M. A. (2016). Students' Perception of Factors Influencing Teaching and Learning of Mathematics in Senior Secondary Schools in Maiduguri Metropolis, Borno State, Nigeria. Journal of Education and Practice, 7(20), 114-122.

7. Gagani, R. F. & Misa, R. (in press). SOLO based-cognition levels of inductive reasoning in Geometry. Alberta Journal of Educational Research.

8. Grossman, P. L., Wilson, S. M., & Shulman, L. S. (1989). Teachers of substance: Subject matter knowledge for teaching. Profesorado, Revista de Currículum y Formación del Profesorado, 9(2), 1-25.

9. Hill, H. C., Ball, D. L., & Schilling, S. G. (2008). Unpacking pedagogicalcontent knowledge: Conceptualizing and measuring teachers’ topic specific knowledge of students. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 39(4), 372-400

10. Loewenberg-Ball, D., Thames, M. H., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching: What makes it special? Journal of Teacher Education, 59(5), 389-407.

11. Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1-22.

12. The 2011 Praxis Client Conference. Content Knowledge for Teaching: Innovations for the Next Generation of Teaching Assessments.

13. Torbeyns, J., Schneider, M., Xin, Z., & Siegler, R. S. (2015). Bridging the gap: Fraction understanding is central to mathematics achievement in students from three different continents. Learning and
Instruction, 37(1), 5-13.

14. Wilson, S. M., Shulman, L. S., & Richert, A. E. (1987). '150 different ways' of knowing: Representation of knowledge in teaching. In J. Calderhead (Ed.). Exploring teachers' thinking (pp. 104-124). London: Cassell.

15. United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (2010-2015). Education for All Goals. Retrieved from http://www.unesco.org/new/en/education/themes/leading-the-international-agenda/education-for-all/
How to Cite
Gagani, R. F., Diano, Jr., F. M., & Inocian, E. P. (2016). Hypothesizing the Outcome of the EFA Goal No. 6 for 2015. University of the Visayas - Journal of Research, 10(1), 59-68. Retrieved from http://uvjor.ph/index.php/uvjor/article/view/132