Intolerant Learners: Correlation between Tolerance of Ambiguity and Mean Performance Level in Mathematics

This study aimed to examine the mean performance level, and the level of ambiguity that can be tolerated in the classroom, with a specific focus on the subject of mathematics. This study employed a quantitative research method, specifically a descriptive correlational research design. The study involved a sample size of 88 students, selected randomly from the pool of 722 grade 10 students at Camarines Norte National High School for the School Year 2022-2023. Data were collected on the students' mean performance level (MPL), level of tolerance (LoT), and underlying causes. Correlational research was employed to determine the presence and extent of any significant relationship between MPL and LoT. The results revealed that the mean MPL in mathematics of grade 10 student was Outstanding (x ̅=90.04) and the level of tolerance was Very High (x ̅=63.08). Furthermore, the causes for intolerance, specifically Novelty is High (x ̅=17.83), and for Complexity (x ̅=33.14) and Insolubility (x ̅=12.11) are both Moderate. The null hypothesis of no significant correlation between MPL and LoT was retained (p = 0.7687, α = 0.05), and the level of tolerance did not significantly predict MPL in the regression model. These findings suggest that, within this sample, students’ ambiguity tolerance and mathematics performance are independent of each other. Exposure to problem-based and inquiry-based learning approaches may have contributed to the students’ high ambiguity tolerance, though causal interpretations are beyond the scope of this correlational design.

Intolerant, Learners, Mathematics, Mean Performance Level, Tolerance of Ambiguity

1. Comadena, M. E. (1984). Brainstorming Groups. Small Group Behavior, 15(2), 251–264. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. https://doi.org/10.1177/104649648401500207 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). SAGE Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. https://www.ucg.ac.me/skladiste/blog_609332/objava_105202/fajlovi/Creswell.pdf [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Department of Education. (2017). Vision, Mission, Core Values, and Mandate | Department of Education. Deped.gov.ph. https://www.deped.gov.ph/about-deped/vision-mission-core-values-and-mandate/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Guilbert, J-J. (2002). The Ambiguous and Bewitching Power of Knowledge, Skills and Attitudes Leads to Confusing Statements of Learning Objectives. Education for Health: Change in Learning & Practice, 15(3), 362–369. https://doi.org/10.1080/1357628021000012688 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Juan Miguel Luz. (2022, February 24). PISA AND WHAT IT REVEALED ABOUT THE QUALITY OF OUR EDUCATION SYSTEM. Retrieved from FEU Public Policy Center website: https://publicpolicy.feu.org.ph/news/pisa-and-what-it-revealed-about-the-quality-of-our-education-system/#:~:text=The%20average%20score%20for%20the [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Magsambol, B. (2022, June 24). LIST: 5 education issues that the next DepEd chief needs to address. RAPPLER. https://www.rappler.com/newsbreak/iq/list-education-issues-next-deped-chief-needs-to-address/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. McLain, D. L., Kefallonitis, E., & Armani, K. (2015). Ambiguity tolerance in organizations: definitional clarification and perspectives on future research. Frontiers in Psychology, 6. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00344 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. NEDA. (2016). AmBisyon Natin 2040 – The Philippines in 2040. A prosperous, middle-class society where no one is poor A healthy and resilient society A smart and innovative society A high-trust society. NEDA. https://2040.neda.gov.ph/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Soleimani, A. (2009). Differences in listening comprehension among high-, middle-, and low- ambiguity tolerant Iranian EFL learners [Unpublished master’s thesis]. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Suzawa, G. S. (2013). The learning teacher: role of ambiguity in education. Journal of Pedagogy / Pedagogický Casopis, 4(2), 220–236. https://doi.org/10.2478/jped-2013-0012 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Tejada, J. J., & Punzalan, J. R. B. (2012). On the misuse of Slovin’s formula. The Philippine Statistician, 61(1), 129–136. https://www.psai.ph/docs/publications/tps/tps_2012_61_1_9.pdf [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Yu, M., Wang, H., & Xia, G. (2022). The Review on the Role of Ambiguity of Tolerance and Resilience on Students’ Engagement. Frontiers in Psychology, 12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.828894 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Assessment of the Role of Artificial Intelligence in Repositioning TVET for Economic Development in Nigeria
• Teachers’ Use of Assure Model Instructional Design on Learners’ Problem Solving Efficacy in Secondary Schools in Bungoma County, Kenya
• “E-Booksan Ang Kaalaman”: Development, Validation, and Utilization of Electronic Book in Academic Performance of Grade 9 Students in Social Studies
• Analyzing EFL University Students’ Academic Speaking Skills Through Self-Recorded Video Presentation
• Major Findings of The Study on Total Quality Management in Teachers’ Education Institutions (TEIs) In Assam – An Evaluative Study