1

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION

BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY

In the realm of education, the effectiveness of teaching methodologies and

approaches is a subject of continuous inquiry and debate. Mathematics, being a

core subject in many educational systems, requires a nuanced understanding of

teaching methods and their impact on student learning outcomes. One area of

interest revolves around the comparative effectiveness of strict and lenient

teaching styles in the context of mathematics education.

The distinction between strict and lenient teachers often lies in their

approaches to classroom management, expectations, feedback mechanisms,

and overall pedagogical philosophy. Strict teachers are characterized by their

adherence to rules, discipline, and high expectations for student performance,

often employing firm guidance and consequences for non-compliance. On the

other hand, lenient teachers may adopt a more relaxed approach, emphasizing

encouragement, flexibility, and understanding, often prioritizing a supportive

environment over strict adherence to rules. The debate over the effectiveness of

these contrasting teaching styles in teaching mathematics is multifaceted and

warrants investigation for several reasons:

Student Engagement and Motivation: Understanding how strict and lenient

teaching styles impact student engagement and motivation in mathematics is

crucial. Some students may thrive in a disciplined environment with clear

 2

expectations, while others may feel stifled or anxious under such conditions.

Conversely, lenient approaches may foster a more relaxed atmosphere but could

potentially lead to complacency or a lack of academic rigor.

Learning Outcomes and Performance: The ultimate measure of a teaching

style's effectiveness lies in its impact on student learning outcomes and

performance. Comparative studies can shed light on whether strict or lenient

teachers are more successful in facilitating conceptual understanding, problem-

solving skills, and overall academic achievement in mathematics.

Psychological and Emotional Well-being: The emotional and psychological

well-being of students also plays a significant role in the teaching and learning

process. Investigating how strict and lenient teaching styles influence students'

self-esteem, confidence, and attitudes towards mathematics can provide

valuable insights into the broader implications of different pedagogical

approaches.

Teacher-Student Dynamics: The dynamics between teachers and

students are complex and can significantly influence the learning environment.

Exploring the interpersonal relationships, communication patterns, and

perceptions of fairness within strict and lenient teaching contexts can contribute

to a deeper understanding of how these dynamics shape the learning

experience. By conducting a comparative analysis of the effectiveness of strict

and lenient teachers in teaching mathematics, this study seeks to contribute to

the ongoing discourse on effective teaching practices and inform educators,

 3

policymakers, and stakeholders about the implications of different pedagogical

approaches on student learning and academic achievement. Through empirical

research and data-driven insights, we aim to provide evidence-based

recommendations for optimizing mathematics instruction and promoting positive

learning outcomes for all students.

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES

Foreign Literature

Strict teachers commonly maintain high standards for academic

achievement, give precise directions, and maintain strict regulations. Critics

counter that too rigorous professors could unintentionally discourage students

from asking questions or getting assistance, which could result in a lack of

intrinsic desire and a fear of failing (Brown, 2019). Strict teachers want a high

standard for their students, which are why they need to be strict, but on the other

side, some students will be discouraged by that kind of teacher.

On the other hand, proponents of a more lenient approach to teaching

contend that a more relaxed learning environment can encourage students'

creativity, interest, and ability to think independently (Johnson et al., 2018). The

student can learn relax without any pressure and is more curious to study.

According to Kim, et, al, (2021), while strict teaching approach could boost

academic performance, they might also cause students to become less engaged

and motivated. The review emphasizes how crucial it is to take a balanced

 4

approach to educational practices that take both structure and flexibility into

account.

Local literature

According to Gonzales, et, al (2021), while strict teaching approach may at

first increase student compliance and academic success, they may also have the

unintended effect of decreasing students' intrinsic motivation, engagement, and

well-being. Additionally, the research emphasizes how rigorous teaching

methods, especially when applied to underrepresented populations, have the

potential to widen achievement inequalities and impede the overall development

of students. This review emphasizes the significance of using a balanced

approach to teaching that, values both structure and flexibility through a critical

analysis of the literature.

While adhering to a strict teaching approach has been associated with

enhanced performance on standardized tests, detractors contend that it has the

potential to inhibit creativity and impede the development of critical thinking skills

in students (Santos, 2019). A strict teaching approach makes it more concrete

and unique to study and build critical thinking.

According to Garcia, et, al. (2021), flexible, student-autonomous

classroom environments and lenient teaching approaches are linked to improved

intrinsic motivation, engagement, and holistic development in students.

Additionally, the analysis emphasizes how accommodating teaching strategies

 5

can advance inclusivity and equity in the classroom, especially for kids from

underprivileged backgrounds.

Foreign studies

A strict teacher is easily identified by their obvious subordination, absence

of unnecessary emotions, and occasionally even their apathy to their students'

successes. When students behave in this way, even a small word of support

from the teacher is seen as the finest compliment. These connections inspire

students to reach new goals on assignments and projects. A

strict facilitator would prefer to underestimate a student's talents than to

overestimate them. They require a lot of work from the pupils, and

underachievers are sometimes made to redo assignments that they did poorly on

the first try. This method trains the pupil in discipline and fosters goal-

achievement, focus, and attentiveness. The strict instructor establishes

objectives and a plan of action. They demand that students do their assignments

in a clear and directed manner. Their pupils take part in very demanding

activities, competitions, and contests that test their intellect (Laziza, 2023).

However, strict instructors don't have to be cruel! By educating students to

meet deadlines in an interesting and productive way and by not putting up with

inappropriate behavior, strict teachers can bring out the best in their students.

Strict educators provide equal opportunities for all pupils and treat them equally.

Although they are affable and kind outside of the classroom, strict teachers are

there to support you in achieving your academic goals (Killeen, 2018).

 6

This study examines the connection between strict and lenient school

discipline policies, academic success or failure, and interactions with the juvenile

justice system using data from the Texas Education Agency's Public Education

Information Management System. It found that passive punishment processes

also appear to worsen these same consequences and grew referral rates. The

results show that schools with stricter punishment policies can lead to higher

rates of juvenile court referrals and grade retention (Peguero, 2018).

Local studies

A strict instructor treats their students seriously. They are serious about

meeting the deadlines every time. These educators detest any errors or neglect

on the part of the pupils. Under such an instructor, students must exercise

extreme caution. He or she is like a strict teacher who constantly makes the kids

think. Pupils with stern teachers are always under pressure to meet unrealistic

expectations. Because of their inexperience, even with the best of intentions,

these teachers are not understood or valued by their students. A strict instructor

never seems to connect with their students on a personal level, constantly acts

as a teacher, and fails to Wing—A slang term that refers to acting without

planning ahead of time or having enough practice. turn into a trusted advisor for

the pupils. Such a teacher is never truly respected by the students. They just

accept him/her out of fear or obligation. It will be quite difficult for a rigorous

teacher to win the affection of their students, particularly those in the younger

age range. It is unlikely that a pupil will ever grasp the purpose of a rigorous

instructor, even if they do eventually (Angkiko, 2019).

 7

In accordance with the research conducted by Dinglasan at, el, (2018),

during the focus group learners, the majority of students prefer lenient teachers,

and they will probably offer favorable feedback if a faculty member assigns

projects and other activities that aren't too difficult or demanding. They added

that pupils typically give teachers who enforced rules throughout the lesson a low

assessment score. As such, it is possible that student feedback is not a reliable

indicator of teaching effectiveness or a true reflection of student pleasure.

According to Angkiko (2019), although there are some strict teachers who

are attentive and understanding, these qualities are not typically present in strict

teachers since tough professors adhere to a schedule. Instead, students prefer

having lenient teachers who are approachable, understanding, and caring.

Additionally, pupils find it difficult to handle the severe methods used by their

teachers; those who are unable to bear pressure may end up in terrible

situations. Based on these findings, kids choose teachers who are more forgiving

since they feel comfortable around them and don't have to worry about being

punished or embarrassed. The majority of the time, a student's fear of the

teacher causes them to become less focused and less knowledgeable since they

are more concerned with the severe teacher and whether they will be called

honor for surprise quizzes and other assignments. Pupils desire a teacher who

they can relate to as a second parent; they find solace in their teachers, who act

as a sort of extended family, particularly for those pupils going through

challenging times or who have severed familial relations. Teachers are typically

viewed by kids as being lenient—gentle, cheerful, and understanding.

 8

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

IV DV

Teacher's Approaches Mathematical

Achievement

FIGURE 1: Paradigm of the study

In this conceptual framework, it shows the independent and dependent

variables of the study. In the independent variable, it indicates the teacher's

teaching approaches. This variable considers the personality traits of the teacher,

of psychometric tests, as used successfully before. For example, the Big Five

Traits include openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and

neuroticism. These traits can influence how effectively they can convey

mathematical concepts to their students. The dependent variable includes the

effects of the lenient and strict teacher in teaching mathematics, which

encompass achievements toward mathematics. Mathematical achievements

measure the student's performance in mathematics, in the form of the test,

scores, and academic marks.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

The purpose of this study is to compared the effectiveness of strict and

lenient teaching styles among Grade 11 Science Technology Engineering

Mathematics (STEM) students at BSANHS. This research aimed to shed light on

 9

students' preferences regarding teaching approaches, whether strict or lenient,

when delivering mathematical topics. The findings of this study are beneficial to

students, math teachers, school administrators, and future researchers.

For students, mathematics poses a significant challenge, often requiring

higher-order thinking skills and enhancing critical thinking abilities. This study

seeks to raise awareness among students regarding teaching strategies

employed by their instructors and the resultant impact on their cognitive

processes.

As math educators, teaching mathematics is a complex task that

demands critical thinking to effectively guide students in problem-solving.

However, some students may require additional attention due to slower learning

paces. Through this research, educators gained insights into various teaching

methodologies and how to tailor instruction to meet diverse student needs

effectively.

For future researchers, this study isserved as a foundation for exploring

teaching strategies and their effectiveness in mathematics education. It will offer

valuable insights into the differences between strict and lenient teaching

approaches, informing future research endeavors in the field of mathematics

education.
 10

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

This study, entitled "Comparing the Efficacy of Strict and Lenient Teaching

Approaches in Mathematics Education: A Comparative Study," aims to address

the following research questions:

1. How is the academic performance of Grade 11STEM students at Benigno

S. Aquino National High School taught by strict teachers in mathematics?

2. How is the academic performance of Grade 11 STEM students at Benigno

S. Aquino National High School taught by lenient teachers in

mathematics?

3. What are the Subject grades of Grade 11 STEM students at Benigno S.

Aquino National High School towards strict teaching styles in

mathematics?

4. What are the Subject grades of Grade 11 STEM students at Benigno S.

Aquino National High School towards lenient teaching styles in

mathematics?

5. What are the average scores (quiz, activity, and exams) of Grade 11

STEM students at Benigno S. Aquino National High School towards

lenient teaching styles in mathematics?

6. What are the average scores (quiz, activity, and exams) of Grade 11

STEM students at Benigno S. Aquino National High School towards strict

teaching styles in mathematics?

 11

HYPOTHESIS

Null Hypothesis (Ho): There is no significant difference in the efficacy of

strict and lenient teaching approaches in mathematics education among Grade

11 STEM students at BSANHS.

Alternative Hypothesis (H1): There is a significant difference in the efficacy

of strict and lenient teaching approaches in mathematics education among Grade

11 STEM students at BSANHS.

DEFINITION OF TERMS

To make the readers deeply understand this study, the following terms are

operationally defined:

Comparison: Refers to the process of evaluating and analyzing the

outcomes achieved by each teaching approach, considering factors such as

student performance, engagement, and learning outcomes.

Effectiveness: Refers to the ability of the teaching methodology and

approach to produce measurable improvements in students' mathematical

knowledge, skills, and problem-solving abilities.

Learning Outcomes: Refers to the measurable results or achievements

that students demonstrate after participating in a learning experience.

Lenient Teacher: Refers to an educator who adopts a more relaxed

approach to classroom management, has moderate expectations for student

 12

performance, and employs a flexible methodology for presenting and explaining

mathematical concepts.

Student Attitudes and Motivation: Refers to the emotional and cognitive

responses of students towards their learning experiences.

Student Engagement: Refers to the level of active participation, interest,

and involvement of students in the learning process.

CHAPTER 2: METHODS

RESEARCH DESIGN

This study by comparative quantitative research aimed to investigate the

impact of teaching styles, especially strict and lenient approaches, on the

academic performance of Grade 11Science Technology Engineering

Mathematics (STEM)students at Benigno S. Aquino National High School.

Understanding how different teaching methods influence student outcomes can

provide valuable insights for educators and policymakers.

RESEARCH LOCALE AND SAMPLING PROCEDURES

Researchers effectively compared the effectiveness of strict and lenient

teachers in teaching mathematics among Grade 11 Science Technology

Engineering Mathematics (STEM) students at Benigno S. Aquino National High

School while minimizing biases and ensuring the validity and reliability of the

study results. The researchers conducted random sampling. Randomly select the
 13

population based on relevant variables (e.g., grade level, school type) and then

randomly sample from each stratum. This ensures representation from different

subgroups within the population.

DATA GATHERING

The researchers conducted a survey to compare the effectiveness of strict

and lenient teachers in teaching mathematics at Benigno S. Aquino National

High School among the Grade 11 Science, Technology, Engineering, and

Mathematics students. After gathering data, they will use the data that they’ve

collected on the students at BSANHS. Following this, the researchers will prove

which approach is more effective in teaching, whether it is lenient or strict. The

researchers will prove that by finding the average grades of strict and lenient

sections to solve the right hypothesis of this study.

SCOPE AND DELIMITATION

This study aimed to investigate and comprehend the variances in teaching

effectiveness between strict and lenient mathematics instructors within the

framework of Grade 11 Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics

(STEM) students at Benigno S. Aquino National High School.

The target population for this quantitative inquiry comprises 262 Grade 11

STEM students at Benigno S. Aquino National High School. The researcher

employed diverse quantitative research methods, such as giving a questionnaire

that proves whether their teacher is lenient or strict, and again, after proving
 14

every six different sections of grade 11 STEM at BSANHS, they provide another

questionnaire that proves whether their teacher is effective in teaching or not.

By concentrating on the encounters of Grade 11 STEM students at

Benigno S. Aquino National High School, this quantitative investigation facilitates

an in-depth exploration of the research question, offering valuable insights into

the effectiveness of strict and lenient teaching approaches in mathematics

education. The study's delimitations ensure that the findings are specific to the

context and may not be extrapolated to other educational institutions or settings.

RESEARCH INSTRUMENT

Based on the research question and variables, the researchers have

selected appropriate research instruments:

a) Surveys/Questionnaires: Develop surveys or questionnaires to collect data

on student perspectives from their teachers.

b) Collecting of Data: Collect the 3rd quarter grades in mathematics lenient

and strict teacher of Grade 11 STEM students to determine the most

effective teaching approach, whether lenient or strict, in mathematics.

DATA MANAGEMENT AND ANALYSIS

The researchers collected data by distributing questionnaires to six

different sections of Grade 11 STEM, for a total of 262 students in Citrine,

Dolomite, Granite, Jacinth, Onyx, and Rhyolite. The sections under the lenient

section are Onyx, Citrine, and Rhyolite. And the sections under the strict are
 15

dolomite, granite, and jacinth. After the researcher collected data, they distributed

another question that demanded their grades or ratings in basic calculus to

compare the efficacy of a lenient and strict approach to teaching mathematics.

And as a result, there’s a significant difference in the efficacy of strict and lenient

teaching approaches in mathematics education among Grade 11 STEM students

at BSANHS.

ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS

In legal protocol, the researcher obtained consent from our school’s

deans, research adviser, and principal of BSANHS Senior High. So, the

researchers proceeded to collect data and conduct research on Grade 11 STEM

students at BSANHS.

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

The researchers obtained the average data for the two teaching

approaches (lenient and strict): 131 students are under the lenient approach and

131 students are under the strict approach, for a total of 262. The average of a

data set is found by adding all the numbers in the data set and then dividing by

the number of values in the set, which is also called the mean. By this means,

the research will compare the lenient and strict approaches to determine if there

is a significant difference in the efficacy of strict and lenient teaching approaches

in mathematics education or not.

 16

CHAPTER 3: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

QUALITATIVE RESULTS

A total of 262 Grade 11 Science, Technology, Engineering, and

Mathematics (STEM) students were included in the analysis, including 131

students (50%) who proved lenient teaching approaches and 131 students (50%)

who proved strict teaching approaches, combining the two approaches for a for a

total of 100 percent. The mean under a lenient teaching approach averaged

92.59542, N = 131. The mean under a strict teaching approach averaged

91.08317, N = 131.

But each approach is divided by three; the lenient approach is shown

below:

Lenient
40%
35%
30%
25%
20% 37%
34%
15% 28%
10%
5%
0%
Citrine Onyx Rhyolite
 17

And the strict approach is shown below:

Strict
36%

35%

34%

33%

32% 35%
34%
31%

30% 31%

29%
Dolomite Granite Jacinth

These tables show the percentage of respondents in each group. These

studies focus on the grade averages of these six sections in their third quarter

grades in Basic Calculus. The grade data for each section will be shown below.

Citrine with 49 respondents

Citrine
14 13
12

10 9
8
6
6
4 4 4
4 3
2 2
2 1 1
0
87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98
 18

Dolomite with 41 respondents

Dolomite
14 13
12

10
8
8 7
6
6

4
2 2 2
2 1
0
87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96

Granite with 46 respondents

Granite
16
14
14
12
10 9
8
6 5
4
4 3 3
2 2
2 1 1 1 1
0
85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98
 19

Jacinth with 44 respondents

Jacinth
16
14
14
12
10
8
8 7
6 5
4 3
2 2 2
2 1
0
87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95

Onyx with 37 respondents

Onxy
9
8
8
7
6
6
5
4
4
3 3 3
3
2 2 2 2
2
1 1
1
0
0
86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98
 20

Rhyolite with 45 respondents

Rhyolite
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98

After collecting the data, the researcher will get the mean of each section

and the result shown below:

AVERAGE
93.18367346938
93.5 78 92.73333333333
93 33
92.5
91.64864864864
92 87 91.26829268292
91.17391304347
91.5 68 83
90.68181818181
91 82
90.5
90
89.5
89
Citrine Onyx Rhyolite Dolomite Granite Jacinth
LENIENT STRICT
 21

Then they get the mean of two approaches, as shown below:

Average
93

92.5

92

91.5
92.59541984732
82
91
91.03816793893
90.5 13

90
STRICT M. LENIENT M.

The researcher finds out the total average of lenient is 92.59541985, or

92.6; on the other hand, the strict total average is 91.03816794, or 91.04. It

means the lenient approach is more efficacious than the strict approach. The

table below shows that the lenient approach is the most efficacious in terms of

mathematical achievement.

100

95

90
STRICT
LENIENT
85

80

75
 22

This table shows that there is a gap in each sequence of grades when you

compare these variables. The lenient grade must be higher than the strict grade.

Therefor the researcher proves that Lenient teaching approach is more efficacy

than a strict teaching approach, but according to the graphs that has shown in

the results is they’re both efficacy in their way of teaching.

DISCUSSION

The debate over the most effective teaching approach in mathematics

education has long been contentious. On one end of the spectrum lies the strict,

discipline-focused approach characterized by high expectations, rigorous

standards, and a structured environment. On the other end is the lenient,

student-centered approach that emphasizes flexibility, creativity, and a

supportive learning atmosphere. This comparative study aims to analyze the

efficacy of both approaches by examining their impact on student performance,

engagement, and long-term mathematical understanding.

Strict Teaching Approach

Characteristics:

 High Expectations: Teachers set ambitious academic goals and expect

students to meet them.

 Structured Environment: Classes follow a rigorous schedule with clearly

defined rules and procedures.

 23

 Discipline and Accountability: Strict enforcement of classroom rules and

regular assessments to monitor progress.

 Teacher-Centered: The teacher directs the learning process, often using

lectures and structured exercises.

Advantages:

1. Clear Expectations: Students understand what is expected of them, which

can reduce confusion and foster a focused learning environment.

2. Consistency: Regular routines and structured lessons can help students

develop strong study habits and a disciplined approach to learning.

3. Performance: Research has shown that high expectations can lead to

higher student achievement, particularly in standardized testing.

Disadvantages:

1. Stress and Anxiety: The pressure to meet high standards can cause

stress, which may negatively impact some students' performance and

mental health.

2. Reduced Creativity: A highly structured environment may limit

opportunities for creative problem-solving and exploration of mathematical

concepts.
 24

3. Student-Teacher Relationship: Strict approaches can sometimes lead to

strained relationships, where students may feel less supported and more

like they are in a punitive environment.

Lenient Teaching Approach

Characteristics:

 Student-Centered: The learning process is guided by students' interests

and needs, often incorporating collaborative and hands-on activities.

 Flexible Environment: Lessons are adaptable, and the pace can be

adjusted based on students' understanding and engagement.

 Supportive Atmosphere: Emphasis on emotional and social support,

encouraging a positive and inclusive classroom culture.

 Focus on Understanding: Greater emphasis on conceptual understanding

rather than rote memorization.

Advantages:

1. Engagement: Students are often more engaged and motivated when they

have a say in their learning and can relate to the material personally.

2. Creativity: A flexible approach allows for creative problem-solving and

exploration, which can deepen understanding and make learning more

enjoyable.
 25

3. Positive Relationships: A supportive environment fosters strong student-

teacher relationships, which can enhance learning and personal

development.

Disadvantages:

1. Lack of Structure: Without clear guidelines and expectations, some

students may struggle with self-discipline and time management.

2. Inconsistent Performance: The variability in teaching methods and

expectations can lead to inconsistent academic outcomes.

3. Potential for Lower Achievement: In some cases, a less structured

approach might not adequately prepare students for the demands of

standardized tests and rigorous academic challenges.

Comparative Analysis

1. Student Performance:

o Strict Approach: Generally, leads to higher performance on

standardized tests due to the focus on mastery of specific skills and

content.

o Lenient Approach: Can result in deeper conceptual understanding

but may lead to lower performance on standardized assessments if

not balanced with skill mastery.

 26

2. Student Engagement:

o Strict Approach: Engagement may be high for students who thrive

under structure but low for those who feel overwhelmed by

pressure.

o Lenient Approach: Typically fosters higher engagement by catering

to students' interests and promoting an interactive learning

environment.

3. Long-Term Understanding:

o Strict Approach: Students may excel in procedural fluency but

might lack deep conceptual understanding if the focus is solely on

rote learning.

o Lenient Approach: Promotes a deeper understanding of

mathematical concepts and their real-world applications, although

students might need additional support to develop procedural

fluency

Both strict and lenient teaching approaches have their merits and

drawbacks. As the results of our research that Lenient is more efficacy according

to every Graphs that the researcher solves, in a total of 262 STEM students of

BSANHS every section has their different perspective in their teachers specially

in teaching mathematics and how they teach and treat their students inside the

classroom.
 27

CHAPTER 4: FIDINGS, CONCLUSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

FINDINGS

Initially, the sections that are under Lenient approach including Onyx,

Citrine, and Rhyolitedemonstrate an average of 92.59541985 which has an

impressive percentage of ratings in a subject of mathematics. Compared to

sections that under of Strict teaching approach are Dolomite, Granite, and

Jacinth has an average of 91.03816794 which is also impressive ratings in

subject oof mathematics.

This suggest that Lenient teaching approach are more efficacy than Strict

teaching approach, but both approaches are effective in teaching mathematics

base on the graph that has shown in the results of every section STEM student

of BSANHS.

Sections that under Lenient teaching approaches are Onyx, Citrine, and

Rhyoliteand their percentage of ratings Citrine = 93.18367347, Onyx =

91.64864865, Rhyolite = 92.73333333 the researcher add all three section’s

average ratings and divide the sum in their total section which is three sections

so the total of 92.59541985.

Sections that under Strict teaching approaches are Dolomite, Granite, and

Jacinth and their percentage of ratings Dolomite = 91.26829268, Granite =

91.17391304, Jacinth = 90.68181818the researcher add all three section’s

average ratings and divide the sum in their total section which is three sections

so the total of91.03816794.

 28

A 1.55725191 difference between the two teaching approach that makes

lenient teaching approach is more efficacy in teaching mathematics.

CONCLUSION

In comparing the efficacy of strict and lenient teaching approaches in

mathematics education, it is clear that both methodologies offer distinct

advantages and face unique challenges. Strict approaches, with their high

expectations and structured environments, can drive students to achieve high

performance, particularly in standardized testing. However, the pressure and

rigid structure can lead to stress and potentially hinder creativity and deep

understanding.

Lenient approaches, which emphasize student engagement, flexibility, and

a supportive atmosphere, can foster a more profound conceptual understanding

and make learning enjoyable. Nevertheless, the lack of structure may lead to

inconsistent academic performance and difficulties in self-discipline for some

students.

The most effective strategy for mathematics education likely lies in a

balanced approach that combines the strengths of both strict and lenient

methods. Educators should strive to maintain high academic standards and clear

expectations while also creating a flexible, supportive environment that

encourages student engagement and creativity. By integrating the advantages of

both approaches, teachers can better cater to the diverse needs of their

students, promoting both high achievement and deep understanding in

mathematics. This balanced methodology not only prepares students for

 29

academic success but also equips them with the skills and confidence to apply

their mathematical knowledge in real-world contexts.

Both strict and lenient teaching approaches have their merits and

drawbacks. The most effective mathematics education likely involves a balanced

approach that incorporates the strengths of both methods. Teachers should

maintain high expectations and provide structure to ensure mastery of

fundamental skills while also fostering a supportive, engaging environment that

encourages creativity and deep conceptual understanding. By combining

elements of both strict and lenient approaches, educators can better meet the

diverse needs of their students and prepare them for a variety of academic and

real-world challenges.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the comparative analysis of strict and lenient teaching

approaches in mathematics education, the following recommendations are

proposed to optimize student outcomes:

Adopt a Balanced Approach:

Integrate Structure with Flexibility: Maintain clear expectations and a

structured learning environment while allowing flexibility to adapt lessons to

students' needs and interests.

Blend Direct Instruction with Exploratory Learning: Use direct instruction to

ensure mastery of fundamental skills and concepts, complemented by

 30

exploratory and hands-on activities to deepen understanding and foster

creativity.

Focus on Student-Centered Strategies:

Differentiate Instruction: Tailor teaching methods to address the diverse

learning styles and abilities of students. Provide additional support and

challenges as needed to help all students succeed.

Promote Active Learning: Encourage student participation through

collaborative projects, discussions, and problem-solving activities that make

learning engaging and relevant.

Foster a Supportive Learning Environment:

Build Positive Relationships: Create a classroom culture that values

respect, support, and positive reinforcement. Strong student-teacher

relationships can enhance motivation and confidence.

Address Emotional and Social Needs: Recognize and address the

emotional and social aspects of learning. Provide a safe space for students to

express themselves and seek help when needed.

Set High Expectations and Provide Consistent Feedback:

Set Ambitious but Realistic Goals: Challenge students with high academic

standards while ensuring that goals are achievable and aligned with their

capabilities.
 31

Offer Regular and Constructive Feedback: Provide timely and specific

feedback to help students understand their progress and areas for improvement.

Celebrate successes to boost confidence and motivation.

Encourage Conceptual Understanding and Real-World Applications:

Emphasize Deep Learning: Focus on developing a deep understanding of

mathematical concepts rather than rote memorization. Use real-world examples

to illustrate the relevance and application of mathematics.

Incorporate Technology and Resources: Utilize technology, manipulatives,

and other resources to enhance learning and make abstract concepts more

tangible.

Professional Development for Teachers:

Ongoing Training: Invest in professional development programs that equip

teachers with the skills to effectively balance strict and lenient approaches.

Encourage collaboration and sharing of best practices among educators.

Reflective Practice: Promote a culture of reflective practice where

teachers regularly assess and adjust their teaching strategies based on student

feedback and performance data.

 32

BIBLIOGRAPHY

 Angkiko, (2019), Lenient or Strict? Effective Approach in Teaching, Retrieve from

https://www.scribd.com/document/436465195/Lenient-or-Strict-Effective-

Approach-in-Teaching

 Brown, A. (2019). The Impact of Strict Teaching on Student Learning in

Mathematics. Journal of Educational Psychology, Retrieved from 45(2), 123-135.

 Dinglasan, E. at, el, (2018), A Cross-Country Analysis of Students' Evaluation of

University Teaching: Relationship between Faculty Behavior, Student Satisfaction

and Teaching Quality,https://www.proquest.com/docview/2239576889?pq-

origsite=gscholar&fromopenview=true&sourcetype=Scholarly%20Journals

 Garcia, M., & Cruz, L. (2021). Exploring the Impact of Lenient Teaching

Approaches on Student Learning Outcomes: A Review. Retrieve from Philippine

Journal of Education, 48(3), 211-225.

 Giray, L. (2021), Values at Work: An Evaluation on the Work Values of Filipino

Secondary School Teachers,

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Louie-Giray/publication/352340364_Values_

at_Work_An_Evaluation_on_the_Work_Values_of_Filipino_Secondary_School_

Teachers/links/60cabbb0458515dc17895e87/Values-at-Work-An-Evaluation-on-

the-Work-Values-of-Filipino-Secondary-School-Teachers.pdf

 Gonzales, et, al, (2021), The Impact of Strict Teaching Approaches on Student

Learning Outcomes: A Comprehensive Review, Retrive from Philippine Journal

of Education, 45(2), 123-137.

 33

 Johnson, M., et al. (2018). Leniency in Mathematics Teaching: A Qualitative

Study. Journal of Mathematics Education, Retrieved from 20(4), 301-315.

 Killeen, (2018), Is It Better to Have a Strict Teacher or a Fun Teacher? Strict,

Believe It or Not, Retrieve from https://studentedge.org/article/is-it-better-to-have-

a-strict-teacher-or-a-fun-teacher-strict-believe-it-or-not

 Kim, S., & Park, H., (2021), Comparing the Efficacy of Strict and Lenient

Teaching Approaches: A Scoping Review of the Literature, Retrive from 39,

100442. DOI: 10.1016/j.edurev.2021.100442

 Laziza, E. (2023), Should A Teacher Be Strict or Friendly With Students? :Vol. 3

No. 35 (2023): INNOVATION IN THE MODERN EDUCATION SYSTEM,

Retrieved from (pp: 82-87):

https://interonconf.org/index.php/usa/article/view/8653/7355.

 Peguero, A.(2018), Too Strict or Too Lenient?: Examining The Role of School

Strictness With Educational and Juvenile Justice Outcomes, Retrieved from

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02732173.2018.1478350

 Santos, E. (2019). Perceptions of Strict Teaching Approaches in Philippine

Mathematics Education. Journal of Philippine Educational Psychology, Retrieved

from 20(2), 89-101.

APPENDICES

Appendix A

Questionnaire

CONCEPCION HOLY CROSS COLLEGE, INC.

 34

Minane, Concepcion, Tarlac

SCHOOL OF TEACHER EDUCATION
2nd Semester – A.Y 2023-2024

Research in Mathematics

Please read each statement carefully and indicate your level of agreement or

disagreement by selecting the appropriate option. There are Four response

options ranging from " Most of the time " to "Never”. Please check the box

corresponding to the option that best reflects your opinion or experience for each

statement. Your responses should be based on your personal experiences and

perceptions as a mathematics teacher. There are no right or wrong answers, so

please respond honestly. Your feedback is valuable and will be used to gain

insights into the challenges and experiences of mathematics teachers when

handling subjects outside their major field.

Name (Optional): School Name:

Age: Contact Information (Optional):

Grade/Level:

4-MT – Most of the time 2-R – Rarely

3-S – Sometimes 1-N – Never

QUESTION MT S R N
 35

1. My teacher encouraged open communication and

approachability in the classroom.

2. My teacher could discourage us from asking

questions and getting assistance.

3. My teacher is teaching contends that a more

relaxed learning environment can encourage

students' creativity, interest, and ability to think

independently.

4. My teacher is teaching contends that a more, strict

learning environment can encourage students'.

5. My teacher is approachable, understanding, and

caring.

6. My teacher is not approachable, understanding, and

caring.

7. My teacher let us redo our assignment because it’s

wrong.

8. My teacher won’t us redo our assignment because

it’s wrong.

9. My teacher gives us remedial to catch up our low

scores in exam, quizzes and activities

10. My teacher does not allow us to take remedial to

catch up our low scores in exam, quizzes and

 36

activities

11. My teacher maintains standards for academic

achievement, gives precise directions, and relaxing

environment.

12. My teacher maintains high standards for academic

achievement, gives precise directions, and

maintains strict regulations.

13. My teacher considers late in our class

14. My teacher does not consider late in our class

15. My teacher allows us to use calculator in our

activities and quizzes

16. My teacher does not allow us to use calculator in

our activities and quizzes

This questionnaire preferred by the researchers of Concepcion Holy Cross

College Inc.

Researchers

Lumandas, Luis Fernando Z.

Calar, Jhonas V.

Caparas, Jimwel Byran

 37

Terencio, Jazmine Rose A.

Punzal, Johncedrick S.

Appendix B

Second Questionnaire

CONCEPCION HOLY CROSS COLLEGE, INC.

Minane, Concepcion, Tarlac
SCHOOL OF TEACHER EDUCATION
 38

2nd Semester – A.Y 2023-2024

Research in Mathematics

Your feedback is valuable and will be used to gain insights into the challenges

and experiences of mathematics teachers when handling subjects outside their

major field.

Name (Optional):

Age:

Grade/Level and Section (Mandatory):

School Name:

Basic Calculus 3rd Grading Ratings/Grade (Mandatory):

Appendix C

Grades of STEM students in BSHANS

 39

AVERAGE
93.18367346938
93.5 78 92.73333333333
93 33
92.5
91.64864864864
92 87 91.26829268292
91.17391304347
91.5 68 83
90.68181818181
91 82
90.5
90
89.5
89
Citrine Onyx Rhyolite Dolomite Granite Jacinth
LENIENT STRICT

100

95

90
STRICT
LENIENT
85

80

75

Appendix D

Letter of permission
40
41
 42

Name: Calar, Jhonas V.

Email Address: calarjhonas0@gmail.com
Mobile Number: 09484166114

PERSONAL DATA:

Name: Calar, Jhonas V.

Address: San Vicente Calius, Concepcion, Tarlac
Age: 22
Date of Birth: November 18, 2001
Place of Birth: JBL San Fernando, Pampanga
Nationality: Filipino
Religion: Catholic
Civil Status: Single
Languages: Filipino, English, Kapampangan
Height: 5’3
Parents:
Gilbert Calar
Menchie Calar

EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND: 
 Elementary School
Madapdap Elementary School
April 2014
 Junior High School
Dolores National High School
April 2018
 Senior High School
Benigno S. Aquino National High School
2020
 College
College Concepcion Holy Cross College, INC. (currently 3rd year)
 43

Name: Caparas,Jimwel Bryan

Email Address: 2021.caparas.jimwelbryan@gmail.com
Mobile Number: 0948918775

PERSONAL DATA:

Name: Caparas,Jimwel Bryan

Address: Alfonso, Concepcion, Tarlac
Age: 21
Date of Birth: July 1, 2002
Place of Birth: Ospital Ning Angeles
Nationality: Filipino
Religion: Catholic
Civil Status: Single
Languages: Filipino, English
Height: 5’6
Parents: Daisy Caparas

EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND: 

 Elementary School
Alfonso elementary school

April 2014

 Junior High School

Dr. Adelaido C. Bernardo National High School

April 2018

 Senior High School

Benigno S. Aquino National High School

2020

 College
College Concepcion Holy Cross College, INC. (currently 3rd year)
 44

Name: Lumandas, Luis Fernando Z.

Email Address: Lumandasluis23@gmail.com
Mobile Number: 0915 925 8801

PERSONAL DATA:

Name: Lumandas, Luis Fernando Z.

Address: Jefmin, Concepcion, Tarlac
Age: 21
Date of Birth: January 23, 2003
Place of Birth: Tarlac City
Nationality: Filipino
Religion: Catholic
Civil Status: Single
Languages: Filipino, Ilocano, Kapampangan
Height: 5’7
Parents: Rodolfo S. Lumandas
Maria Concepcion Z. Lumandas

EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND: 

 Elementary School
Jefmin, Concepcion, Tarlac

June 2015

 Junior High School

San Aurelio National High School Pangasinan

With Honor

April 2019

 Senior High School

San Aurelio National High School Pangasinan

With honor

June 2021

 College
College Concepcion Holy Cross College, INC. (currently 3rd year)
 45

Name:Punzal,Johncedrick
Email Address:johncedrickpunzal190@gmail.com
Mobile Number: 09704774690

PERSONAL DATA:

Name:Punzal,Johncedrick
Address: Magao, Concepcion Tarlac
Age: 21
Date of Birth: March15, 2003
Place of Birth: Concepcion Tarlac
Nationality:Filipino
Religion: Catholic
Civil Status: Single
Languages: Filipino
Height: 5’5
Parents: Rhea Punzal
Eric Punzal

EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND: 

 Elementary School
Magao Elementary School

April 2015

 Junior High School

Benigno S Aquino National High School

April 2019

 Senior High School

Benigno S Aquino National High School

April 2021

 College
College Concepcion Holy Cross College, INC. (currently 3rd year)
 46

Name: Terencio, Jazmine Rose A.

Email Address:acostajazminerose015@gmail.com
Mobile Number: 09814608203

PERSONAL DATA:

Name: Terencio, Jazmine Rose A.

Address: Dapdap Bamban Tarlac
Age: 22
Date of Birth: August 07, 2002
Place of Birth: Bamban, Tarlac
Nationality: Filipino
Religion: BORN AGAIN CHRISTIAN
Civil Status: Single
Languages: Filipino, English
Height: 5
Parents: Monaliza A. Terencio.
Rev. Junie O. Terencio

EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND: 
 Elementary School
Dallidagum Foundation Inc.
June 2015
 Junior High School
Dallidagum Foundation Inc. Highschool
With Honor
April 2019
 Senior High School
Dapdap Senior High School
With honor
June 2021
 College
College Concepcion Holy Cross College, INC. (currently 3rd year)