The main purpose of the study was to identify the effectiveness of the 4 A’s strategy on triangle congruence teaching.

          Specifically, it sought to answer the following questions:

1. Is there a significant difference between the mean score of the students exposed to 4 A’s strategy and the mean score of the students exposed to conventional strategy?
2. Is there a significant difference between the mean score of the students exposed to 4 A’s strategy and the mean score of the students exposed to conventional strategy as grouped according to;

2.1. Sex

2.1.1. Male 2.1.2. Female

2.2. Ability group

2.2.1. Excellent

2.2.2. Very Satisfactory

2.2.3. Satisfactory

2.2.4. Needs Improvement

          The study used the quasi - experimental design employing the following stages: pretest, experimentation, and posttest.

          The researcher started with the initial preparation of writing a request to conduct the study. The time for the experimentation was 25 school days that covered the whole topic on triangle congruence.

          The researcher used the pretest and posttest items in the regional and division achievement test. Some items were taken from the journals in mathematics and from suggested questions from the prepared lesson plans for geometry by the Restructured Basic Education Curriculum (RBEC).

           Interpretation of the data was done; the mean , t-test for independent and dependent were used. The following findings came out: The students who were exposed to 4 A’s strategy showed greater improvement on their posttest than those students exposed to conventional strategy. It showed the mean difference of 9.65 which was significant at .05 level of significance.

           When the students were grouped according to sex, the male mean difference was 10.63 and the female mean difference was 8.58 which are both significant at .05 level of significance. In the ability group the students exposed to 4 A’s strategy showed also a great improvement since the mean difference were 3,15.33,8.75, and 9.80 for the ability group; the interpretations of which were excellent, very satisfactory, satisfactory, and needs improvement respectively.

The t-test of independent mean for the experimental and control groups was 6.03 which is significant at .05 level significance. The t-test for dependent mean of the experimental and control groups were 12.61 and 5.10,respectively, both were significant at .05 level of significance.

The t-test for independent mean for male students on experimental and control groups was 4.11 which is significant at .05 level of significance. The t-test for dependent mean of the experimental and control groups were 7.88 and 3.20 respectively, both significant at .05 level of significance.

The t-test of independent mean for female students experimental and control groups was 4.53 which is significant at .05 level of significance. The t-test for dependent mean on the female students of experimental and control groups were 10.83 and 4.00, respectively, which were both significant at .05 level of significance.

The t-test of independent mean for the ability group Excellent of experimental and control groups was 4.22 which was significant at .05 level of significance.

The t-test for dependent mean of the ability group Excellent of the experimental and control groups were 55 and 49, respectively, which are both significant at .05 level of significance.

The t-test of independent mean for the ability group Very Satisfactory of the experimental and control groups was 3.29 and is significant at .05 level of significance.

The t-test of dependent mean of the ability group Very Satisfactory were 7.95 and 1.69. The first was significant at .05 level of significance while the second is not significant at .05 level of significance.

The t-test for independent mean of the ability group, Satisfactory was 5.21, significant at .05 level of significance. And the t-test for dependent mean of the ability group Satisfactory were 12.78 and 4.78 which were both significant at .05 level of significance.

The t-test for independent mean of the ability group, Needs Improvement was 4.62 which was significant at .05 level of significance. And the t-test for dependent mean of the ability group Needs Improvement of the experimental and control groups were 6.88 and 3.19 which are both significant at .05 level of significance.

          The hypothesis was tested using the t-test both dependent and independent mean difference were used.

          Out of seven hypotheses only one, the hypothesis no.4, was accepted and the rest were all rejected.

From the findings of the study, the following conclusions were drawn:

1. The students learn more when they are given a chance to explore the concepts on their own.
2. The male students learned more when they were given a task to be accomplished rather than when they were mere listeners. 
3. The female students learned more when given a chance to talk/report their respective output.
4. The students who belonged to the ability group Excellent from both Experimental and Control groups did not differ from each other in their performance after they were exposed to different strategies.
5. The students who belonged to the ability group Very Satisfactory performed well when they were exposed to several teaching strategies.
6. The students who belonged to the ability group Satisfactory performed better when exposed to their peer groups.
7. The students who belonged to the ability group Needs Improvement improved their performance when given a chance to explore their hidden skills and ability.

The following are the recommendations of the researcher based on the findings:

1. The School administrators have to provide trainings to the mathematics teachers on the 4A’s Teaching Strategy. They must allow teachers to pursue higher education like graduate studies in order to enhance their teaching ability.
2. Mathematics teachers must let male students perform learning activities because these students learn more if they are engaged in discussion.
3. Teachers must let female students perform activities and explain them because these students learn more if they are given the chance to explain activities to the class.
4. The teacher must let students under the ability group, Excellent have certain tasks assigned to facilitate group activities.
5. The teacher must let students who are classified under the ability group, Very Satisfactory perform the activity among themselves.
6. The teacher must let the ability group, Satisfactory mingle with the other members of the class because they learn more if they are engaged in group discussions.
7. The teacher must let the ability group, Needs Improvement explore the concepts in their own level of understanding so that they can not forget the concepts and ideas learned in the particular topics.
8. The teacher should consider the individual differences of students.

Books

De Leon, Cecile M. Geometry. Manila: JTW Corporation, 2002.

Deauna, Melecio C. Elementary Statistics for Basic Education. Quezon City: Phoenix Publishing House, 1996.

Immerzeel, George L. Geometric Activities for Early Childhood Education. New Jersey: American Book Company, 1973.

Librero, Felix. How to Write a Thesis Proposal. Laguna: College of Agriculture Publications Program University of the Philippines Los Baños, 1996.