Statically Analysis of Impact of Study of Teaching Mathematics to Early Primary School Students using Locally Available Materials

Download Full-Text PDF Cite this Publication

Text Only Version

Statically Analysis of Impact of Study of Teaching Mathematics to Early Primary School Students using Locally Available Materials

Dr. Dharm Raj Singh

Department of Computer Application, Jagatpur PG College,

Varanasi, India

Dr. Ranjana Singh Corresponding Author: Ghamahapur, Gangapur, Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh, India

AbstractThis paper presents the study of impact of teaching mathematics to school students using locally available materials. The study is based on pre-test and post-test study on Control and Experimental groups. The control group was taught by traditional method, i.e. without using any extra teaching- learning tools while experimental group was received teaching by locally available materials as teaching-learning tools. The study has done on the students of two different schools of class 1 and 2. The data were collected using questionnaire format on different concepts like addition, subtraction and data handling. Pre-test data has collected initially without giving any instruction to the students and post-test data were collected after classroom teaching to both control and experimental groups. After analysis, it found that there are some meaningful differences between the score of control and experimental groups. The study shows that experimental group has better achievement which had received instruction by locally available materials in comparison to control group which was instructed without any teaching learning tools.

Keywords Introduction Resources, Mathematics, data Analysis.

  1. INTRODUCTION

    Education encounters, in current times, challenges in all aspects of social, financial & educational life; the most important of which are over-population, over-knowledge, education philosophy development & the change of teachers responsibility, the spread of illiteracy, be short of the staff & the technological development & mass media [9]. The purpose of using manipulative in mathematics is to help the student understand abstract concepts. Successful use of manipulative occurs when they are used as symbols as opposed to literal representations of what they are (e.g. pattern blocks representing their shapes with no use beyond such representation). For children to gain an understanding using manipulative, they must identify the mathematical concept being learned with the manipulative used ([6, 7, 8]). Manipulative use is also seen as a way of increasing mathematical understanding. Manipulative are typically concrete objects used to represent mathematical concepts ([7, 8]) It should not be amazing that current research has established a substantial relationship between the use of calculating materials and students' achievement in the mathematics classroom. Learning theorists have suggested for some time that children's' concepts evolve through direct interaction with the environment, and materials provide a

    vehicle through which this can happen. This message has been conveyed in a number of ways: Piaget suggested that concepts are formed by children through a reconstruction of reality, not through an imitation of it [1]; Dewey argued for the provision of firsthand experiences in a child's educational program [2]; Bruner indicated that knowing is a process, not a product[3]; and Dienes, whose work specifically relates to mathematics instruction [4]; suggested that children need to build or construct their own concepts from within rather than having those concepts imposed upon them. Lesh has suggested that manipulative materials can be effectively used as an intermediary between the real world and the mathematical world [5].

    Mathematics is the study of number, quantity and space. Therefore, the basic concepts of mathematics can be easily explained by using locally available materials. The counting is done by fingers since very large times. Hands can be used to measure the length of any solid object. The other materials like stones can be used for counting. The different types of fruits, seeds and leaves can be used to explain different geometrical shapes. These materials also can be used to explain make different patterns. These materials are easily available everywhere without spending any cost. Thus these materials may be very popular teaching-learning tools to explain different mathematical concepts. This research study describes the impacts of these materials to explain different mathematical concepts and their impact on learning enhancement.

  2. METHODOLOGY

    1. Research Model

      This research work has done on early primary grade students of class 2nd standards. The research work was conducted on pre-test post-test method. Two groups two groups, control group and experimental group has taken. The study has done on concepts addition, subtraction and geometry. Before starting our research pre-test of students were taken using open-ended questionnaires. After pre-test the control group was taught by the general method while experimental group were demonstrated with locally available materials like fruits, seeds, leaves, marbles etc. After completion of course, post- test has taken.

    2. Achievement test and Data Collection

    The achievement test has done on two different primary school students. To test for achievement of students 5 open ended questionnaire of 50 maximum marks were prepared on three concepts as addition, subtraction and geometry. The same questionnaires were presented to both control and experimental group students. The study has started in monsoon session. About two months time has taken to teach these concepts to the students. After completion of course, post-test has organized. Again 5 different questionnaires have prepared and same questionnaire has presented to both control and experimental group students. The data from students achievement test were collected.

  3. DATA ANALYSIS

    The recorded data were processed to see the impact of locally available materials for teaching mathematics. The recorded data and their analysis have given in following tables. The result accuracy is .0000 significant digits. The performance comparison is made on Mean (average) value of total data and Standard Deviation (SD) is calculated as follows:

    ( x

    ( x

    x) 2

    x) 2

    N

    Table 1 shows the pre-test results of control group students. From the above results we can see that Mean (Average) marks obtained by simple teaching method is 13.7619.

    Table2- Post- test obtained marks by student of Control Group

    Post-Test of Control Group

    S.N

    Obtained marks (maximum mark=50) x

    (x x) 2

    1

    3

    178.8906

    2

    7

    87.89063

    3

    5

    129.3906

    4

    21

    21.39063

    5

    4

    153.1406

    6

    31

    213.8906

    7

    35

    346.8906

    8

    9

    54.39063

    9

    37

    425.3906

    10

    3

    178.8906

    11

    6

    107.6406

    12

    23

    43.89063

    13

    26

    92.64063

    14

    70.14063

    15

    42

    656.6406

    16

    2

    206.6406

    Mean

    16.375

    185.4844

    From the above results we can see that Mean (Average)

    From the above results we can see that Mean (Average)

    Table 2 shows the post-test results of control group students. marks obtained by simple teaching method is 16.375.

    SD

    i1

    N

    Test

    No. of Students

    Mean

    Standard Deviation

    Mean Difference

    Pre-Test

    21

    13.7619

    12.73505

    2.6131

    Post-Test

    16

    16.375

    13.61926

    Test

    No. of Students

    Mean

    Standard Deviation

    Mean Difference

    Pre-Test

    21

    13.7619

    12.73505

    2.6131

    Post-Test

    16

    16.375

    13.61926

    Table3- Pre- test and Post-test Results of Control Group

    Where x is the data item i.e. obtained marks by student, x is the Mean of data item i.e. Average marks obtained by all students and N is the total number of students.

    Pre-Test of Control Group

    S.N

    Obtained marks (maximum mark=50) x

    (x x) 2

    1

    1

    164.0838

    2

    3

    116.8457

    3

    2

    139.4648

    4

    21

    51.703

    5

    1

    164.0838

    6

    29

    230.7507

    7

    23

    84.46492

    8

    5

    77.60764

    9

    31

    295.5126

    10

    1

    164.0838

    11

    0

    190.7028

    12

    21

    51.703

    13

    23

    84.46492

    14

    7

    46.36956

    15

    37

    537.7984

    16

    19

    26.94108

    17

    2

    139.4648

    18

    35

    449.0364

    19

    4

    96.22668

    20

    0

    190.7028

    21

    24

    103.8459

    Mean

    13.7619

    162.1814

    Pre-Test of Control Group

    S.N

    Obtained marks (maximum mark=50) x

    (x x) 2

    1

    1

    164.0838

    2

    3

    116.8457

    3

    2

    139.4648

    4

    21

    51.703

    5

    1

    164.0838

    6

    29

    230.7507

    7

    23

    84.46492

    8

    5

    77.60764

    9

    31

    295.5126

    10

    1

    164.0838

    11

    0

    190.7028

    12

    21

    51.703

    13

    23

    84.46492

    14

    7

    46.36956

    15

    37

    537.7984

    16

    19

    26.94108

    17

    2

    139.4648

    18

    35

    449.0364

    19

    4

    96.22668

    20

    0

    190.7028

    21

    24

    103.8459

    Mean

    13.7619

    162.1814

    Table1- Pre- test obtained marks by student of Control Group

    Table 3 shows the pre-test and post test results of control group students. From the above results we can see the impact of simple teaching method is 2.6131.

    Table 4- Pre- test obtained marks by student of Experimental Group

    Pre-Test of Experimental Group

    S.N

    Obtained marks (maximum mark=50)

    x

    (x x) 2

    1

    1

    422.9283

    2

    3

    344.6674

    3

    16

    30.97167

    4

    30

    71.14551

    5

    10

    133.7543

    6

    27

    29.53683

    7

    19

    6.580354

    8

    36

    208.3629

    9

    35

    180.4933

    10

    3

    344.6674

    11

    1

    422.9283

    12

    24

    5.928154

    13

    27

    29.53683

    14

    8

    184.0152

    15

    38

    270.102

    16

    29

    55.27595

    17

    9

    157.8848

    18

    42

    417.5802

    19

    15

    43.10211

    20

    18

    12.71079

    21

    37

    238.2324

    22

    40

    339.8411

    23

    28

    41.40639

    Mean

    21.56522

    173.5501

    Pre-Test of Experimental Group

    S.N

    Obtained marks (maximum mark=50)

    x

    (x x) 2

    1

    1

    422.9283

    2

    3

    344.6674

    3

    16

    30.97167

    4

    30

    71.14551

    5

    10

    133.7543

    6

    27

    29.53683

    7

    19

    6.580354

    8

    36

    208.3629

    9

    35

    180.4933

    10

    3

    344.6674

    11

    1

    422.9283

    12

    24

    5.928154

    13

    27

    29.53683

    14

    8

    184.0152

    15

    38

    270.102

    16

    29

    55.27595

    17

    9

    157.8848

    18

    42

    417.5802

    19

    15

    43.10211

    20

    18

    12.71079

    21

    37

    238.2324

    22

    40

    339.8411

    23

    28

    41.40639

    Mean

    21.56522

    173.5501

    Table 4 shows the pre-test results of Experimental group students. From the above results we can see that Mean (Average) marks obtained by simple teaching method is 21.56522.

    Table 5- Post – test obtained marks by student of Experimental Group

    Post-Test of Experimental Group

    S.N

    Obtained marks (maximum mark=50) x

    (x x) 2

    1

    5

    565.9389

    2

    8

    432.2021

    3

    21

    60.67584

    4

    36

    51.99174

    5

    21

    60.67584

    6

    32

    10.3075

    7

    27

    3.202203

    8

    43

    201.9392

    9

    41

    149.097

    10

    17

    138.9916

    11

    9

    391.6231

    12

    30

    1.465383

    13

    34

    27.14962

    14

    45

    262.7813

    15

    38

    84.83386

    16

    29

    0.044323

    17

    40

    125.676

    18

    39

    104.2549

    19

    32

    10.3075

    Mean

    28.78947

    141.2188

    Table 5 shows the post-test results of Experimental group students. From the above results we can see that Mean (Average) marks obtained by simple teaching method is 28.78947.

    Table 6- Pre- test and Post-test Results of Experimental Group

    Test

    No. of Students

    Mean

    Standard Deviation

    Mean Difference

    Pre- Test

    23

    21.56522

    13.17384

    7.22425

    Post- Test

    19

    28.78947

    11.88355

    Table 6 shows the pre-test and post test results of experimental group students. From the above results we can see the impact of simple teaching method is 7.22425.

    Table 7- Comparison of Learning Enhancement in Control and Experimental group

    Test

    Mean Difference

    Treatment Impact

    Control

    2.6131

    4.61115

    Experimental

    7.22425

    By examining table 7, it can be seen that there is some meaningful difference on achievement of students of experimental group. The learning enhancement of students using locally available materials is 4.61115, that is, about 9 percent.

    The results of the recorded data show that students are more successful on post-experimental processes of experimental group than post-experimental process of control group. This result can be interpreted that the receiving of lectures using local materials on student is more effective on comparison to receiving lectures by traditional approach.

  4. CONCLUSION

This research study shows that the different concrete materials which are available in our local surrounding may be very effective educational tools for mathematics learning. This study shows that there are significant changes in learning enhancement to the group of students to whom locally available materials are used to teach mathematics.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The authors express acknowledgment to teachers Mr. Shyam Narayan Verma and Surendra Pratap Pal for their contributions and valuable suggestions for data collection. The authors also express acknowledgement to the students, who have participated in this research study.

REFERENCES

  1. Piaget, Jean. The Psychology of Intelligence. Boston: Routledge and Kegan, 1971.

  2. Dewey, John. Experience and Education. New York: Macmillan Co., 1938.

  3. Bruner, Jerome S. The Process of Education. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1960.

  4. Dienes, Zoltan P. Building Up Mathematics. Rev. ed. London: Hutchinson Educational, 1969.

  5. Lesh, Richard A. "Applied Problem Solving in Early Mathematics Learning." Unpublished working paper, Northwestern University, 1919.

  6. Bruner, J. (1967). Toward a theory of instruction. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

  7. Bruner, J. (1973). Beyond the information given. New York: W.W. Norton & Company Inc.

  8. Uttal, D., Scudder, K., & DeLouche, J. (1997). Manipulatives as symbols: A new perspective on the use of concrete objects to teach mathematics. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 18, 37- 54.

  9. Aloraini, Sara Ibrahim, 2005. Distance learning. Alretha Press, Dammam, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *