**Open Access**-
**Total Downloads**: 91 -
**Authors :**Dr. Dharm Raj Singh , Dr. Ranjana Singh -
**Paper ID :**IJERTV8IS080201 -
**Volume & Issue :**Volume 08, Issue 08 (August 2019) -
**Published (First Online):**31-08-2019 -
**ISSN (Online) :**2278-0181 -
**Publisher Name :**IJERT -
**License:**This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License

#### 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.

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.

METHODOLOGY

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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 Unpublished working paper, Northwestern University, 1919.

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

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

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.

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