 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): 31082019
 ISSN (Online) : 22780181
 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 pretest and posttest 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 teachinglearning 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. Pretest data has collected initially without giving any instruction to the students and posttest 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 overpopulation, overknowledge, 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 teachinglearning 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 pretest posttest 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 pretest of students were taken using openended questionnaires. After pretest 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, posttest 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 pretest 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
PostTest 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 posttest 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
PreTest
21
13.7619
12.73505
2.6131
PostTest
16
16.375
13.61926
Test
No. of Students
Mean
Standard Deviation
Mean Difference
PreTest
21
13.7619
12.73505
2.6131
PostTest
16
16.375
13.61926
Table3 Pre test and Posttest 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.
PreTest 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
PreTest 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 pretest 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
PreTest 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
PreTest 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 pretest 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
PostTest 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 posttest 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 Posttest 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 pretest 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 postexperimental processes of experimental group than postexperimental 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.