Towards the Solution of Abysmal Performance of Fraction in Navrongo Presbyterian Primary School: Comparing the Sets of Objects and Paper Folding Designed Interventions

C. Subaar, Juliana Awune Asechoma, Vincent Ninmaal Asigri, Victor Alebna, Francis Xavier Adams
{"title":"Towards the Solution of Abysmal Performance of Fraction in Navrongo Presbyterian Primary School: Comparing the Sets of Objects and Paper Folding Designed Interventions","authors":"C. Subaar, Juliana Awune Asechoma, Vincent Ninmaal Asigri, Victor Alebna, Francis Xavier Adams","doi":"10.11648/j.sjams.20180604.12","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This is an interventional study sought to find the difference in the performance of pupils who were taught using sets of objects (sets model) and paper folding activities, to solve word problems involving addition and subtraction of proper fractions. A total of thirty pupils, of Navrongo Presbyterian Primary School Basic Five A, were used in the study. A well-structured lesson, with teaching and learning materials, was used. A pretest and posttest assessments were deployed to ascertain the effect of the interventional teaching strategies. Prior, to the intervention of the study, 73.3% of the pupils (total of 30) scored below the average mark ranging from 5-7. These represented the experimental group of the study. 26.7% of the pupils (control group) scored the average mark. However, after the intervention, both strategies (sets of objects and paper folding activities) showed remarkable performance. Although both strategies showed remarkable performance in pupils, 59% of the experimental group (total of 22 pupils) scored above the average mark in the paper folding as compared to 50% of the experimental group who scored above the average mark in the usage of sets model. While 87.5% of the control group scored above the average marks ranging from 8-10 during the paper folding activities, 62.5% of the control group scored above the average marks from 8-10 during the use of sets model. The posttest results of both the control and experimental groups taught using paper folding performed far better compared to sets model. The study has shown that pupils’ level of performance had improved drastically with the help of paper folding method. In conclusion, paper folding activities help pupils to appreciate word problems involving addition and subtraction of proper fractions.","PeriodicalId":422938,"journal":{"name":"Science Journal of Applied Mathematics and Statistics","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-09-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Science Journal of Applied Mathematics and Statistics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.11648/j.sjams.20180604.12","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This is an interventional study sought to find the difference in the performance of pupils who were taught using sets of objects (sets model) and paper folding activities, to solve word problems involving addition and subtraction of proper fractions. A total of thirty pupils, of Navrongo Presbyterian Primary School Basic Five A, were used in the study. A well-structured lesson, with teaching and learning materials, was used. A pretest and posttest assessments were deployed to ascertain the effect of the interventional teaching strategies. Prior, to the intervention of the study, 73.3% of the pupils (total of 30) scored below the average mark ranging from 5-7. These represented the experimental group of the study. 26.7% of the pupils (control group) scored the average mark. However, after the intervention, both strategies (sets of objects and paper folding activities) showed remarkable performance. Although both strategies showed remarkable performance in pupils, 59% of the experimental group (total of 22 pupils) scored above the average mark in the paper folding as compared to 50% of the experimental group who scored above the average mark in the usage of sets model. While 87.5% of the control group scored above the average marks ranging from 8-10 during the paper folding activities, 62.5% of the control group scored above the average marks from 8-10 during the use of sets model. The posttest results of both the control and experimental groups taught using paper folding performed far better compared to sets model. The study has shown that pupils’ level of performance had improved drastically with the help of paper folding method. In conclusion, paper folding activities help pupils to appreciate word problems involving addition and subtraction of proper fractions.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Navrongo长老会小学分数表现不佳的解决方案:比较物品和折纸设计的干预措施
这是一项干预性研究,旨在发现使用物品集合(集合模型)和折纸活动的学生在解决涉及适当分数加减法的单词问题方面的表现差异。共有30名纳夫龙戈长老会小学基础五年级A班的学生参与了这项研究。课程结构合理,教学材料齐全。通过测试前和测试后的评估来确定干预教学策略的效果。在研究干预之前,73.3%的学生(共30人)得分低于5-7分的平均分。这些人代表了这项研究的实验组。26.7%的学生(对照组)达到平均分。然而,在干预后,两种策略(物品组和折纸活动)都表现出显著的效果。虽然这两种策略在学生中都有显著的表现,但实验组中59%的学生(共22名学生)在折纸方面的得分高于平均水平,而在使用集合模型的实验组中,有50%的学生得分高于平均水平。在折纸活动中,87.5%的对照组得分高于8-10分的平均分,而在使用sets模型时,62.5%的对照组得分高于8-10分的平均分。使用折纸教学的对照组和实验组的后测结果都比使用折纸教学的实验组表现好得多。研究表明,在折纸方法的帮助下,学生的表现水平得到了极大的提高。综上所述,折纸活动可以帮助学生理解适当分数的加减法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Optimization of the Non-Linear Diffussion Equations CPV Monitoring - Optimization of Control Chart Design by Reducing the False Alarm Rate and Nuisance Signal On Different Extraction Methods of Factor Analysis Improvement of the Raabe-Duhamel Convergence Criterion Generalized Volatility Modelling of Stock Returns of Selected Nigerian Oil and Gas Companies
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1