IJIET
Vol. 2, No. 1, January 2018
50
Findings and Discussion
For the quantitative data derived from the pretests and posttests,
the goal
was to find out if there was a significant difference between the scores and the
finish time of the experimental and control group, and between the pretest and
posttest
data of the experimental group, both at 0.05 level of significance.
Student’s t-test was utilized, since the sample size was only 15 (i.e. less than 30).
Comparison Between Control Group and Experimental Group
Addition Scores in Pretest
The F-test reveals that the variances are not equal since 0.0253 < 0.05; thus,
Student’s t-test for unequal variances is used. With a p-value of 0.4363, which is
more than 0.05, the Student’s t-test shows that there is no significant difference
between the mean pretest scores of the experimental and control groups in
addition. Based on this result, we established that the students’ ability in the basic
mathematics skill for addition was considered to be similar for both groups.
Students in experimental group was using mental abacus for simple addition that
involved one to two digits while for two to three digit
numbers they was using
abacus. For the control group, most of them can use mental arithmetic for the
simple addition and the rest using a pen-and-paper method.
In the pretest, the researchers chose to include only a few large numbers.
This likely required direct addition without using
any rules of abacus for the
experimental group; in the case of the control group, there was no need for
regrouping. However, it should
be noted that in the posttest, most of the items
involved larger numbers for both addition and multiplication. The number of
incorrect answers in the pretest from the 15 students
in the experimental group
were 56 items in total, compared to 73 in total for the control group. For simple
addition that involved one- and two-digit numbers (i.e. lessons from Grades One
and Two), students in the experimental group committed 7 wrong answers, while
the control group incurred 13 incorrect responses. For the more complex addition
questions that involved more digit span, students in the experimental group made
49 mistakes, while those in the control group had 60 wrong answers.The contents
of the pretest were familiar for students of both groups, as these were already
taught in the first three grade levels. Hence, this also might have contributed to no
significant difference between the pretest scores of both groups. As supported by
Piaget (in Woolfolk, 2007, p. 29), children who have
existing schemes in their
minds can make use of these to make sense of events in their world – in this case,
their statistically similar performance in addition, regardless of method used. The
pretest results show that both groups have significantly similar ability for addition
at the beginning of the study, with addition being familiar to the students since the
schemes related to this operation has been formed by grade one or even
kindergarten.
Dostları ilə paylaş: