RESEARCH SUMMARY

CAUSES OF NON-NUMERACY OF GRADE 8 STUDENTS

Visitacion Malinao-Recto, Master Teacher II
Baybay National High School
Baybay City Division
Contact No.: 09264544580
Email address: visitacion.recto@deped.gov.ph

Introduction
Numeracy is the ability and confidence to use mathematical knowledge and skills in concrete
real-world situations. However, for ten years of teaching Grade 8 Mathematics, I have discovered that
some Grade 8 students cannot perform correctly even simple addition, subtraction, multiplication, and
/ or division of numbers. I realize that I need to work on their numeracy need before I can feed in my
lessons for Grade 8. I need to know why they don’t have the skill they need to possess and what are
their difficulties in performing the basic mathematical operations. Thus, I take this chance to start
digging this problem.
For three years now all schools in Baybay City Division, through the division office, is
conducting a Quarterly Numeracy Test Key Stage 3 for junior high school. In Baybay National High
School, we conduct the First Quarter Numeracy Test (as pre-test) at the beginning of the school year –
from the second week of June to the first week of July. For the first two years, the overall non-numerates
of the school for the first quarter was 38.78% and 40.70%, respectively (School’s Numeracy Reports,
2018 & 2019). To zero-out non-numerates at the end of the school year, every mathematics teacher
would conduct remediation and enhancement of the skill to the identified non-numerate students in the
first quarter. However, for this school year 2019-2020, despite the efforts I have exerted, I have still 35
(about 15%) non-numerates among my classes during the conduct of the second quarter numeracy test.
Hence, I felt the need to dig deeper into the causes of my students’ non-numeracy. The third and fourth
quarter numeracy test (as post-test) were not conducted due to the pandemic. The initial plan to
interview the remaining non-numerates for the final quarter for the data gathering was hindered by the
pandemic situation. Thus, a qualitive study using content analysis on the respondents’ solutions for the
second quarter numeracy test was done.
The main purpose of this study was to dig out the causes of non-numeracy of Grade 8 Students
of Baybay National School. Findings of this study served as the bases for a proposed School Numeracy
Enhancement Program that could be designed to improve the overall numeracy skills of the students.
The following specific questions were answered in the conduct of the study:
1. Which of the fundamental operation causes most students to be classified as non-numerates?

1
 2. What themes could be strengthened to address the difficulty of the students in the basic
numeracy skills?
3. What numeracy enhancement program could be designed based on the results of the study?

This study was not anchored to any theoretical frameworks for it may divulge irrelevance of
the common constraints and issues that may cause bias in the conduct of the critical content analysis of
the documents considered. With this assumption, I also suspended the review of related literature and
studies. Hence, I focused on the Numeracy Test papers of my non-numerate students based on the
content and substance of this study. This was done with the aim to identify errors and misunderstanding
in mathematics and to derive themes to address their difficulty in the numeracy skills analyzed during
the study without any preconceived knowledge and bias.
Formulation of the themes and sub-themes categories proved the relevance of the numeracy
enhancement program proposal to improve the numeracy skills of the students. The arrived themes
served as the basis for the needed skills and operations to be enhanced.
The literature review was utilized in the presentation of the data to support and substantiate the
content analysis of the numeracy test papers. The body of literature used in the presentation of the data
were used to validate and support the outcomes and findings of the content analysis conducted on the
solutions shown in the numeracy test.
This study being qualitative in nature adhered to the philosophical stance using content analysis
of the errors committed on the numeracy test. In the conduct of the study, I went through a rigid review
of the solutions of my non-numerates students employing the concept of Hermeneutic analysis to derive
themes which were relevant to enhance the numeracy skills of the students. The philosophy of Ontology
(Bhattcherjee, 2020), philosophy of Epistemology (Moon and Blackman, 2014), and philosophy of
Axiology (Deane, 2018) were used as my guide in the accomplishment of this research study.
Rhetorically, the first-person point of view is used in this study which indicated my active and
passionate involvement in the conduct of the research study. This inner passion for research stems from
my desire to improve the numeracy skills of all my student.
The results and findings of the study would be beneficial to mathematics teachers not only in
the secondary but also in the elementary level. Identifying the main causes of non-numeracy would give
a good start for the teachers in both educational levels to work for a solution of this numeracy problem.
School administrators could also use the results of this study for planning and scheduling mathematics
classes and remedial programs that would best benefit the learners. Finally, best planning and teaching
numeracy related skills would be most beneficial to the students’ mathematics learning.

2
Methodology

The study employed the grounded theory design of qualitative research using the theory or
concept sampling. Theory or concept sampling is a purposeful sampling strategy in which the researcher
samples individuals because they can help generate or discover a theory or specific concepts within the
theory (Creswell, 2012). This sampling technique is appropriate for the study as I can discover the
difficulty of my students in learning mathematics through uncovering their problems in numeracy. In
trying to dig out the causes of non-numeracy of grade 8 students, a Hermeneutic analysis of qualitative
data was used. Hermeneutic analysis is a special type of content analysis where the researcher tries to
interpret the subjective meaning of a given text thereby making it an interpretive technique of analyzing
qualitative data (Bhattacherjee, 2012). Hermeneutic analysis is appropriate for this study because errors
and misconceptions in numeracy had to be scrutinized and interpreted from the respondents’ solutions
shown in the test papers which were the main source of data.
This study was conducted at Baybay National High School (Baybay NHS), Baybay City, Leyte
during the school year 2019-2020. Baybay NHS is the largest public high school in the city with a total
population of 3,877 students (SY 2019-2020) from which 1,047 were Grade 8 (LIS data, 2020). Thirty-
five grade 8 students handled by the researchers who were classified as non-numerates based on the
Regional Key Stage 3 Numeracy Test conducted during the second quarter of the school year 2019-
2020 were the participants of the study.
The Regional Key Stage 3 Numeracy Test was the main instrument used in this study. This
numeracy test consists of twelve items, three items for each of the four fundamental operations –
addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division. For addition, the items involve adding 3 to 4-digit
numbers in two to three addends. In subtraction, subtracting two to four-digit numbers are involved.
For multiplication, two to four-digit multiplicand are multiplied to two to three-digit multipliers.
Division items consist of two to four-digit dividends and one to two-digit divisors. For this study, I was
not able to include division operation because most of the students did not answer it and there were no
solutions given for those who have answered the items. This was supposed to be a good area to tackle
for the interview, but I am hindered by the pandemic.
For this numeracy test, each student is given one minute to answer each item of the test, that is,
a twelve-minute time limit is allocated. A perfect score for all the operations considers a student highly
numerate (HN); a score ranging from 1 to 3 for either one or all the four operations, makes him/her
moderately numerate (MN); while score of 0 (no correct answer) for any one of the operations, considers
him/her a non-numerate (NN), even if other operations are answered correctly. For example, if a student
got perfect scores in addition, subtraction, and multiplication but got a zero score for division, he/she is
classified as non-numerate (NN). However, if a student got one correct answer for each of the four
operations, he/she is considered as moderately numerate (MN). Thus, a student should obtain at least
one correct answer for every operation to be classified as numerate.

3
 The main source of data for this study was the transcript of the solutions of the grade 8 students
handled by the researchers who were classified as non-numerates based on the Regional Key Stage 3
Numeracy Test conducted during the second quarter of the school year 2019-2020. The test papers of
these students were accorded with an in-depth and analytical content analysis on the errors committed
in the answers and solutions shown. The numerical solutions were translated into written text with
careful interpretation of the subjective meaning of each symbolism used. Translated textual
interpretations of the errors and misconceptions shown in the solutions were the bases for identifying
the manifested difficulty for the skill. Difficulty of the skills were deduced into relevant themes.
For the gathering of data, I followed the necessary protocols for the conduct of a research study.
I submitted letters to the school head of Baybay National High School, to the Mathematics Department
Head and the School Numeracy Coordinator asking for the full consent in the conduct of the study.
After securing the necessary permission from the respective offices, I sent letters to the parents of my
thirty-five students classified as non-numerates asking for their consent in the inclusion of their child’s
test paper in the study.
For this study, thirty-five test papers of the identified non-numerate students of my three grade
8 classes were used for the analysis. Careful treatment and coding of the gathered documents were done.
Since errors for the four fundamental operations greatly vary from participant to participant, saturation
was achieved at the twelfth participant (coded as P12). Data from these twelve documents were
manually transcribed, identifying, and interpreting every error committed for addition, subtraction, and
multiplication. Division was not included because of unavailability of responses.
With the translated students’ solutions on the numeracy test, I conducted an in-depth and
thorough content analysis of the solutions shown by my students in their test papers using both
quantitative and qualitative data analyses. Quantitative analysis was used in determining the
fundamental operation that caused most students to be classified as non-numerates while qualitative
data analysis was used to identify the errors and possible causes of non-numeracy of the students.
To identify which fundamental operation caused most students to be classified as non-
numerates, the number of students and their corresponding scores in each operation – addition,
subtraction, multiplication and division were tallied, and the results were presented in a bar graph. Then,
percentages of students who got a score of zero in each operation were computed and was presented on
a pie chart. Since getting a zero score in any of the operations could classify a student as non-numerate,
the operation with the highest percentage of zero scores caused most of the students to be classified as
such.
A Hermeneutic analysis of qualitative data was used in trying to dig out the causes for non-
numeracy of grade 8 students. These was done to identify the errors and misconceptions incurred by
the students. These errors and misconceptions were further analyzed into categories which emerges into
themes that pinpoint the difficulty experienced by the students in performing the operations. These

4
themes emerged through a systematic qualitative analysis following the process of analyzing and
interpreting qualitative data outlined by Creswell (2012).
First is the preparation and organization of data for analysis. Each error in the solutions was
scrutinized by item for all test papers of the thirty-five students classified as non-numerates. In an item,
each unique solution was coded with P1 for respondent 1, P2 for respondent 2, and so on until the errors
were repeated for the next solution to examine. The repetition of errors began in the twelfth respondent;
hence, the saturation point for data gathering is achieved at sample size 12. Consequently, the
participants of the study were coded from P1 to P12 corresponding to the first participant until the
twelfth. The errors in the solutions shown in every item were identified and recorded for each of the
three operations. For the addition operation, there were six respondents – coded P2, P3, P4, P6, P7, and
P9 who missed one or more of the test items. There were ten respondents coded P1, P2, P3, P5, P6, P7,
P8, P9, P10, and P11 who missed one or more of the subtraction items. And for the multiplication
operation, there were nine respondents coded P1, P2, P3, P4, P5, P6, P7, P8, and P12 who missed at
least one of the test items.
The second process is data exploration and coding. I did an in-depth and thorough translations
of the numerical solutions into written texts. These written interpretations served as the raw data where
meaning units were deduced. From these meaning units, errors / misunderstandings were identified
which served as the data codes.
Third is building description and themes. The identified errors / misunderstandings (codes)
were further grouped into mathematical difficulties encountered by the students. From these difficulties
that served as categories, themes emerged for each of the operations – addition, subtraction, and
multiplication.
Last is representing, reporting, interpreting, and validating qualitative findings. Generated
themes were presented by operations in tables. A modified Venn diagram was also used to show
overlapping themes among the three operations. Reporting was done through a narrative discussion of
the themes by operation. Comparative discussion of themes was also done among addition, subtraction
and multiplication. Interpretation of the findings was based on how the gathered data answered the
research questions posted in this study. An abstraction was done which covered the general description
of difficulties encountered by the students based on the generated themes. Since triangulation and
member checking could not be done due to the pandemic, validation was done through an external audit.
The accuracy and credibility of the findings were determined through a peer review by two experts – a
colleague and the department head of our school. The coding sheets, transcripts and thematic analysis
were submitted for review and suggestions were followed before the finalization of the research output.
The reported findings and results will be used as basis for designing a proposal of a school numeracy
enhancement program.

5
Results and Discussion

Operations that cause non-numeracy

This part discloses the fundamental operation or operations that caused most students to be
classified as non-numerates. Non-numeracy classification is the student’s classification if he/she got a
score of zero out of three in any of the operations.
Figure 1 below displays the number of students and their corresponding scores per fundamental
operation. As reflected on the height of the bars, the tallest bars for addition are on the scores of two
and three while the shortest bar is on zero. This means that most of the non-numerates did not have
much problem in addition hence majority of them got a perfect score or a score of two out of three in
this operation. This implies that most of them have mastered the skills in this addition. In subtraction,
the tallest bar is on the score of one and the shortest is on the score of three. That is saying, most of the
non-numerates scored one out of three in the subtraction operation with very few got a perfect score. In
multiplication, the tallest bar is on the score of zero and the shortest bar is on the score of three. This
suggests that majority (27 out of 35) of the respondents got the score of zero in multiplication, that is to
say that most of them have not mastered the skill in multiplication. In division, the tallest bar is on the
score of zero and no one got a perfect score. The data clearly show that the non-numerates have
difficulty in answering the test items involving division since most of them got the score of one or zero.

Figure 1. Numeracy test scores of the respondents by operation (n=35)

In general, the addition operation has the tallest bar for the score of three whereas multiplication
has the tallest bar for the score of zero. This shows that the non-numerates found addition as the easiest
among the four fundamental operations while multiplication was discovered as the most difficult.
Since the score of zero determined the non-numeracy classification of a student, an analysis for
those scoring with zero was done and the result is presented in Figure 2. The pie chart shows that

6
among those who got zero, the greatest share is on the multiplication operation. It shows that more
students (44%) got zero in multiplication, next was in division (38%), then subtraction (with 15%) and
least number of zero scores was in addition (3%). This means that non-numeracy of grade 8 students is
mostly affected by multiplication and division skills. Hence, it was confirmed that most of them have
difficulty in these operations with multiplication as the main cause of non-numeracy classification of
students.

Figure 2. Distribution of respondents’ zero scores by operation

Difficulty themes on the basic numeracy skills

This part presents the themes derived from the errors in the fundamental operations considered
in this study. Presentation of themes is done by operation starting with addition, followed by subtraction,
and then multiplication.
The result of the hermeneutic analysis on the errors and misconceptions incurred by the
participants is presented in Table 1. The table presents the distribution of the twelve participants whose
answers and solutions were found to be erroneous. It shows that among the respondents, subtraction
had the most number of errors (83%), followed by multiplication (75%), and the least number of errors
is addition (50%).
Table 1. Distribution of participants with erroneous solutions shown by operation (n=12)
With Erroneous Solution
Operation
Number of Participants Percentage

Subtraction 10 83%

Multiplication 9 75%

Addition 6 50%

7
 To verify the causes of these errors, thematic analysis was done and presented in the figure that
follows. Figure 3 shows a comparative presentation of the results of the thematic analysis conducted. It
reveals the difficulties encountered by the participants in the three fundamental operations as shown in
their solutions. In the addition operation, four difficulty themes emerged, whereas three themes surfaced
for both subtraction and multiplication.

Figure 3. Thematic analysis of the participants’ solution in the Regional Key Stage 3 Numeracy
Test

Difficulty Themes in the Addition Operation

Based on the errors shown in the solutions of the participants for the addition items in the
numeracy test, four difficulty themes were derived namely: difficulty in performing basic addition facts,
difficulty in applying the identity property of addition, difficulty in performing successive addition of
digits, and difficulty in regrouping sums of more than ten. There were six out of twelve participants
incurred errors on this operation.

Basic Addition Facts. Errors in basic facts in addition corresponds to the difficulty in performing the
basic binary addition skill. This involved adding two single-digit numbers that were answered by the
respondents erroneously. Among the six participants who exhibited errors in addition, two participants
had shown the erroneous solution presented in Figure 4a. The sum of ones digits is solved as 9+3=11
instead of 9+3=12. The solution shows the inability of the student to determine basic facts in addition

8
with sums of more than 10 since other lower-digit sums were correctly answered. This reveals that the
participant had a difficulty in performing basic addition facts. This further implies that the conceptual
knowledge of the students on basic addition should be enhanced.
a b c

(Transcript 1, cell 3 & 6, p.26) (Transcript 1, cell 1, p.26)

(Transcript 1, cell 7, p.27)

d e f

(Transcript 1, cell 4, p.26) (Transcript 1, cell 5, p.26) (Transcript 1, cell 2, p.26)

Figure 4. Participants’ solutions showing errors in addition

Identity Property. Identity property of addition (or addition by 0) states that if 0 is added to any real
number, the result is the number itself. Errors on this property was revealed by a student showing the
solution in Figure 4b. The student answered 0+2=0 instead of 0+2=2 hence the sum of ones digits (0+2)
was written as 0 instead of 2. This shows that the student was unable to add correctly 0 to a number
since zero added to a number is incorrectly taken as 0 instead of it equals to the number itself (a+0=a).
The difficulty in the addition by 0 is a consequence of the misconception on the identity property of
addition.

Successive Addition. Successive addition is adding more than two single-digit numbers in succession.
Errors committed by the respondents in relation to this skill are shown in figures 4c and 4d. In Figure
4c, the error was on carrying 1 (one hundreds) instead of 2 on the hundreds digits as a result of taking
the sum of the tens digits (1+6+8+7) as 12 instead of 22. Likewise, the sum of the thousands digits
(2+2+3+2) is incorrectly taken as 8 instead of 9. Similarly in Figure 4d, the sum of the tens digits
(1+6+8+7) was incorrectly taken as 23 instead of 22, and on the hundreds digits, 2+7+6+9, was solved
as 19 instead of 24. These solutions show that the students were unable to correctly add 4 addends in a
row because of their difficulty in performing addition involving more than two addends.

9
Regrouping Sums. The common errors in regrouping sums were the inability of the student to include
the regrouping digits (carry over) in taking the partial sum in the specified place value and errors in
regrouping (carrying over) digits. As shown in Figure 4e, the student did not include the added digits
due to regrouping in the partial sums: 6+8+7=21 is operated instead of 1+6+8+7=22; 7+6+9 = 22 instead
of 2+7+6+9 = 24; and 2+3+2=7 instead of 2+2+3+2=9. Likewise in Figure 4f, the carry over
(regrouping digits) for the hundreds place was not included in the partial sum: 7+6+9=22 instead of
2+7+6+9=24. From these solutions, it can be inferred that the participants had a difficulty in adding
with regrouped (carry over) digits because they had the misconception that it is not included in the final
sum. Therefore, their understanding on the numerical place value concept should be deepened.

Difficulty Themes in the Subtraction Operation

The thematic analysis on the errors shown in the solutions of the participants for the subtraction
items in the numeracy test resulted to three difficulty themes – performing basic subtraction facts,
subtraction from 0, and subtraction with regrouping. Ten out of twelve participants displayed errors in
the subtraction operation.

Basic Subtraction Facts. Errors in the basic subtraction facts correspond to the difficulty in performing
the basic binary subtraction skill. This involves the errors committed by the respondents in subtracting
two single-digit numbers. Among the ten participants who exhibited errors in subtraction, three
participants had incurred this type of error.
In Figure 5.1a, one student showed an incorrect answer in simple subtraction – the difference
of 4-1 was incorrectly taken as 2 instead of 3. This appeared to be a careless output since other
differences were correctly solved. Likewise, in Figure 5.1b among the errors shown is taking 4-1=2
instead of 4-1=3; nonetheless, other interpretations could also be inferred from this solution. Also, an
inability to bring down correctly is shown in Figure 5.1c where 2 was brought down instead of 6. Hence,
the difference was written as 22721 instead of 61319.
These solutions are evident that these students have difficulty in performing simple numerical
subtraction. Procedural skill and conceptual understanding in the basic subtraction facts should be
improved.
a b c

(Transcript 2, cell 8, p.30) (Transcript 2, cell 2, p.27) (Transcript 2, cell 1, p.27)

10
 d e f

(Transcript 2, cell 4,6,& 10, pp.28-30) (Transcript 2, cell 3, p.28) (Transcript 2, cell 12, p.31)

Figure 5.1 Participants’ solutions showing errors in basic facts in subtraction

Subtraction from 0. In basic numeracy, subtracting a number from 0 is basically done by regrouping
since negative numbers is not yet included. However, at key stage 3 which is intended for grade 7 to
grade 10 students, negative numeracy concepts should have been clearly understood by the students
and applied in the procedural processes. Half (5 out of 10) of the participants incurred misunderstanding
on this concept by taking subtraction from zero as either equal to the number itself or equal to 0 as
indicated in the solutions shown in Figure 5.1d-f. In Figure 5.1d three students showed this solution:
the subtrahends 2, 3 and 8 were subtracted from 0 in the minuend, however, it was solved as: 0-2=2; 0-
3=3; and, 0-8=8 resulting to the partial difference of 832. Also, in Figure 5.1e one student subtracted
seven from 0 (0-7) and equated it to 7. These imply that the students either took subtracting a number
from 0 equals to the number itself or interchanged the process by subtracting 0 from the subtrahend.
This shows a serious misconception in the subtraction from 0 since a number a subtracted from 0 is
erroneously equated to the number or the subtraction process is reverse when dealing with 0 in the
minuend. Furthermore, one student took the difference of 0-2 is taken as 0; 0-3=0; and 0-8=0 (Figure
5.1f). This is also a misconception in the subtraction from 0. A number a subtracted from 0 is
erroneously equated to 0 (0-a =0) instead of the additive inverse (negative) of that number (0-a= -a).
These concepts need serious considerations in designing for a numeracy enhancement program.

Subtraction with Regrouping. In subtraction, regrouping is used when the digit in the subtrahend is
greater than the digit in the minuend. An understanding on the concept place value is prerequisite for
the skill in subtracting with regrouping. For this study, all the ten participants with errors in the
subtraction items have misconception/misunderstanding in the regrouping process. Seven participants
were not able to regroup minuend with digits lesser than the subtrahend, instead they reverse the
operation by subtracting the digits of the minuend from the subtrahend as shown in Figure 5.2.

Inability to apply regrouping skills / Not able to regroup

In figure 5.2a, instead of subtracting 2, 3 and 8 from 0 in the minuend, 0 is subtracted from 2,
3 and 8, respectively. Thus, 832 (2-0=2; 3-0=3; and, 8-0=8) is written as a partial difference. The first
digit in the minuend is less with 1 (1000s) intended (supposed to be) for regrouping, thus, 2 (3-1=2) is
written as the first digit in the difference or this could be an error on basic subtraction fact by taking 4-
1 = 2 instead of 3.

11
 In the same way in figure 5.2b, for all digits in the minuend which is greater than the subtrahend,
the process is reverse: three is subtracted from four (4-3=1) instead of regrouping and subtracting four
from thirteen (13-4=9) and zero is subtracted from seven (7-0=7) instead of regrouping and subtracting
seven from ten (10-7=3). These solutions clearly show the students’ inability to regroup minuends to
allow the subtraction of whole numbers when the digit in the subtrahend is greater than the digit in the
minuend; instead, the process is reverse.
On the other hand, some solutions of the participants showed that subtraction with greater
subtrahend is equated to 0 instead of regrouping the minuend. As shown in figure 5.2c, the difference
of 0-2 is taken as 0 instead of regrouping the minuend to make it 10-2=8. Also, with the operations on
the next digits in the same figure: 0-3=0; and, 0-8=0. Likewise in figure 5.2d where the student solved
the difference of 3-4=0 instead of regrouping and subtracting four from thirteen (13-4=9). Such
erroneous processes of interchanging minuend and subtrahend and equating the difference to zero when
the digit in the minuend is less than that of the subtrahend, portrayed the students’ experienced difficulty
in regrouping minuends. The correct procedural knowledge should be given emphasis in the learning
process of this numeracy skill primarily in their earlier years in school.
a b

(Transcript 2, cell 2, p.27) (Transcript 2, cell 7, p.30)

c d

(Transcript 2, cell 12, p.31) (Transcript 2, cell 3, p.28)

Figure 5.2 Participants’ solutions showing inability to regroup minuends

Such erroneous processes of interchanging minuend and subtrahend and equating the difference
to zero when the digit in the minuend is less than that of the subtrahend, portrayed the students’
experienced difficulty in regrouping minuends. The correct procedural knowledge should be given
emphasis in the learning process of this numeracy skill primarily in their earlier years in school.

Misconception in Regrouping
Some participants applied regrouping of minuends, but the process was not correct. In Figure 5.3a,
instead of regrouping consecutively from the ones digit up to the thousands digit, three (1000s) was
subtracted from four (4000’s) (4-3=1) in the minuend and was distributed to the three place values with
0s in the ones, tens and hundreds places, respectively. In Figure 5.3b, regrouping was applied but 10
was used as minuend in the hundreds place (100’s) (10-8=2) instead of using 9 (9-8=1) since 1 (100’s)
should be deducted for regrouping. These are misconceptions on the process of regrouping minuend.

12
Another misconception is shown in Figure 5.3c, instead of subtracting 1 (1000’s) from 4 (4000’s) in
the minuend due to regrouping, 1 is added to 4 to become 5. Hence, 4 is written as the difference of 5
and 1.
a b

(Transcript 2, cell 14, p.37)

(Transcript 2, cell 15, p.38)
c d

(Transcript 2, cell 11, p.37) (Transcript 2, cell 13, p.37)

Figure 5.3 Participants’ solutions showing misconceptions in regrouping minuends

Still another misconception is shown in Figure 5.3d, the minuend was regrouped but only 1 is
added to the ones digit (3+1) making it 4. Also, 5 in the thousands place was not subtracted with the
regrouping done instead 9 is written in the hundreds place (10-1=9) in the assumption that 1 (1000s)
remains in the thousands place to retain 5 (5000s).
These incorrect processes of applying regrouping in subtraction posed an alarm for me as a
mathematics teacher since grade 8 students are supposed to be cleared with these concepts. Hence, it is
urgent that this difficulty of applying the correct regrouping process be addressed.

Difficulty Themes in the Multiplication Operation

For the multiplication items in the key stage numeracy test, the content analysis resulted to
three difficulty themes – performing basic multiplication facts, the zero property of multiplication, and
multiplication by two or more digits. Nine out of twelve participants had errors in this operation.

Basic Multiplication Facts. Difficulty in performing basic multiplication facts links to the inability of
the students to perform correctly the basic binary multiplication skill. This involved multiplying only
two single-digit numbers which were answered by the respondents erroneously.
Among the nine respondents incurring errors in multiplication, three students showed difficulty
in performing the basic multiplication of one-digit numbers. As one student solved 8x6=40 instead of
48 (Figure 6.1a) and another student incorrectly solved 5x7=65 instead of 35 (Figure 6.1b). In Figure
6.1c, the student answered 2x0=2 instead of 0 on the ones digits; and, 5x7=36 instead of 35 on tens digit
multiplier.

13
 a b c

(Transcript 3, cell 4, p.34) (Transcript 3, cell 3, p.33)

(Transcript 3, cell 11, p.37)
d e

(Transcript 3, cell 8, p.36) (Transcript 3, cell 12, p.37)

Figure 6.1 Participants’ solutions showing errors in basic facts in multiplication

Knowing that some grade 8 students cannot even perform basic multiplication facts, I am
challenged to find ways to equip my students with this skill as a prerequisite of the grade 8 competencies
I will be teaching. In response to the time allotment issue expressed by some students, teachers should
find ways to train students to be able to answer correctly simple multiplication facts in the shortest time
possible.

Zero Property of Multiplication. The zero property of multiplication states that any number multiplied
by 0 is equal to 0. However, the common misconception of the respondents on this property is using 0
as the identity number for multiplication.
As an error illustrated in Figure 6.1d, when each digit of the multiplier is multiplied to 0 in the
multiplicand, it is solved as: 2x0=2 instead of 0 and 5x0=5 instead of 0. Also in Figure 6.1e, the student
solved 0x4=4 instead of 0; 0x9=9 instead of 0; and, 0x8=8 instead of 0. These clearly showed that
multiplication by 0 is mistakenly used as identity instead of nullity (a x 0 = 0). Four out of nine
participants had this misconception of the zero property of multiplication.

Multiplication by Two or More Digits. The difficulty in the multiplication by two or more digits is
demonstrated in the students’ inability to group and regroup partial products in the multiplication
process. Eight out of nine participants exhibited errors of grouping and regrouping of partial products.
Figure 6.2 showed errors in multiplying by two or more digits.
In Figure 6.2a, the ones digit of the multiplier is multiplied only to the ones digit in the
multiplicand (8x6=40 instead of 48); while the tens digit of the multiplier is multiplied only to the tens
digit (1x7=7). Aside from erroneously multiplying two-digit numbers in column-pairs, multiplication
of single-digit numbers is not correctly done.

14
 a b c

(Transcript 3, cell 4, p.34) (Transcript 3, cell 14, p.37)

(Transcript 3, cell 1,9&16, pp.
32,36&27)
d e f

(Transcript 3, cell 17, p.39) (Transcript 3, cell 6&13, (Transcript 3, cell 3, p.34)
pp.35&37)
g h

(Transcript 3, cell 10&15, pp.36&38) (Transcript 3, cell 2,5&7, pp.32,34&35)

Figure 6.2 Participants’ solutions showing errors in multiplication by two or more digits

In Figure 6.2b, the ones digit of the multiplier is correctly multiplied to the ones digit in the
multiplicand, but the second digit multiplier is added to the second digit multiplicand (1+7=8) and the
sum is written as first digit in the final product (88). The ones digit multiplier is not completely
multiplied to all digits in the multiplicand and the tens digits multiplier and multiplicand are made as
addends. This suggests that the student was not able to apply correctly the process of multiplication by
more than one multiplier and had a serious procedural misunderstanding on the multiplication process.
Three out of nine (33%) of the participants showed the solution in Figure 6.2c. The ones digit
of the multiplier is correctly multiplied only to the ones digit in the multiplicand (8x6=48); while, the
tens digit of the multiplier is multiplied only to the tens digit in the multiplicand (1x7=7). Four is added
to the product of the tens digits (7+4=11) and the sum is written as additional digits of the final product
(118). Also, in Figure 6.2d, the ones digit of the multiplier is multiplied to the ones digit in the
multiplicand (8x6=48); while, the tens digit of the multiplier is multiplied to the tens digit in the
multiplicand (1x7=7). The product of the ones digits (48) is written as part of the final product while
the product of the tens digits (7) is written as additional digit of the final product (748). These show that
the students were having misunderstandings on the process of multiplication by two digit numbers.
Multiplication of two-digit numbers is erroneously done by column-pairs instead of multiplying each
multiplier to each digit of the multiplicand and adding the partial products in appropriate columns to
get the final product.

15
 In Figure 6.2e, the ones digit of the multiplier is correctly multiplied to each digit in the
multiplicand however the tens digit multiplier is not used. The inability of the student to multiply the
tens digit multiplier also expressed his/her misconception on the correct process of multiplication by
two-digits.
In Figure 6.2f, the ones digit of the multiplier is multiplied to the ones digit in the multiplicand
(2x0=2 instead of 0) and the result is written as last digit in the final product. The tens digit of the
multiplier is multiplied to the tens, hundreds, and thousands digits in the multiplicand and written as
part of the final product (13852). Aside from inability to perform multiplication by two-digit numbers
correctly, errors in multiplication by 0 and single-digit numbers were also evident.
Figure 6.2g and 6.2h are items on multiplication by three-digit multipliers where erroneous
solutions are showed two and three out nine participants, respectively. In Figure 6.2g, the ones digit of
the multiplier was multiplied to the ones digit in the multiplicand (0x4=0); the tens digit of the multiplier
was multiplied to the tens digit in the multiplicand (0x9=0); and the hundreds digit of the multiplier was
multiplied to the hundreds digit in the multiplicand (1x8=8) and the results was written as the final
product (800). Likewise, in Figure 6.2h, the hundreds digit multiplier was multiplied to each digit in
the multiplicand (1x4=4, 1x9=9, and 1x8=8) and results was written as the final product (894) ignoring
the zeros in the multiplier. These solutions clearly show the inability of the students to apply the correct
process of multiplication by 3-digit multipliers since it is erroneously done by column-pairs.
All the solutions above showed the inability of the students to perform multiplication by two
or three-digit numbers correctly; for that reason, multiplication by two or more-digit numbers is
erroneously done by column-pairs instead of multiplying each multiplier to each digit of the
multiplicand and adding the partial products in appropriate columns to get the final product. This
difficulty that boils down to the concept on place value of numbers should be addressed before any
student could proceed to higher mathematics.

Common Difficulty Themes among the Three Operations

Investigating further on the difficulty themes derived from the data, there are overlapping
difficulties experienced by Grade 8 students in the Key Stage 3 Numeracy Test across the three
fundamental operations in mathematics. The Venn diagram below shows the common difficulties
themes among two or all the operations. The circles on the Venn diagram correspond to the three
operations investigated in the study. Difficulties located at the overlapping part of the three circles are
common to all while those inside two overlapping circles are common to both operations.

16
 Figure 7. Common Difficulty Themes among the Three Operations

As the figure shows, operation on basic facts and operation involving 0 are common difficulties
encountered across the three operations. The findings reveal that students’ skills in performing basic
facts in addition, subtraction and multiplication need to be enhanced since they had difficulties in
performing these operations even with single-digit numbers. At grade 8 level, these skills should have
been mastered by the learners. As Silao (2018) posits that mastery of the basic mathematical skills is
significantly related to problem solving skills.
With regards to the operation by 0, results shows that some students were confused on the use
of 0 in the operation. Some of them interchanged the use of 0 in addition and multiplication. They
erroneously take addition by 0 as equal to 0 while multiplication by 0 as equal to the number. The
concept of additive identity (addition by 0 does not change the number) and multiplicative identity
(multiplication by 1 does change the number) were not properly understood and need to be corrected.
On the other hand, with regards to subtraction, the participants erroneously take subtraction from 0 as
equal to 0. They failed to grasp the concept of regrouping (borrowing) in dealing with 0 in the minuend.
These relates to the findings that even grade 11 students are struggling with some of the fundamental
concepts in mathematics (Roselizawati, et.al, 2014).
The difficulty in regrouping is common to both addition and subtraction. The participants have
difficulties in dealing regrouped digits (carry over) while in subtraction they have difficulty in
regrouping (borrowing) minuends. The concept of the place value of numbers is very much needed on
this skill.
The difficulty in successive addition is related to the students’ skill in performing basic addition
facts; while the difficulty in multiplying by two or more digits links with students conceptual

17
understanding on partial products. Conceptual understanding on partial products conversely affects the
procedural skill in the addition and multiplication processes.

Based on the findings of the study, non-numeracy of grade 8 students is mainly caused by their
difficulty in the multiplication (44%) and division (38%) operations. These expressed difficulties
among the operations resulted to five overlapping difficulty themes: (1) basic facts in the fundamental
operations, (2) operation by 0, (3) regrouping, (4) successive addition, and (5) multiplication by two or
more-digit numbers.
Basic facts in operations and operations involving 0 were the common difficulty themes across
the addition, subtraction, and multiplication operations. The participants showed an inability to
correctly perform addition, subtraction, and multiplication of single-digit numbers. Hence, students’
skills in performing basic facts in addition, subtraction and multiplication need to be enhanced. In the
operation by 0, results showed that the concept of additive and multiplicative identities were not
properly understood and need to be corrected. Also, in the subtraction from 0, the participants failed to
grasp the concept of regrouping in dealing with 0 in the minuend. Regrouping was common error
shown in both addition and subtraction operations. The participants were not able to regroup digits
(carry over) correctly in addition operation and were not able to perform correctly regrouping
(borrowing) of minuends in the subtraction process. Thus, the concept of the place value of numbers
needs to be intensified. Since, the students had a difficulty in performing basic operations, the difficulty
in successive addition and multiplying by two or more emerged. Students’ conceptual understanding
on partial products and procedural skills in the addition and multiplication processes should be build
up.
The students’ mathematical misconceptions and procedural errors on basic numeracy may have
been originated in the primary stage of schooling but became worse in the secondary level because of
inattention. In East Nasipit District, Nasipit, Agusan del Norte, even though their level of
implementation is implemented, Ayade, et al. (2019) still suggests that school administrators should
always monitor and evaluate the teachers’ implementation of the Early Language Literacy and
Numeracy Program of Kindergarten to Grade 3. Villanueva (2015) also discovers that 40% of the Grade
7 to Grade 9 students at Lucina City National High School – Mayao Parada Extension, Lucina City
were non-numerates and he further concludes that results in numeracy level test was significantly
related with the performance in mathematics. Mathematics teachers should pay attention to students’
misconceptions and misunderstanding that consequently lead to non-numeracy. As the Trends in
International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) concludes, “Classroom teachers who are aware
of the misconceptions or types of errors that students may make will be able to plan for and provide
additional support to their students when they are teaching the concepts” (International Association for
the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA), 2020).

18
 In the light of these findings, the following difficulty themes are highly recommended as bases
for the concepts and skills to be included in a school numeracy enhancement program designed to
improve the overall numeracy skills of the Grade 8 students of Baybay National High School:
1. Basic addition facts, identity property of addition, successive addition, and regrouping
sums;
2. Basic subtraction facts, subtraction from 0, and subtraction with regrouping of minuends
with emphasis on the concept of place value of numbers; and,
3. Basic multiplication facts, zero property of multiplication, and multiplication by two or
more digits.
This study advances existing literatures on numeracy by presenting causes of non-numeracy of
students through content analysis of their solutions. These findings could only be nuggets of truths on
the successes and failures of students in learning mathematics, yet these could be used as basis in
planning curricular and instructional programs to ensure increase academic achievements in
mathematics. Furthermore, this study provides teachers awareness of the potential misconceptions in
mathematics so that they can be prevented in the future. Given to some limitations of the study such as
excluding the division operation and foregoing the personal interview of the participants due to the
pandemic, further studies to explore and enhanced the presented findings should be conducted.

References
Andaya, O. (2013). Factors That Affect Mathematics Achievements of Students of Philippine Normal
University - Isabela Campus. Academic Journal Article. Researchers World.
https://www.academia.edu/29382061/mathematics
Moon, K., & Blackman, D. (2014). A Guide to Understanding Social Science Research for Natural
Scientists. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cobi.12326/full
Ayade, M., Dela Calzada, R., Sabanal, J. & Saballa, M. (2019). Early Language Literacy and
Numeracy Implementation. SMCC Teacher Education Journal ISSN Print: 2008- 0598 •
ISSN Online: 2008-0601 Volume 1 • June 2019
https://sherj.smccnasipit.edu.ph/articles/education1/Ayade.pdf
Browder, D., & Spooner, F. (2015). More language arts, math, and science for students with severe
disabilities. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from lnu on 2020-02-29
00:02:39. Copyright © 2015. Brookes Publishing.
Deane, P. (2018). A Guide for Interdisciplinary Researchers: Adding Axiology Alongside Ontology
and Epistemology. https://i2insights.org/2018/05/22/axiology-and-interdisciplinarity/
Department of Science and Technology Science Education Institute Philippine Council of
Mathematics Teacher Education (MATHTED), Inc. (2011). Mathematics Framework for
Philippine Basic Education. Manila: SEI-DOST & MATHTED. ISBN 978-971-8600-48-1.
http://www.sei.dost.gov.ph/images/downloads/publ/sei_mathbasic.pdf

19
Giovanni, P. & Sangcap, A. (2010). Mathematics-related Beliefs of Filipino College Students:
Factors Affecting Mathematics and Problem Solving Performance. International Conference
on Mathematics Education Research 2010 (ICMR 2010).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.12.064Get rights and content
Magayon, V. & Tan, E. (2016). Learning Mathematics and Differentiated Instruction in the
Philippines: A Phenomenographical Study on Struggles and Successes of Grade 7 Students.
International Journal of Educational Studies in Mathematics. 2016, 3 (3), 1-14
https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/397462
Neidorf, T., Arora, A., Erberber, E. Tsokodayi, Y. & Mai, T. (2020). Student Misconceptions and
Errors in Physics and Mathematics, IEA Research for Education 9. International Association
for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA) 2020.
https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783030301873
Orpwood, G. & Brown, E. (2015). Closing the Numeracy Gap.
http://www.numeracygap.ca/assets/img/Closing_the_numeracy_gap_V4.pdf
Patena, A. & Dinglasan, B. (2013). Students’ Performance on Mathematics Departmental
Examination: Basis for Math Intervention Program. Asian Academic Research Journal of
Social Science and Humanities (AARJSH), Vol.1, Issue 13, August, 2013.
https://www.asianacademicresearch.org
Peteros, E., Gamboa, A., Etcuban, J., Dinauanao, A., Sitoy, R. & Arcadio, R. (2020). Factors
Affecting Mathematics Performance of Junior High School Students. International Electronic
Journal of Mathematics Education. Vol. 15, Issue 1, January 2020.
https://www.iejme.com/article/factors-affecting-mathematics-performance-of-junior-high-
school-students-5938
Roselizawati, H., Sarwadi, H. & Shahrill, M. (2014). Understanding Students' Mathematical Errors
and Misconceptions: The Case of Year 11 Repeating Students. Mathematics Education
Trends and Research. 9 f 10. International Scientific Publications and Consulting Services.
Creative Commons. ttp://www.ispacs.com/journals/metr/2014/metr-00051/
Silao, I. (2018). Factors Affecting the Mathematics Problem Solving Skills of Filipino Pupils. A
Study Conducted in Kiamba Central School SPED Center, Kiamba, Sarangani. International
Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, Volume 8, Issue 2, February 2018.
http://www.ijsrp.org/research-paper-0218/ijsrp-p7461.pdf
Stephan, M. (2012). A Proposed Instructional Theory for Integer Addition and Subtraction. Journal
for Research in Mathematics Education. 2012, Vol. 43, No. 4, 428–464.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5951/jresematheduc.43.4.0428?seq=1
Tan, D. & Cordova, C. (2018). Mathematics Proficiency, Attitude, and Performance of Grade 9
Students in Private High Schools in Bukidnon, Philippines. Asian Academic Research Journal
of Social Science and Humanities (AARJSH), Volume 5, Issue 2, February 2018.

20
 https://www.academia.edu/37116089/Mathematics_Proficiency_Attitude_and_Performance_
of_Grade_9_Students_in_Private_High_Schools_in_Bukidnon_Philippines
Thompson, J., Bethune, K., Wood, C. & Pugalee, D. (2015). Teaching Grade-Aligned Math
Skills. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from lnu on 2020-
02-29 00:02:39. Copyright © 2015. Brookes Publishing.
Thornton, S. (2010). One on One Numeracy Intervention: A Pilot Project in Low SES Communities.
Proceedings of the 33rd annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of
Australasia. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED520972.pdf
Tudy, R. (2014). Attitude, Self-Efficacy and Students’ Academic Performance in Mathematics.
IAMURE International Journal of Social Sciences 12(1).
https://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/67513/8/08_chapter%202.pdf
Ural, A. (2016). 7th Grade Students’ Understandings of Negative Integer. Journal of Studies in
Education ISSN 2162-6952 2016, Vol. 6, No. 2. http://dx.doi.org/10.5296/jse.v6i2.9075
Villanueva, A. (2015). Numeracy Level Test Results’ as Predictor of Students’ Performance in
Mathematics in Lucena City National High School – Mayao Parada Extension: Basis for
remediation program. https://www.academia.edu/17990683/
NUMERACY_LEVEL_TEST_RESULTS_AS_PREDICTOR_OF_STUDENTS_PERFORM
ANCE_IN_MATHEMATICS_IN_LUCENA_CITY_NATIONAL_HIGH_SCHOOL_MAY
AO_PARADA_EXTENSION_BASIS_FOR_REMEDIATION_PROGRAM_

21
Appendix. Data Transcripts

Transcript 1. Participants’ Solutions in Addition

Solution Error / Misunderstanding

Hermeneutic Description of the Participant’s Solution (Meaning Units)
Cell Correct Participants’ (Codes)
P2: P2: Unable to correctly add 4 addends
One hundreds (carry 1) instead of 2 on the 2nd digits is making the solution erroneous. Also, the sum of
1 the hundreds digits (1+7+6+9) is solved as 22 instead of 23. Likewise, the sum of the thousands digits
(2+2+3+2) is incorrectly taken as 8 instead of 9. The solution shows that the student is unable to
correctly add 4 addends in a row.
P3: P3: Careless output
Regrouped hundreds (carry over) is not added: 7+6+9=22 was operated instead of 2+7+6+9=24. This is
a careless output since other regroupings (carry over) are correctly solved. Unable to correctly add 4 addends
2

P4: P4: Unable to determine basic facts of

The sum of ones digits is solved as 9+3=11 instead of 9+3=12. The solution shows the inability of the addition with sums of more than
3 student to determine basic facts of addition with sums of more than 10 since other lower-digit sums are 10
correctly answered.
P6: P6: Unable to correctly add 4 addends
The sum of the tens digits (1+6+8+7) is incorrectly taken as 23 instead of 22, and on the hundreds
4 digits, 2+7+6+9, is solved as 19 instead of 24. The solution shows that the student is unable to add
correctly 4 addends in a row.

P7: P7: not able to include the carry over

The added digits due to regrouping (carry over) is not included in the partial sums: 6+8+7=21 is (regrouping digits) in the sum
5 operated instead of 1+6+8+7=23; 7+6+9 = 22 instead of 2+7+6+9 = 24; and, 2+3+2=7 instead of
2+2+3+2=9. This shows that the student has not able to include the carry over (regrouping digits) in the
sum.

P9: P9: Basic facts of addition with sums

The sum of ones digits is solved as 9+3=11 instead of 9+3=12. The solution shows the inability of the of more than 10
6 student to determine basic facts of addition with sums of more than 10 since other lower-digit sums are
correctly answered.
P9: P9: Unable to add correctly 0 to a
The sum of ones digits (0+2) is written as 0 instead of 2. Zero added to a number is incorrectly taken as number.
7
0 (a+0=0) instead of equal to the number (a+0=a) itself. This shows that the student is unable to add
correctly 0 to a number.

Transcript 2. Participants’ Solutions in Subtraction

Solution Error / Misunderstanding (Codes)
Participants Hermeneutic Description of the Participant’s Solution (Meaning Units)
Cell Correct
’
P1: P1: Not able to apply the procedure of regrouping
For all digits in the minuend, which is greater than the subtrahend, the process is reverse: 3 is minuends
subtracted from 4 (4-3=1) instead of regrouping and subtracting 4 from 13 (13-4=9); 0 is
Not able to correctly bring down digits
subtracted from 7 (7-0=7) instead of regrouping and subtracting 7 from 10 (10-7=3). Two is
1
brought down instead of 6. Hence, the difference is written as 22721 instead of 61319. This Interchanging minuend and subtrahend when the
solution shows that the student is not able to apply the procedure of regrouping minuends in the digit in the minuend is less than that of the
subtraction operation. Instead, the process is reverse when the digit in the minuend is less than that subtrahend
of the subtrahend.
P1: P1: Inability to regroup minuends to allow the
Instead of subtracting 2, 3 and 8 from 0 in the minuend, 0 is subtracted from 2, 3 and 8, subtraction of whole numbers when the digit in
respectively. Thus, 832 (2-0=2; 3-0=3; and 8-0=8) is written as a partial difference. The first digit the subtrahend is greater than the digit in the
in the minuend is less with 1 (1000s) intended (supposed to be) for regrouping, thus, 2 (3-1=2) is minuend
written as the first digit in the difference. This shows an inability to regroup minuends to allow the
Interchanging minuend and subtrahend when the
subtraction of whole numbers when the digit in the subtrahend is greater than the digit in the
2 digit in the minuend is less than that of the
minuend. Instead, the process is reverse when the digit in the minuend is less than that of the
subtrahend
subtrahend.
This solution can also be viewed as: 0-2 is taken as 2; 0-3 is taken as 3; and 0-8 is taken as 8; and Misconception in the subtraction from 0
4-1=2. This shows a misconception in the subtraction from 0 and inability to perform correctly
Inability to perform correctly basic facts in
basic facts in subtraction. A number a subtracted from 0 is erroneously equated to the number (0-a
subtraction
=a) instead of the additive inverse (negative) of that number (0-a= -a).
P2: P2: Inability to regrouped minuends to allow the
The difference of 3-4 is taken as 0 instead of regrouping and subtracting 4 from 13 (13-4=9); 0 is subtraction of whole numbers when the digit in
subtracted from 7 (7-0=7) instead of regrouping and subtracting 7 from 10 (10-7=3). This shows the subtrahend is greater than the digit in the
an inability to regroup minuends to allow the subtraction of whole numbers when the digit in the minuend
3
subtrahend is greater than the digit in the minuend. This also shows that a subtraction with greater Subtraction with greater subtrahend is equated to
subtrahend is equated to 0 instead of regrouping the minuend. A misconception in the subtraction 0
from 0 is also shown here. A number a subtracted from 0 is erroneously equated to the number (0-
Misconception in the subtraction from 0
a =a) instead of the additive inverse (negative) of that number (0-a= -a).
P3: P3: Inability to regroup minuends to allow the
Instead of subtracting 2, 3 and 8 from 0 in the minuend, 0 is subtracted from 2, 3 and 8, subtraction of whole numbers when the
respectively. Thus, 832 (2-0=2; 3-0=3; and, 8-0=8) is written as a partial difference. This shows subtrahend is greater.
an inability to regroup minuends to allow the subtraction of whole numbers when the digit in the
subtrahend is greater than the digit in the minuend. The process is erroneously reverse when the Interchanging minuend and subtrahend when the
4
digit in the minuend is less than that of the subtrahend. digit in the minuend is less than that of the
This solution can also be viewed as: 0-2 is taken as 2, instead of -2; 0-3 is taken as 3 instead of -3; subtrahend
and 0-8 is taken as 8 instead of -8. This shows a misconception in the subtraction from 0. A
number a subtracted from 0 is erroneously equated to the number (0-a =a) instead of the additive Misconception in the subtraction from 0
inverse (negative) of that number (0-a= -a).
P3: P3: Misconception in the subtraction from 0
The difference of 0-7 is equated to 7 instead of regrouping and subtracting 7 from 10 to get 3. This
5
shows a misconception in the subtraction from 0. A number a subtracted from 0 is erroneously
equated to the number (0-a =a) instead of the additive inverse (negative) of that number (0-a= -a).
P5: P5: Inability to regroup minuends to allow the
Instead of subtracting 2, 3 and 8 from 0 in the minuend, 0 is subtracted from 2, 3 and 8, subtraction of whole numbers when the digit in
6 respectively. Thus, 832 (2-0=2; 3-0=3; and, 8-0=8) is written as a partial difference. This shows the subtrahend is greater than the digit in the
an inability to regroup minuends to allow the subtraction of whole numbers when the digit in the minuend.
subtrahend is greater than the digit in the minuend. Instead of regrouping the minuend to allow the

22
 subtraction of whole numbers without negative integers, the process is erroneously reverse when Interchanging minuend and subtrahend when the
the digit in the minuend is less than that of the subtrahend. digit in the minuend is less than that of the
This solution can also be viewed as: 0-2 is taken as 2; 0-3 is taken as 3; and 0-8 is taken as 8. This subtrahend
shows a misconception in the subtraction from 0. A number a subtracted from 0 is erroneously
equated to the number (0-a =a) instead of the additive inverse (negative) of that number (0-a= -a). Misconception in the subtraction from 0
P5: P5: Inability to regroup minuends to allow the
For all digits in the minuend, which is greater than the subtrahend, the process is reverse: 3 is subtraction of whole numbers when the digit in
subtracted from 4 (4-3=1) instead of regrouping and subtracting 4 from 13 (13-4=9); 0 is the subtrahend is greater than the digit in the
subtracted from 7 (7-0=7) instead of regrouping and subtracting 7 from 10 (10-7=3). Hence, the minuend
7
difference is written as 62721 instead of 61319. This shows an inability to regroup minuends to
allow the subtraction of whole numbers when the digit in the subtrahend is greater than the digit in Interchanging minuend and subtrahend when the
the minuend. The process is erroneously reverse when the digit in the minuend is less than that of digit in the minuend is less than that of the
the subtrahend. subtrahend
P6: P6: Careless output
8 The difference of 4-1 is incorrectly taken as 2 instead of 3. This is a careless output since other Not able to answer correctly basic fact in
differences are correctly solved. subtraction
P6: P6: misconception in the subtraction from 0
The difference of 0-7 is equated to 7 instead of regrouping and subtracting 7 from 13 to get 3. This
9 shows a misconception in the subtraction from 0. A number a subtracted from 0 is erroneously
equated to the number (0-a =a) instead of the additive inverse (negative) of that number (0-a= -a).
P6: P6: Inability to regrouped minuends to allow the
Instead of subtracting 2, 3 and 8 from 0 in the minuend, 0 is subtracted from 2, 3 and 8, subtraction of whole numbers when the digit in
respectively. Thus, 832 (2-0=2; 3-0=3; and, 8-0=8) is written as a partial difference. This shows the subtrahend is greater than the digit in the
an inability to regrouped minuends to allow the subtraction of whole numbers when the digit in minuend
10 the subtrahend is greater than the digit in the minuend. Instead, the process is erroneously reverse
Interchanging minuend and subtrahend when the
when the digit in the minuend is less than that of the subtrahend.
digit in the minuend is less than that of the
This solution can also be viewed as: 0-2 is taken as 2; 0-3 is taken as 3; and 0-8 is taken as 8. This
subtrahend
shows a misconception in the subtraction from 0. A number a subtracted from 0 is erroneously
equated to the number (0-a =a) instead of the additive inverse (negative) of that number (0-a= -a). Misconception in the subtraction from 0
P7: P7: inability to apply regrouping correctly
Instead of subtracting 1 (1000’s) from 4 (4000’s) in the minuend due to regrouping, 1 is added to
11 4 to become 5. Hence, 4 is written as the difference of 5 and 1. This shows an inability to apply
regrouping correctly.
P8: P8: Inability to regroup minuends to allow the
The difference of 0-2 is taken as 0 instead of regrouping the minuend to make it 10-2=8. Also with subtraction of whole numbers when the digit in
the operations on the next digits: 0-3=0; and 0-8=0 and taking 4-1=3 instead of 3-1=2 since 4 the subtrahend is greater than the digit in the
12 should be less 1 (1000’s) in regrouping. This shows the inability to regroup minuends to allow the minuend
subtraction of whole numbers when the digit in the subtrahend is greater than the digit in the
minuend This is also a misconception in the subtraction from 0. A number a subtracted from 0 is Subtraction from 0 is equated 0
erroneously equated to 0 (0-a =0) instead of the additive inverse (negative) of that number (0-a= -a).
P9: P9: Place is not less with the regrouping
The minuend is regrouped but only 1 is added to the ones digit (3+1) making it 4. Also, 5 in the
13 thousands place is not less with the regrouping done instead 9 is written in the hundreds place (10- Misconception on the process of regrouping of
1=9) in the assumption that 1 (1000s) remains in the thousands place to retain 5 (5000s). This is a minuend
misconception on the process of regrouping of minuend.
P10: P10: Regrouping is not consecutively done from ones
Three (1000s) is subtracted from 4 (4000’s) (4-3=1) in the minuend and distributed to the three to thousands digit
14
place values with 0s in 10’s, 100’s and 1000’s, respectively, instead of regrouping consecutively
from the ones digit up to the thousands. Hence, the regrouping process is not correctly applied. Regrouping process is not correctly applied
P11: P11: Misconception on the process of regrouping of
Regrouping is applied but 10 in the hundreds place (100’s) is used as minuend in the third digit minuend
15
(10-8=2) instead of using 9 (9-8=1) since 1 (100’s) should be deducted for regrouping. This is a
misconception on the process of regrouping minuend.

Table 1.3 Transcripts of Participants’ Solutions in Multiplication

Solution Error / Misunderstanding (Condensed
Hermeneutic Description of the Participant’s Solution (Meaning Units)
Cell Correct Participant’s Meaning Units)
P1: P1: The tens digit of the multiplier is
The ones digit of the multiplier is correctly multiplied only to the ones digit in the multiplicand (8x6=48); multiplied only to the tens digit in the
while the tens digit of the multiplier is multiplied only to the tens digit in the multiplicand (1x7=7). The ones multiplicand
digit of the product, 8, is written as the last digit in the final product while the tens digit, 4, is carried over
1 (regrouped) to the tens digit in the multiplicand. Four is added to the product of the tens digits (7+4=11) and not able to multiply correctly using two-
the sum is written as additional digits of the final product (118). This shows that the student is not able to digit multiplier
multiply correctly using two-digit multiplier. Multiplication of two-digit numbers is erroneously done by
column-pairs instead of multiplying each multiplier to each digit of the multiplicand and adding the partial Multiplication of two-digit numbers is
products in appropriate columns to get the final product. done by column-pairs
P1: P1: inability to apply the process of
The hundreds digit multiplier is multiplied to each digit in the multiplicand (1x4=4, 1x9=9, and 1x8=8) and multiplication by 3-digit multipliers
results is written as the final product (894) ignoring the zeros in the multiplier. This shows an inability to
apply the process of multiplication by 3-digit multipliers. Multiplication by three-digit multipliers
This solution may also mean that the ones digit of the multiplier is multiplied to the ones digit in the is done by column-pairs
2 multiplicand (0x4=4 instead of 0); the tens digit of the multiplier is multiplied to the tens digit in the
multiplicand (0x9=9 instead of 0); and, the hundreds digit of the multiplier is multiplied to the hundreds digit 0 is used as identity instead of nullity
in the multiplicand (1x8=8) and the results is written as the final product.
Aside from not performing multiplication by 0, multiplication by three-digit multipliers is erroneously done
by column-pairs instead of placing the partial products in appropriate columns to get the final product.
Multiplication by 0 is mistakenly used as identity instead of nullity.
P1: P1: Multiplication of single-digit numbers is
The ones digit of the multiplier is multiplied to the ones digit in the multiplicand (2x0=2 instead of 0) and the not correctly done
result is written as last digit in the final product. The tens digit of the multiplier is multiplied to the tens,
hundreds, and thousands digits in the multiplicand: 5x5=25, 5 is written as part of the product while 2 is inability to perform multiplication by 2-
carried over (regrouped) to the next digit; 5x7=36 (instead of 35) plus 2 equals 38, 8 is written as part of the digit numbers
3
final product while 3 is carried over (regrouped) to the next digit; 5x2=10 plus 3 equals 13 and written as part
of the final product (13852). Multiplication by 0 is mistakenly used as identity (a x 0 = a) instead of nullity (a 0 is used as identity of multiplication
x 0 = 0) and multiplication of single-digit numbers is not correctly done. These indicate an inability to
perform the basic multiplication operation of single digit numbers, inability to perform multiplication by 2-
digit numbers and misconception on the multiplication by 0.
P2: P2: Ones and tens digits of the multiplier are
The ones digit of the multiplier is multiplied only to the ones digit in the multiplicand (8x6=40 instead of 48); multiplied to the ones and tens digits of
while the tens digit of the multiplier is multiplied only to the tens digit in the multiplicand (1x7=7). The ones the multiplier, respectively
digit of the product, 0, is written as the last digit in the final product while the tens digit, 4, is carried over
4 multiplying by two-digit numbers in
(regrouped) to the tens digit in the multiplicand but is not included in the partial product. The product of the
column-pairs
tens digits (7) is written as first digit of the final product (70). Aside from erroneously multiplying of two-
digit numbers in column-pairs, multiplication of single-digit numbers is not correctly done. This shows an Multiplication of single-digit numbers is
inability to perform multiplication by single digits correctly. not correctly done
P2: P2: inability to apply the process of
5
multiplication by 3-digit multipliers

23
 The hundreds digit multiplier is multiplied to each digit in the multiplicand (1x4=4, 1x9=9, and 1x8=8) and
results is written as the final product (894) ignoring the zeros in the multiplier. This shows an inability to Multiplication by three-digit multipliers
apply the process of multiplication by 3-digit multipliers. is done by column-pairs
This solution may also mean that the ones digit of the multiplier is multiplied to the ones digit in the
0 is used as identity instead of nullity
multiplicand (0x4=4 instead of 0); the tens digit of the multiplier is multiplied to the tens digit in the
multiplicand (0x9=9 instead of 0); and, the hundreds digit of the multiplier is multiplied to the hundreds digit
in the multiplicand (1x8=8) and the results is written as the final product.
Aside from not performing multiplication by 0, multiplication by three-digit multipliers is erroneously done
by column-pairs instead of placing the partial products in appropriate columns to get the final product.
Multiplication by 0 is mistakenly used as identity instead of nullity.
P3: P3: Tens digit multiplier is not used
The ones digit of the multiplier is correctly multiplied to each digit in the multiplicand (8x6=48 with 8 written
6 down and 4 is carried over (regrouped) to the next digit and 8x7=56 plus 4 equals 60). This is written as the unable to perform multiplication by 2-
final product (608) instead of taking it as a partial product for the ones digit multiplier. The tens digit digits correctly
multiplier is not used. This shows that the student is unable to perform multiplication by 2-digits correctly.
P3: P3: inability to apply the process of
The hundreds digit multiplier is multiplied to each digit in the multiplicand (1x4=4, 1x9=9, and 1x8=8) and multiplication by 3-digit multipliers
results is written as the final product (894) ignoring the zeros in the multiplier. This shows an inability to
apply the process of multiplication by 3-digit multipliers. Multiplication by three-digit multipliers
is done by column-pairs
This solution may also mean that the ones digit of the multiplier is multiplied to the ones digit in the
7 multiplicand (0x4=4 instead of 0); the tens digit of the multiplier is multiplied to the tens digit in the
0 is used as identity instead of nullity
multiplicand (0x9=9 instead of 0); and, the hundreds digit of the multiplier is multiplied to the hundreds digit
in the multiplicand (1x8=8) and the results is written as the final product.
Aside from not performing multiplication by 0, multiplication by three-digit multipliers is erroneously done
by column-pairs instead of placing the partial products in appropriate columns to get the final product.
Multiplication by 0 is mistakenly used as identity instead of nullity.
P3: P3: multiplication by 0 is equated as identity
Each digit of the multiplier is multiplied to each digit in the multiplicand; however, 2x0=2 instead of 0 and
8 5x0=5 instead of 0. Partial products are correctly placed in columns and accurately added to get the final
product. This shows a misconception on the multiplication by 0 as it is mistakenly equated as identity (a x 0 =
a) instead of nullity (a x 0 = 0).
P4: P4: The tens digit of the multiplier is
The ones digit of the multiplier is correctly multiplied only to the ones digit in the multiplicand (8x6=48); multiplied only to the tens digit in the
while the tens digit of the multiplier is multiplied only to the tens digit in the multiplicand (1x7=7). The ones multiplicand
digit of the product, 8, is written as the last digit in the final product while the tens digit, 4, is carried over
9 (regrouped) to the tens digit in the multiplicand. Four is added to the product of the tens digits (7+4=11) and not able to multiply correctly using two-
the sum is written as additional digits of the final product (118). This shows that the student is not able to digit multiplier
multiply correctly using two-digit multiplier. Multiplication of two-digit numbers is erroneously done by
column-pairs instead of multiplying each multiplier to each digit of the multiplicand and adding the partial Multiplication of two-digit numbers is
products in appropriate columns to get the final product. done by column-pairs
P4: P4: Multiplication of 3-digit by 3-digit is
The ones digit of the multiplier is multiplied to the ones digit in the multiplicand (0x4=0); the tens digit of the done by column-pairs
multiplier is multiplied to the tens digit in the multiplicand (0x9=0); and the hundreds digit of the multiplier is
10 multiplied to the hundreds digit in the multiplicand (1x8=8) and the results is written as the final product
(800). Multiplication of 3-digit by 3digit numbers is erroneously done by column-pairs instead of multiplying
each multiplier to each digit of the multiplicand and adding the partial products in appropriate columns to get
the final product.
P4: P4: Careless operation
Each digit of the multiplier is multiplied to each digit in the multiplicand; however, 5x7=65 instead of 35 or
11 5x7=35 but the carryover was erroneously taken as 6 instead of 3. Partial products are correctly placed in multiplication of single-digit number is
columns and accurately added to get the final product. Regrouping (carry over) is carelessly done or incorrectly solved
multiplication of single-digit number is incorrectly solved.
P5: P5: inability to correctly perform
Each digit of the multiplier is multiplied to each digit in the multiplicand; however, 0x4=4 instead of 0; 0x9=9 multiplication by 0
12 instead of 0; and 0x8=8 instead of 0. Multiplications results are correctly placed in columns and accurately
added to get the final product. This shows an inability to correctly perform multiplication by 0 as it is
mistakenly equated as identity (a x 0 = a) instead of nullity (a x 0 = 0).
P6: P6: Tens digit multiplier is not used
The ones digit of the multiplier is correctly multiplied to each digit in the multiplicand (8x6=48 with 8 written
down and 4 is carried over (regrouped) to the next digit and 8x7=56 plus 4 equals 60. This is written as the inability to correctly apply the process of
13
final product (608) instead of taking it as a partial product for the ones digit multiplier. The tens digit multiplication by two-digit numbers
multiplier is not used. This shows an inability to correctly apply the process of multiplication by two-digit
numbers.
P7: P7: Ones digit multiplier is not completely
The ones digit of the multiplier is correctly multiplied to the ones digit in the multiplicand (8x6=48 with 8 multiplied to all digits in the
written down as initial product and 4 as carried over (regrouped) to the next digit. The second digit multiplier multiplicand
14 is added to the second digit multiplicand (1+7=8) and the sum is written as first digit in the final product (88). Tens digits multiplier and multiplicand
The ones digit multiplier is not completely multiplied to all digits in the multiplicand and the tens digits are made as addends
multiplier and multiplicand are made as addends. This suggest that the student is not able to correctly apply
process of multiplication by more than
the process of multiplication by more than one multiplier.
one multiplier
P7: P7: Multiplication of 3-digit by 3-digit is
The ones digit of the multiplier is multiplied to the ones digit in the multiplicand (0x4=0); the tens digit of the done by column-pairs
multiplier is multiplied to the tens digit in the multiplicand (0x9=0); and, the hundreds digit of the multiplier
15 is multiplied to the hundreds digit in the multiplicand (1x8=8) and the results is written as the final product
(800). Multiplication of 3-digit by 3digit numbers is erroneously done by column-pairs instead of multiplying
each multiplier to each digit of the multiplicand and adding the partial products in appropriate columns to get
the final product.
P8: P8: The tens digit of the multiplier is
The ones digit of the multiplier is correctly multiplied only to the ones digit in the multiplicand (8x6=48); multiplied only to the tens digit in the
while the tens digit of the multiplier is multiplied only to the tens digit in the multiplicand (1x7=7). The ones multiplicand
digit of the product, 8, is written as the last digit in the final product while the tens digit, 4, is carried over
16 (regrouped) to the tens digit in the multiplicand. Four is added to the product of the tens digits (7+4=11) and not able to multiply correctly using two-
the sum is written as additional digits of the final product (118). This shows that the student is not able to digit multiplier
multiply correctly using two-digit multiplier. Multiplication of two-digit numbers is erroneously done by
column-pairs instead of multiplying each multiplier to each digit of the multiplicand and adding the partial Multiplication of two-digit numbers is
products in appropriate columns to get the final product. done by column-pairs
P12: P12: Multiplication of two-digit numbers is
The ones digit of the multiplier is multiplied to the ones digit in the multiplicand (8x6=48); while the tens done by column-pairs
digit of the multiplier is multiplied to the tens digit in the multiplicand (1x7=7). The product of the ones digits
17 (48) is written as part of the final product while the product of the tens digits (7) is written as additional digit not able to multiply correctly using two-
of the final product (748). Multiplication of two-digit numbers is erroneously done by column-pairs instead of digit multiplier
multiplying each multiplier to each digit of the multiplicand and adding the partial products in appropriate
columns to get the final product.

24