REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL GEOGRAPHICAL EDUCATION

ISSN: 2146-0353 ● © RIGEO ● 11(4), WINTER, 2021

The Effectiveness of Circle Bar Method Towards Pupils’

Performance in the Topic of Multiplication of Two
Numbers
Y. Y. Yee1 R. L. Zuraida2
Department of Mathematics, Faculty of Science and Department of Mathematics, Faculty of Science and
Mathematics, Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris, 35900 Mathematics, Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris, 35900 Tanjong
Tanjong Malim, Perak, Malaysia Malim, Perak, Malaysia
R. N. Farah 3 N. Azid4
Department of Mathematics, Faculty of Science and School of Education and Modern Language, Universiti Utara
Mathematics, Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris, 35900 Malaysia, 06010 Sintok, Kedah
Tanjong Malim, Perak, Malaysia A. Rosli6
l. E. khuloqo5 Kuala Kangsar District Education Office, 33000 Kuala
Universitas Muhammadiyah Prof. Dr. HAMKA, Jakarta 12130, Kangsar. Perak
Indonesia

Corresponding author: Department of Mathematics, Faculty of Science and Mathematics, Universiti

Pendidikan Sultan Idris, 35900 Tanjong Malim, Perak, Malaysia Email: lailatul.zuraida@fsmt.upsi.edu.my

Abstract
The purpose of this research was to study the effectiveness of Bar Circle method towards achievement
of Year 3 pupils in the topic of multiplication. A pre-test and post-test non-equivalent group quasi-
experimental design was used. A total of 50 primary pupils enrolled in one of the schools in Perak were
chosen for this study. A total of 25 respondents from the treatment group used Bar Circle Method for
intervention process whereas 25 respondents from the control group used conventional method in the
teaching and learning process. The quantitative data was analysed using descriptive statistic and
inferential statistic. Based on the independent sample t-test, the mean score of treatment group
differed from the mean score of control group significantly [t(48) = 9.535, p < 0.05]. In conclusion, pupils
from the treatment group who went through the teaching and learning using Bar Circle Method
showed better achievement in the multiplication of two numbers compared to pupils from the
controlled group. The implication of this study showed that the teaching and learning in Malaysia should
consider the use of other alternatives which emphasises place value concept in order to enhance the
understanding and pupils’ achievement in the topic of multiplication of two numbers.

Keywords
Multiplication; Bar Circle Method; Two Numbers; Multi-Digits; Algorithm; Regrouping

To cite this article: Yee, Y, Y.; R. L. Zuraida; R. N. Farah; Azid, N.; khuloqo, I, E.; and Rosli, A. (2021) The Effectiveness
of Circle Bar Method Towards Pupils’ Performance in the Topic of Multiplication of Two Numbers. Review of
International Geographical Education (RIGEO), 11(4), 982-991. doi: 10.48047/rigeo.11.04.91

Submitted: 01-02-2021 ● Revised: 02-03-2021 ● Accepted: 03-05-2021

Yee, Y, Y.; R. L. Zuraida; R. N. Farah; Azid, N.; khuloqo, l. E; and Rosli, A. (2021) The Effectiveness of Circle Bar …

Introduction
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM, 2012) has outlined number and operations
as one of the five content standards in the Principles and Standards for School Mathematics.
Number and operations is also one of the learning standards in mathematics content in primary
schools in Malaysia (Kementerian Pelajaran Malaysia, 2013). According to O’Donnell and
San Giovanni (2015), multiplication is one of the most important basic operations for primary
school pupils because it is the basic skill to master the concept of mathematics in higher level
such as fraction, ratio, proportions and algebra. According to National Mathematics Advisory
Panel (2008), pupils should be proficient in multiplication in order to success in mathematics.
Teachers play an important role in the process of teaching and learning process and they are
the main determinant of a pupil’s success. However, teachers still tend to apply conventional
method in delivering the lesson (Lessani, Aida & Kamariah, 2017). Trends in International
Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) Report 2011 shows that the main activity in a
mathematics class is teacher centred and using textbook as the main source of teaching and
learning (Mullis, Martin, Foy & Arora, 2012). The standard multiplication algorithm is being taught
in numerical steps rotely and having pupils to memorise the steps rather than understand and
explain them (Bahadir, 2017). This implies that teachers emphasise on procedural understanding.
The ability of pupils will be hampered when they were taught with an algorithm before they
have an understanding of the place value of the numbers. The situation becomes worsen when
the numbers become larger in value or when they are asked to use the strategy they have not
mastered. Studies by Heibert and Wearne (1996), Thompson (1996) and Hurst and Hurrell (2016)
address the same issue. Therefore, pupils tend to make mistakes with standard algorithm in
conventional method due to the misconceptions related to the place value of numbers (Koshy,
Ernest and Casey & 2000). They become passive in learning a multiplication algorithm in such
learning environment. They also find it difficult to multiply multi-digit without the using of visual
elements. Therefore, an algorithm can be explained with various methods such as using visual
elements (Fuson & Beckmann, 2012/2013). For example, visual multiplication with lines and area
model were introduced as a way of representing the multiplication of multi-digit whole numbers
visually. Pupils should learn mathematical concepts and procedures with understanding as
opposed to just applying rules. Learning mathematics with both procedural and conceptual
understanding is essential in the development of mathematical knowledge. It is crucial to
integrate the use of alternative algorithms that help pupils to understand besides performing the
algorithms.

Literature Review
Many studies have been conducted to investigate students’ understandings of mathematical
concepts in order to extend the knowledge of students’ understandings of multiplication (Tzur et
al., 2013; Van Dooren, De Bock, & Verschaffel, 2010). Caron (2007) stated that pupils apply what
they have memorised based on the steps taught by their teachers in the questions without a real
understanding of the multiplication concept and also the standard multiplication algorithm. The
research done by Norasmah and Shuki (2009) also shows that conventional method often
emphasises the memorisation method in teaching and learning the algorithm of multiplication.
Pupils follow a procedure as the algorithm is taught in a way they do not understand (Van de
Walle, Kap & Bay-Williams, 2008). Therefore, it is important to emphasise the place values so that
pupils are not memorising a procedure rotely. They should have a deep understanding of the
fecundation concepts of multiplication. According to Common Core State Standards Initiative
(2010), it is more important to justify than just apply the memorised step- by-step procedures.
Noraini (2014) found out that the teaching today focuses on memorisation and recall of various
concepts and formulas in mathematics without taking into account of the understanding of a
concept. Anghileri (2006) stated that a skill should not be learnt without understanding of the
concept although a basic skill is important. This is also supported by Miller and Hudson (2007) who
stated that the third important knowledge in learning mathematics is conceptual knowledge.
Most of the pupils fail to master the correct computations procedure of multiplication in the
standard multiplication algorithm. Ashlock (2010) stated that several systemic computational

983
 © RIGEO ● Review of International Geographical Education 11(4), WINTER, 2021
errors that arise are caused by the lack of understanding of algorithms of a pupil. A study done
by Zamatun (2011) reported that most of the pupils do not master the skill when they multiply
multi-digit numbers. They often make mistakes in place value when they multiply two numbers
(Maher & Muhir, 2013). When they do not understand the concept of place value, they tend to
forget steps or show mistakes in place value in finding the products of the two numbers. The
understanding of multiplication concept in mathematics can be enhanced through exploration
of the concept of multiplication.
Therefore, the researcher introduced the Bar Circle method to visualise the products of two
numbers and focus on the place value concept and include colours. They learn about how the
partial products are affected by the place values of each digit in the factors. They learn how
numbers can be decomposed in multiplication. This method separates the operations of
multiplication and addition and re-grouping is only performed during addition. It helps to avoid
confusion and reduce mistakes made by pupils. Nur Alina (2010) proved that algorithms
become easier and faster when re-grouping is only needed in addition like in the Lattice
method. The algorithm assists pupils to think about place value and then place them in their
proper columns of place value. Once students obtained a solid understanding through
exploration of the place value concepts and the basic concept of numbers, they will use an
algorithm to solve more efficiently (Rutherford, 2015). The Bar Circle method applies the use of
colours in the multiplication algorithm. It helps pupils to understand the decomposition of
numbers. According to Rutherford (2015), pupils become proficient in counting when they use
colours repeatedly. Colours can influence the level of attention and also trigger emotional
stimulation which contributes to the memory performance (Pan, 2012) Therefore, pupils will pay
more attention and help them understand a mathematical concept in a more interesting and
effective way.

This study was conducted to answer the following research questions:

1. Is there a significant difference between the performance of pupils taught with

Bar Circle Method, as compared to the pupils taught with the conventional method?
2. What are the mistakes made by pupils in both algorithms in post-test?

Hypothesis

H0: There is no significant difference between the performance of pupils taught with Bar Circle
method, as compared to the pupils taught with the conventional method.

Bar Circle Method

Figure 1. Structure of Bar Circle Method

Bar Circle method involves the drawing of a bar which is divided into parts to help pupils to
understand the place value.
Pupils learn to multiply two digits by understanding the place values of the digits in the factors.
They could see the zeros in the numbers by writing out according to their place value. This
method enables pupils to multiply the two numbers with accuracy. The steps of multiplying two

984
Yee, Y, Y.; R. L. Zuraida; R. N. Farah; Azid, N.; khuloqo, l. E; and Rosli, A. (2021) The Effectiveness of Circle Bar …

numbers are shown below:

Step 1: Draw a bar and divide into parts to show the place values. Step 2: Multiply each digit in
the both factors.
Step 3: Write the partial products.
Step 4: Repeat Step 2 and Step 3 until all the partial products are
included.
Step 5: Add up the partial products for final answer.

Materials and Methods/Methodology

Research Design

A pre-test and post-test quasi-experimental design with non- equivalent pre and post-test
control groups was used in this study to determine the effectiveness of Bar Circle method
towards the performance of pupils. The control group was created to compare with the
experimental group. The research design is shown in Table 1.

Table 1.
Quasi-experimental research design
Group Pre-test Treatment Post-test
Control O1 X1 O2
Treatment O1 X2 O2

Details:

O1: Pre-test for control and treatment groups O2: Post-test for control and treatment groups X1:
Bar Circle Method
X2: Conventional Method

Research Sample

The population of this study consisted of all the Year 3 pupils in the public primary schools in Kinta
Selatan District, Perak. A school was selected from 65 schools as the sample using fishbowl draw
and a total of 50 Year 3 pupils were involved in this study. According to Mohd. Majid Konting
(2005), a researcher should choose at least 30 pupils as research sample to obtain the reliability
and validity of the research. The pupils in three classes had average ability in mathematics.
These pupils were chosen as it gave a positive impact compared to pupils with low and high
ability in mathematics. All the Year 3 classes were labelled on a piece of paper and then two
papers were drawn. The first class drawn was assigned as control group whereas the second
class drawn was assigned as treatment group. Both treatment group and control group
consisted of 25 pupils. The pupils in the treatment group were taught using Bar Circle method
and the pupils in the control group were taught using conventional method which is the long
algorithm. As shown in Table 2, a Levene's test was carried out to test the equality in terms o f
achievement between the pupils in treatment and control group. The test implies that the
variances between the two groups were homogeneous (p>0.05). Overall, the mean scores of
treatment group (Mean = 51.76, Std. Error = 4.711) were almost the same as the mean scores of
control group (Mean = 51.00, Std. Error = 4.880). The results showed that the pupils from both
groups were equal in terms of achievement.

Table 2.
Levene's test of last year’s exam scores in mathematics
Group Mean Std. Error Levene’s Test
F Sig. t df
Control 51.00 4.880
0.172 0.680 -0.112 48

985
 © RIGEO ● Review of International Geographical Education 11(4), WINTER, 2021
Treatment 51.76 4.711

Research instrument

The instrument used for data collection was an achievement test containing the pre-test and
post-test. The pre-test and post-test consisted of eight questions and divided into four categories
of questions; 2-digit number by 1-digit number, 3-digit number by 1-digit number, 2-digit number
by 2-digit number and 3-digit number by 2-digit number. Each category consisted of two
questions; one question with regrouping and one question without regrouping. A marking
scheme was prepared for guidance of scoring and allocation of marks for each question. Pupils
were instructed to show all the steps in the algorithm. Each correct step in the algorithm will be
awarded one mark. The pre-test was given to both groups before the treatment was
administered. A post-test of the same questions with different arrangement of the questions
were given to both groups at the end of the treatment. The treatment took 18 teaching periods
and each period is equivalent to 30 minutes.

Pilot study

A pilot study involved 15 pupils to determine the validity and reliability of the research instrument.
The number of samples selected was in line with Connelly (2008) who suggested the number of
samples for pilot study was 10% of the actual sample. The validity of the instrument was verified
by three primary school mathematics teachers with more than 15 years of teaching experience.
According to them, the instrument was suitable to be used in the study. A test-retest method was
carried out to determine the reliability of the instrument. The Pearson correlation coefficient was
analysed to obtain the reliability coefficient using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences
(SPSS) version 23.0. A reliability coefficient of 0.92 was obtained. The reliability coefficient showed
that the items had excellent reliability as suggested by Taylor and Kuyatt (1994). The results
indicated that the items were solid and strong for the actual study.

Data analysis

The analysis of Independent Sample t-test was performed using Statistical Package Social
Sciences (SPSS) version 23.0 at a significant level of 0.05 to identify the difference in mean scores
between the treatment and the control group. The data obtained were analysed to answer the
first research question while the t- test statistic was used to test the hypothesis. Descriptive
analysis were performed to answer the second research question which is to describe the
mistakes made in both algorithm.

Result and Discussion

Normality of Data

The normality test showed the skewness and kurtosis values for the scores for both groups were
shown in Table 3. The results obtained shows that the data was considered normal if the values
of Skewness and Kurtosis were between -2 and +2 as suggested by George and Mallery (2010).

Table 3.
Normality test using Skewness and Kurtosis
Test Group Skewness Kurtosis
Pre-test Control -0.917 -0.091
Treatment 0.84 -0.873
Post-test Control -0.319 -0.041
Treatment -0.946 0.65

Homogeneity of variance
986
Yee, Y, Y.; R. L. Zuraida; R. N. Farah; Azid, N.; khuloqo, l. E; and Rosli, A. (2021) The Effectiveness of Circle Bar …

The homogeneity of variance of pre-test and post-test was tested using Levene’s test as shown
in Table 4. According to Andy (2009), the variance of a sample is homogeneous when the value
of Levene’s test is not significant (p>0.05). Therefore, the variance between means scores of
both groups was homogeneous.

Table 4.
Levene’s test of homogeneity of variance
Test F Df Sig. (2-tailed)
Pre-test 2.594 48 0.114
Post-test 0.547 48 0.463

Research Question

1) Is there a significant difference between the performance of pupils taught with Bar Circle
method, as compared to the pupils taught with the conventional method?
2) What are the mistakes made by pupils in both algorithms in post-test?

Research Question: 1) Is there a significant difference between the performance of pupils taught
with Bar Circle method, as compared to the pupils taught with the conventional method?

Hypothesis Testing
H0: There is no significant difference between the performance of
pupils taught with Bar Circle method, as compared to the pupils taught with the conventional
method.

Table 5.
Pre-test and post-test between the treatment group and control group
Treatment
Control Group
Group
(n=25) (n=25)
M SD M SD Df t P
Pre- test8.40 2.828 8.76 4.266 48 -0.354 0.144
Post-
test 35.40 2.082 29.60 2.217 48 9.535 0.000

Table 5 shows the result of the Independent Sample t-test. The results revealed that [t (48) = 9.535,
p<0.05]. Therefore, the hypothesis is rejected and the findings indicated that there is a significant
difference between the performance of pupils taught with Bar Circle method, as compared to
the pupils taught with the conventional method. Treatment group showed a better
achievement after a treatment was given. The mean scores of treatment group increased by
27.00 and the mean scores of control group increased by 20.84. The results clearly show that Bar
Circle method helps to improve the performance of pupils than the use of conventional method.

Research Question: 2) What are the mistakes made by pupils in both algorithms in post-test?

987
 © RIGEO ● Review of International Geographical Education 11(4), WINTER, 2021
Figure 1. Sample answers of Category 1 by pupils in both groups

One of the mistakes made by pupils in conventional algorithm is in regrouping as shown in Figure
1. Pupil tends to forget to regroup when they multiply. The pupil did not regroup the tens value
into the ten’s column. Bar Circle method helps to minimise this structural issue. Pupil in treatment
group recorded the two partial products correctly but failed to get the correct answer as the
pupil made a careless mistake. The sum of 6 + 0 should be 6 instead of 5. This shows that the
pupil misidentified the value of digits. He identified 6 as 5.

Figure 2. Sample answers of Category 2 by pupils in both groups

The respondents of both groups did not obtain full marks in the question was due to the careless
mistake made by the pupils. For control group, he made mistake when writing the multiplication
fact for 2x2 while the pupil in treatment group showed careless mistake when adding up the all
the digits in one’s column.

Figure 3. Sample answers of Category 3 by pupils in both groups

The above mistakes were the common error found in pupils’ answers. Figure 3 shows that pupil in
control group multiplied correctly by one’s digit but the pupil ignored the place value for the
digit in the tens in the multiplier. The 1 in the tens place means 10 but pupil multiplied by 1
instead of 10. Besides, the pupil also did not write the sign of multiplication and wrote the
addition sign wrongly. Another sample answer by pupil in control group showed that pupil
ignored the place value completely in the algorithm. The pupil multiplied each digit as if it
represented ones. The sample answer by pupil in treatment group clearly shows that pupil used
the wrong digit when expanding the numbers according to the place value resulting in wrong
answer.

Figure 4. Sample answers of Category 4 by pupils in both groups

The answer as shown in Figure 4 shows that pupil not only made mistakes regarding to place

988
Yee, Y, Y.; R. L. Zuraida; R. N. Farah; Azid, N.; khuloqo, l. E; and Rosli, A. (2021) The Effectiveness of Circle Bar …

value, he also made mistakes in regrouping. Pupils encountered problems to keep track of many
digits at once. Pupils became confused when there were too many digits to carry in the limited
space. Bar Circle method does not alternate multiplying and adding. Therefore, pupils did not
have to regroup right away. As shown in figure 4, pupil in treatment group made counting error
although the pupil did not made mistakes regarding to place value. The pupil missed a number
in the tens column when adding the digits.

Discussion
The results obtained revealed that both control and treatment group showed an improvement
in their performance. However, the treatment group showed a greater improvement than the
control group. Pupils in treatment group tend to make fewer mistakes as compared to control
group. According to Nur Aniza and Roslinda (2016), the process of multiplying two numbers
became confusing when pupils do not understand and master the place value concept. The
achievement of pupils in treatment group proves the importance of place value concept in a
multiplication algorithm. Bar Circle method is developed and explained by using a visual model
that shows the place value clearly. While recording the partial products, this method utilises the
property of distribution and promotes conceptual understanding of what the numbers
represent. Pupils record their partial products without worrying about the condensed
regrouping process. Pupils can develop further understanding of a concept once they have
been exposed to different and more efficient strategies (Parrish, 2014). This method promoted
the deeper understanding of the pupils and they were able to relate the place value concept
of each number when they multiply each two digits. According to Zainuddin (2008), visual
elements help pupils to master the knowledge and basic math skills easily. Pupils understand
how the partial products come from a multiplication in terms of the place value.
In using conventional method, pupils are likely to make mistakes with the more abstract way of
recording their partial products. There were studies which stated that such mistakes occur
because teachers focus more on algorithms rather than the understanding of underlying
reasoning behind a concept. Pupils’ misunderstanding of the place value prevents them from
learning and also affect their subsequent learning negatively. The results were consistent with
other study by Aliustaoglu, Tunab and Biberc (2018) that addressed the issue of
misunderstanding. The study found out that pupils often made mistakes in regrouping when
finding the partial products. Issues of regrouping is closely related to place value issues. The
algorithm alternates between multiplying and adding. According to Fuson and Beckmann
(2012/2013), the method will increase its difficulty even further.
Through constructivism approach in the treatment group also enabled pupils to interact with
their classmates during group activities. In the group activities, pupils were able to discuss
among themselves in solving the questions. They were also able to explore each step in the Bar
Circle method with them classmates. Study done by Vighnarajah, Wong and Kamariah (2008)
mentioned that teacher who uses the constructivism approach encourages pupils to participate
actively in the teaching and learning process. Active engagement helps them to develop new
knowledge and adapt any new knowledge with their prior knowledge. The participation will
allow them to better facilitate learning experiences that are meaningful and effective towards
the performance in multiplying two numbers. Teaching and learning using this approach gives a
positive effect towards academic achievement of pupils. This is supported in Peter, Abiodun and
Jonathan (2010). Therefore, Bar Circle method can be used as a strategy to help pupils in
mastering the place value concept in the algorithm before they move on to the greater fluency
of multiplication.

Conclusion
Based on the results and discussion, this study concludes that Bar Circle method is an effective
alternative in an algorithm and has a significant effect on the pupils’ performance in the topic of
Multiplication of Two Numbers. Alternative algorithms in a classroom can be integrated in various
different ways. Teachers should use various teaching methods other than the conventional
method to build deeper understanding of concepts such as place value and distributive
property which are crucial in multiplication. Pupils should not rely almost entirely on so called
‘buggy procedures’ in the conventional method in traditional classrooms. They must be

989
 © RIGEO ● Review of International Geographical Education 11(4), WINTER, 2021
encouraged to build on the knowledge and development which they already know about
numbers and algorithms. It is important that pupils could recall all steps in performing an
algorithm with full understanding at a point in the future.

Acknowledgement
We would like to express our sincere thanks and appreciation to the Research Management
and Innovation Centre (RMIC), Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris (Malaysia) for the financial
supports in sponsoring this research.

References
Aliustaoğlua, F., Tunab, A. & Biberc, A. (2018). Misconceptions of sixth grade secondary school
students on fractions. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 10(5),
591-599.
Andy, F. (2009). Discovering Statistic Using SPSS (Third Edit.) Singapore: Sage Publications.
Anghileri, J. (2006). Teaching number sense (2nd ed.). London: Continuum.
Ashlock, R. (2010). Error Patterns in Computation: Using Error Patterns to Help Each Student Learn.
10th ed. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Bahadir, E. (2017). Teaching multiplication and multiplication tables by the application of finger
multiplication. European Journal of Education Studies, 3(4).
Caron, T. (2007). Learning multiplication, the easy way. Clearing House, 80(6), 278-282.
Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2010). Common Core State Standards for
Mathematics. Washington: DC.
Connelly, L. M. (2008). Pilot studies. Medsurg Nurs, 17(6): 411– 2.
Fuson, K., & Beckmann, S. (2012/2013). Standard Algorithms in the Common Core State
Standards. National Council of Supervisors of Mathematics Journal of Mathematics
Education Leadership, 14(2), 14-30.
George, D., & Mallery, M. (2010). SPSS for Windows Step by Step: A Simple Guide and Reference,
17.0 update (10a ed.) Boston: Pearson.
Hiebert, J., & Wearne, D. (1996). Instruction, understanding, and skill in multidigit addition and
subtraction. Cognition and Instruction, 14(3), 251-283.
Hurst, C., & Hurrell, D. (2016). Multiplicative thinking: Much more than knowing multiplication facts
and procedures. Australian Primary Mathematics Classroom, 21(1), 34-38.
Kementerian Pelajaran Malaysia. (2013). Kurikulum Standard Sekolah Rendah Matematik Tahun
Tiga: Dokumen Standard Kurikulum Dan Pentaksiran (Draf Edition). Bahagian
Pembangunan Kurikulum Kementerian Pelajaran Malaysia.
Koshy, V., Ernest, P., & Casey, R. (2000). Mathematics for Primary Teachers. Routledge: London.
Lessani, A., Aida Suraya & Kamariah Abu Bakar. (2017). Comparison of new mathematics
teaching methods with traditional methods. People: International Journal of Social
Sciences, 3, 1285-1297.
Maher, N., & Muir, T. (2013). “I know you have to put down a zero, but i’m not sure why”:
Exploring the link between pre- service teachers’ content and pedagogical content
knowledge. Mathematics Teacher Education and Development, 15(1), 72-87.
Miller, S. P. & Hudson, P. J., (2007). Using evidence-based practices to build mathematics
competence related to conceptual, procedural, and declarative knowledge. Learning
Disabilities Practice, 22(1), 47-57.
Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Foy, P., & Arora, A. (2012). TIMSS 2011 International Results in
Mathematics. Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2012). Standards for grades 3- 5. Retrieved from
http://www.nctm.org/
standards/content.aspx?id=24600#3-5 National Mathematics Advisory Panel. (2008).
Foundations for Success: The final report of the national mathematics advisory panel.:
Washington, DC: US Department of Education.
National Mathematics Advisory Panel. (2008). Foundations for Success: The final report of the
national mathematics advisory panel.: Washington, DC.
Nur Alina. (2010). Meningkatkan kemahiran mendarab dengan nombor dua digit secara

990
Yee, Y, Y.; R. L. Zuraida; R. N. Farah; Azid, N.; khuloqo, l. E; and Rosli, A. (2021) The Effectiveness of Circle Bar …

mengumpul semula menggunakan ‘Kaedah Lattice’ bagi murid tahun 4. Prosiding

Seminar Penyelidikan Tindakan PISMP, 88-92.
Nur Aniza Elias. & Roslinda Rosli. (2017). Penguasaan kaedah titik meningkatkan penguasaan
murid dalam operasi darab. Proceedings of the ICECRS. 1(2016), 1129-1136.
O'Connell, S., & SanGiovanni, J. (2015). Mastering the Basic Facts in Multiplication and Division.
Portsmouth: Heinemann.
Pan, Y. (2012). Attentional capture by working memory contents. Can J Exp Psychol, 64(2), 124–
128.
Parish, S. (2014). Helping Children Build Mental Math and Computation Strategies.Sausalito, CA:
Math Solutions.
Peter, O. I., Abiodun, A. P. & Jonathan, O. O. (2010). Effect of constructivism instructional
approach on teaching practical skills to mechanical related trade students in western
Nigeria technical colleges, International NGO Journals, 5(3), 59-64.
Rutherford, K. (2015). Why play Math games? Retrieved from
http://www.nctm.org/publications/teaching-children-mathematics/blog/why- play-
math-games_/
Taylor, Barry N. & Kuyatt, Chris E. (1994). Guidelines for Evaluating and Expressing the Uncertainty
of NIST Measurement Results. Washington: National Institute of Standards and Technology.
Thompson, I. (1996). "User friendly" calculation algorithms. Mathematics in School, 25(5), 42-45.
Tzur, R., Johnson, H. L., McClintock, E., Kenney, R. H., Xin, Y. P., Si, L., et al. (2013). Distinguishing
Schemes and Tasks in Childrenʹs Development of Multiplicative Reasoning. PNA, 7(3), 85-
101.
Van de Walle, J. A., Karp, K. S., & Bay-Williams, J. M. (2008). Elementary and middle school
mathematics: Teaching developmentally. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Van Dooren, W., De Bock, D. & Verschaffel, L. (2010). From addition to multiplication and back:
The development of students’ additive and multiplicative reasoning skills. Cognition and
Instruction, 28(3), 360-381.
Vighnarajah, Wong, S.L. & Kamariah Abu Bakar. (2008). The shift in the role of teachers in the
learning process. European Journal of Social Sciences, 7(2).
Zamatun Nasrah Marwan. (2011). Meningkat penguasaan murid dalam operasi darab nombor
tiga digit dengan dua digit melibatkan pengumpulan semula. Kuala Lumpur: Open
Universiti.
Zainal Abidin Zainuddin. (2008). Keberkesanan Kaedah Konstruktivisme Dalam Pengajaran Dan
Pembelajaran Matematik. Johor: Universiti Teknologi Malaysia.

991