CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.0 Overview

Chapter one presents the insight as well as the background to the study which aimed at

improving students’ performance in problems involving addition and subtraction of

fractions. It also includes statement of the problem, purpose of the study, objectives of the

study, research questions and significance of the research, limitations and delimitation of

the study and organization of the study.

1.1 Background to the Study

Mathematics in general is an essential subject for scientific and technological development

of any nation. It is part of life without which man cannot function (Nabie, 2002). This

suggests that no nation can grow scientifically and technologically above her mathematics

status; an indication that mathematics is indispensable for science.

Mathematics is the means of sharpening the individual’s mind, shaping his reasoning

ability and developing his personality, hence its immense contribution to the general

and basic education of the people of the world (Asiedu-Addo & Yidana, 2004).

The entire world has become digital and this digital innovation is irreversible. It has

become a world culture, which is progressing at a terrific speed for good. Any person,

community or country that resists or refuses to join these forces of progress will be left

behind and abandoned to languish in ignorance, penury and backwardness forever

(Talabi, 2003).

1
With this understanding, the Ghana School Curriculum made mathematics a compulsory

subject in her Basic, Second cycle and Tertiary levels of education apparently to be at par

with the developing if not the developed countries (CRDD, 2004; CRDD, 2007 & Dogbe,

Morrison and Speed, 1995). A thorough looked at the intended curriculum (syllabus) of

schools in Ghana revealed that the study of Fractions is one aspect of mathematics that run

through all levels of education of which the Colleges of Education are no exception.

At the primary level for instance, Fractions can be found in Unit 2.8 for P2, Unit 3.4 and

3.11 for P3, Unit 4.6 and 4.9 for P4, Unit 5.11 for P5 and Unit 6.2 and 6.2.7 for P6

(CRDD, 2004) with the increasing levels of scope underplay. In the Junior High schools,

Fractions can be found in Units 1.2, 1.13 and 1.14 for JHS1, Units 2.5, 2.11 and Unit 2.14

for JHS2 (CRDD, 2007). It is noted that the knowledge of Fractions is essential in learning

other concepts like Money and Taxes, Handling of Data and Probability, Algebraic

expressions, Volumes and Areas, Geometry and Trigonometry, Measurement, Calculus

just to mention but a few.

Doctors, nurses, and pharmacists need to figure out Fractions to determine the

proper dosages of medicines for unusually large or small patients. The patient may have to

take half sachet of medicine with half a glass of water two times daily. You need Fractions

to bend a straight line to turn it into a curve. Students can plan their menu and have a

balanced diet over a stipulated period of time with the idea of Fractions because some

amount of carbohydrates may be taken with some amount of protein. Mother Earth is made

up of Fractions whilst all financial operations work on Fractions in terms of percentages in

their business transactions.

Having a solid foundation of basic Fraction concepts will make the advanced concepts

easier to learn. This is a clear indication that the importance of Teaching and Learning of

2
Fractions in our schools cannot be underestimated if students are to develop good

conceptual knowledge in Mathematics which will eventually enable them to perform well

in other subject areas. Most miserably however, teachers continue to skip this important

area in Mathematics without teaching the concept of Fractions. Teachers who attempt

teaching also teach without using materials that will enhance good understanding or enable

pupils to grab the concept from the onset.

There are topics that some teachers find difficult to teach. They call such topics

challenging topics (INSET Project, 2007). Some of such topics are Operations on

Fractions, Measurement of Area, Capacity, Volume and Time, Investigation with Numbers,

Shape and Space and Collecting and Handling of Data. Teachers claim that the topics

require subject teachers or specialists to teach them. However, with adequate preparation,

teaching of these topics should not be problematic. The challenging topics are seen to be

abstract in nature because they are not seen in real life situations. Besides, there are no

Teaching and Learning Materials and relevant curriculum materials to support teachers to

teach such topics. Most importantly, some teachers do not use appropriate methodology to

enable students participate fully in the lesson (INSET Project, 2007).

In line with the above development, the educational climate in institutions

responsible for training the human resource needed for the nation for which the Colleges

of Education in Ghana are of crucial importance, is essentially driven by an overriding

interest in preparing students with the necessary Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK)

to become effective and efficient teachers at the Basic schools. Notwithstanding the

government of Ghana efforts to upgrade the Pedagogical Content Knowledge of

Mathematics teachers, the subject has not undergone much change in terms of how it is

presented to students. These reflect consistently in low achievement levels in Mathematics

3
among students especially at the basic schools. In this regards, the Colleges of Education

formerly known as Teacher Training Colleges have undergone transformations in many

areas particularly Certification and curriculum to uplift the standard of Content and

Methodology so that trainees can handle these topics efficiently and effectively at the basic

schools even before they graduate as professional teachers.

The Mathematics Curriculum for Methods and Content were earlier integrated for

Certificate ‘A’ until 1999, but in 2005, the curriculum was changed for the diploma

programme. Between 1999 and 2005 though the Colleges were not awarding diploma, the

curriculum for Methods and Contents were not integrated. The Mathematics Content

courses for first years are now Number & Basic Algebra and Geometry & Trigonometry

for first and second semesters respectively whilst the Mathematics Content courses for

second years are Statistics & Probability and Further Algebra for first and second semesters

correspondingly and simultaneously with the Methods of Teaching Primary

School Mathematics and Methods of Teaching Junior High School Mathematics.

Mathematics is hence assigned three (3) and six (6) credit hours for Arts and Mathematics

& Science students respectively.

In spite of this, over the years students’ performance in Mathematics especially at

the basic level has not been impressive despite the huge resources and much attention paid

to the study of Mathematics. The deplorable conditions of students can be observed clearly

from the summary of students’ performance as expressed by Anamuah-Mensah, Mereku

and Asabere-Ameyaw (2004) report on results from the Junior Secondary School two

(JSS2) students participation in Trends in International Mathematics and Science

Study (TIMSS) in 2003, that Ghana’s overall performance in Mathematics was very poor.

This performance placed:

4
 • Ghana at the 45th position out of the 46 participating countries on the overall

Mathematics achievement results table. The range of scores from 130 to 430 shows

how diverse the JSS2 students were in their Mathematics abilities.

• The mean percentage correct answer on all Mathematics test items for each

participating Ghanaian student was 15 and only 9% and 2% of the students reached

the low and intermediate international benchmarks respectively.

• Ghana ranked 46th on the international benchmark for Mathematics.

• The students’ strong content areas in Mathematics were in Number and Data whilst

the weakest areas were in Algebra, Measurement and Geometry.

• In almost all the content areas, the boys achieved significantly higher scores than

the girls.

A further analysis on the results by Anamuah-Mensah and Mereku (2005) indicated that

• The mean percentage of students making correct responses in Algebra,

Measurement and Geometry were 13.6%, 17.3% and 13.4% respectively.

• For Number and Data, the mean percentage making correct responses were 22.6%

and 27% respectively. The Ghanaian students found the constructed response items

more difficult than the multiple-choice items.

• The mean percentage of students who were able to provide the correct responses to

the multiple-choice items was 21.6% while that observed for the constructed

response items was 12.1%.

These performances not withstanding; Ghana’s performances in TIMSS 2007 were better

than that of 2003. According to Anamuah-Mensah, Mereku and Ghartey (2008), Ghana’s

5
Junior High School two (JHS2) students’ performances in Mathematics, though improved

significantly since TIMSS 2003, remains among the lowest in Africa and the world.

• In Mathematics, Ghana’s score of 309 was among the lowest and was statistically

significantly lower than the TIMSS scale score average of 500. This poor

performance place Ghana second from the bottom on the overall Mathematics

results table doing slightly better than only Qatar.

• Ghana’s score in Mathematics was lower than those obtained by all the participating

African countries. But the country’s performance level at TIMSS improved from

that of 2003.

• In Mathematics, the 2007 score of 309 was significantly higher than the 2003 score

of 276, a 33 point increase.

My experiences as a teacher also revealed that, generally, Mathematics has been one of the

subjects that most students fear to learn. As to why it is so feared, some students said it is

simply difficult and they don’t like it. Others said the way it was taught them that made it

difficult to understand. However, in my view, these situations could be attributed to several

factors. Such factors include the abstractness of Mathematical concepts, the way the

concepts are presented to the students and poor foundation among others. Today, many

Mathematics teachers barely use materials in teaching; no matter the level they teach, and

it appears they lack the necessary pedagogical skills needed to be able to teach the subject

with competency for pupils to grasp the concept from the onset.

Like most branches of Mathematics therefore, Number and Algebra are the most

important areas where ‘Fractions’; the topic which poses problems to both students and

teachers alike can be found. The word ‘Fraction’ according to Downes and Paling (1965)

6
is taken from the Latin word ‘Frangere’; meaning “to break”. Fractions are a wellidentify

area of difficulty for many children even adults (Pamela, 1984); and as a result, Practicing

Teachers of Dambai College of Education are no exception. It is important to note that

Fractions form an integral part of the Mathematics curriculum of every level of the

educational system. Most importantly, as implementers of the Government Policy on

Education, the Colleges of Educations’ Mathematics Curriculum lays emphasis on the

Pedagogical Content Know-how to give and enable the Teacher Trainees acquire the

requisite skills to be able to teach this all important topic at the Basic level of education.

This is evidently spelt out in the objectives of the Mathematics syllabus for Colleges of

Education as:

1. To extend the students own Mathematical ability to a level significantly beyond

that which he or she is likely to teach Mathematics in schools.

2. To give students an understanding of the Mathematical content and processes

contained in the Kindergarten, Primary and Junior High School syllabuses.

3. To provide professional skills and understanding relating to Methods of Teaching

which is appropriate for Basic Education.

On the basis of the above, Practicing Teachers’ inability to teach Fractions using Concrete

Materials thereby enhancing pupils’ understanding of concepts better raised a lot of

concerns in the researcher’s mind. It is evident that most of the practicing teacher trainees

on teaching practice failed to teach this topic and a few who tried to teach the topic also

fumbled with the teaching. This came to light whenever the researcher went out to

supervise the students on their teaching practice. The most worrying aspect is that, these

practicing teachers’ are the implementers of the Basic school Mathematics curriculum and

7
as such need much more attention. More importantly, one of the weaknesses of the 2002,

2004 and 2008 Basic Education Certificate Examination (BECE) results listed in the Chief

Examiner’s Report included candidates’ inability to answer questions that involved

Fractions. In view of this, the teaching procedures that are not in contravention of the

famous Chinese proverb that; ‘I hear and I forget, I see and I remember, I do and I

understand’ must be used. The distinction between deepen approaches and surface

approaches to learning is particularly useful for teachers who want to understand the pupils’

learning and create learning environments which encourage pupils to achieve desired

learning outcomes. The fact that, the use of manipulation and representation is strongly

advocated by many authors such as Martin (1994) and Apronti, Afful, Ibrahim, et al (2004),

the selection of Cuisenaire rods as effective Teaching and Learning Materials (TLM) was

necessitated since it is a major material outlined in the students’ Course to be abreast with

its use and to enable pupils’ apply the three domains of learning-Cognitive (head),

Affective (heart) and Psychomotor (hand) in learning a mathematical concept. This entails

the use of concrete, physical, observable and touchable objects like Cuisenaire Rods to

teach abstract concepts.

It is upon these bases that the researcher found it most expedient to use Cuisenaire rods as

an intervention to curbing the problem which has pervaded the educational systems in

Ghana.

1.2 Statement of the Problem

Mathematics is a subject that has to do with understanding of concepts, mastery of skills

and application of these concepts in various fields of life. In the researcher’s supervisory

work as a Mathematics tutor in Dambai College of Education, it was discovered that second
8
year students of Dambai College of Education could not teach the addition and subtraction

of unlike Fractions using concrete materials. As a result of their inability to teach this topic,

pupils could not solve problems involving addition and subtraction of Fractions since the

concept was not well formed in their mind.

As evidence, the Chief Examiner’s Report of 2005, 2006 and 2007 for Methods of Teaching

Primary School Mathematics stated students’ difficulties in answering

questions on Fractions using Cuisenaire rods as concrete material and urged tutors to pay

particular attention to the teaching of Fractions using concrete materials.

1.3 Purpose of the Study

The main reason for carrying research in this area is to enable Practicing Teachers of

Dambai College of Education improve upon their performances in teaching addition and

subtraction of Fractions with unlike denominators by the use of Cuisenaire rods.

1.4 Objectives of the Study

According to Cooney, Davis and Henderson (1975), objectives should be stated in terms

of observable student’s behaviour. The researcher’s objectives in this regard were as

follows:

i. Find out the effect of Cuisenaire rods on students’ performance in solving

problems involving Fractions. ii. Determine the effect of Cuisenaire rods on

students’ performance in teaching

9
 problems involving Fractions. iii. Determine the influence of Cuisenaire rods on

students’ perception in teaching problems involving Fractions.

1.5 Research Questions

It is expected that majority of students in any learning situation will do well in a test on a

given topic if it is planned and taught well. Improving the performances of second year

students of Dambai College of Education in teaching the addition and subtraction of

fractions with unlike denominators raised the following questions in the researcher’s mind.

1. What effect has the use of Cuisenaire rods on students’ performance in teaching

problems involving Fractions?

2. To what extent would the use of Cuisenaire rods as concrete materials sustain and

motivate students’ interest in learning of Fractions?

3. Is there any difference in students mean score performance by the use of

Cuisenaire Rods in solving problems involving Fractions?

1.6 Research Hypotheses

The hypothesis designed to guide and direct the study is:

Null hypothesis 𝐻0: There is no significant difference in scores between the mean pre-test

scores and the mean post- test scores of students.

Alternative hypothesis 𝐻𝑎: There is significant difference in scores between the mean

pre-test scores and mean post- test scores of students.

1.7 Significance of the Study

Improvements of teaching methods, strategies and techniques have been the concern of

many Mathematics teachers and educators since time immemorial. These desires have

10
motivated mathematics teachers to carry out research work in various aspects of the subject

that interest them. These in effects serve as a guide to teaching and learning of the subject.

Since students do not only performed the various activities involved but showed interest

and asked questions, they stand a better position to explain the concept anytime they are

called to do so.

The findings of the study when implemented will help Mathematics teachers not only

to be able to teach well but also identify the usefulness of using Cuisenaire rods as teaching

and learning materials in teaching fractions. The teachers will develop less difficulty in

teaching whilst the students will develop interest and be more courageous in solving

problems involving fractions in general. The results of this study would also serve as a

guide for teachers to vary their approach and methodology to enable students understands

the concept of fractions. It would also serve as resource material for all stake holders and

others who would like to research further into this area of national interest.

1.8 Limitations of the Study

Research of this nature will not have ended without any restraints or drawbacks to its

successful completion. However, a few of such limitations that impede the smooth running

are enumerated below:

• The study would have been more representative if all the two hundred (200) second

year students of Dambai College of Education were covered. This is because; the

villages where the mentees (practicing students) practiced teaching are distance apart

from the location of the college; couple with transportation problems. This might

affect the results of the study.

• There were also different unplanned programmes that distorted the organised time set

for the intervention. As a result of this, the researcher whacked time and money to

11
 these various stations without achieving the purpose for his travels. The conclusion

will therefore be limited by these factors and as such generalizations cannot cover all

teacher trainees in Ghana.

1.9 Delimitation of the Study

Fractions are broad areas in Mathematics with so many aspects. However, the study was

restricted to the Addition and Subtraction of fractions with unlike denominators. The study

was also delimited to the use of Concrete Materials (Cuisenaire Rods) to improving the

teaching and learning of fractions. It was also confined to only Second Year Students of

Dambai College of Education in the Volta Region of Ghana; though this problem might

exist in other Colleges of Education.

1.10 Organizational plan of the Study

The study was organised in five chapters. Chapter 1 talked about the background to the

study, statement of the problem, purpose of the study, objectives of the study, research

questions, significance of the study, delimitation, limitation and organizational plan.

The relevant literature review was presented in chapter 2 whilst chapter 3 talked about the

methodology. Chapter 4 talked about data presentation, analysis and discussion of result

whereas chapter 5 consisted of summary of key findings, implications for practice,

conclusion, recommendations and areas for future research.

1.11 Definition of Terms

For the purpose of the study, the following definitions are implied for the terms below.

Concept: - The idea or knowledge we hold about something.

12
Cuisenaire Rods: - They are versatile Teaching and Learning Materials (TLMs) which are

used to teach the concepts of fractions, addition and subtraction of whole numbers whose

sum does not exceed 10. The rods are made up of 10 different colours which are associated

with numerals. Thus, 1 – white, 2 – red, 3 – light green (green), 4 – purple, 5 – yellow, 6 –

dark green, 7 – black, 8 – brown, 9 – blue, 10 – orange.

The numerals associated with the rods shows the number of white rods that can fit exactly

when laid side-by side with that rod.

Like Fraction: - They are fractions with the same denominators

Unlike Fractions: - Fractions with different denominators.

CHAPTER 2

RELATED LITERATURE REVIEW

2.0 Overview

The review of the related literature was focused on the theoretical framework underlying

the research and related works on the study. This was based on the following themes:

• Theoretical framework

• Nature of mathematics

• Cuisenaire rods and mathematics teaching

• Meaning and concept of Fractions

• Equivalent Fractions

• Addition and Subtraction of Fractions

• The part of language in teaching mathematics

13
2.1 Theoretical Framework

The theoretical framework for the study is based on the Shulman’s (1986) three knowledge

domains in teaching; grounded with the Constructivists views of teaching and learning.

These domains of Shulman (1986) encompass:

• Subject Matter Content Knowledge (SMCK)

• Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK)

• Curricular Knowledge (CK)

To teach all students according to today’s standards, teachers need to understand subject

matter deeply and flexibly so they can help students create useful cognitive maps, relate

one idea to another, and address misconceptions. Teachers need to see how ideas connect

across fields and to everyday life. This kind of understanding provides a foundation for

Pedagogical Content Knowledge that enables teachers to make ideas accessible to students

(Shulman, 1987).

Teaching is not a matter of knowing something. It is far more than mere transmitting of

concepts and ideas to learners. It involves bringing out the accumulated ideas and

experiences that students come to class with and working on those ideas and experiences

together with the students by way of refining, reorganizing, co-constructing and repairing

these ideas and experiences into meaningful and compressible form for students to

assimilate (Shulman, 2000). This forms the foundation on which teaching mathematics

through problem solving leans on.

According to Shulman (2000), teaching is about making the internal and external

capabilities of an individual and can only be achieved if teachers engage students in the

classroom discourse. It is only when students are engaged in an interactive classroom

14
environment that their ideas, conceptions and experiences are made bare to the teacher to

put them on truck.

2.1.1 Subject Matter Content Knowledge

Shulman (1986) defined Subject Matter Content Knowledge as the amount and

organization of knowledge intrinsically in the mind of the teacher. He argues that teachers’

subject matter content knowledge should not be limited to knowledge of facts and

procedures; but also an understanding of both the substantive and syntactic structures of

the subject matter.

The substantive structures are the various ways in which the basic concepts and principles

of the discipline are organized to incorporate its facts. Teachers will therefore be able to

use appropriate materials to teach mathematics well only when they comprehend the

network of fundamental concepts and principles of problem solving in holistic manner

(Shulman, 1986).

The syntactic structure of a discipline is the set of ways in which truth or falsehood, validity

or invalidity are established (Shulman, 1986). The syntactic structure is used to establish

the most appropriate claims about a particular phenomenon. Teachers’ knowledge must

therefore go beyond mere definitions of accepted truths in the subject matter domain.

In sum, to provide for effective teaching and learning of mathematics, mathematics

teachers’ Content Knowledge of concepts cannot be underplayed. The question that arises

is ‘how can an individual handle a subject matter competently if the content knowledge is

weak? The researcher believes that teacher’s knowledge of mathematics is essential to their

ability to teach effectively as Brophy (1991) cited in Asiedu-Addo and Yidana

(2004) indicates

15
 “where (teachers) knowledge is more explicit, better connected and more
integrated, they will tend to teach the subject more dynamically, represent
it in more varied ways, encourage and respond fully to students comments
and questions. Where their knowledge is limited, they will tend to depend
on the text for content, de-emphasise interactive discourse in favour of
seatwork assignments and in general portray the subject as a collection of
static, factual knowledge.”

This suggests that the teacher uses mainly non thought provocative questions, and often

selects only what he/she thinks can teach.

2.1.2 Pedagogical Content Knowledge

Pedagogical knowledge includes generic knowledge about how students learn, teaching

approaches, methods of assessment and knowledge of different theories about learning

(Harris, Mishra & Koehler, 2009; Shulman, 1986). This knowledge alone though

necessary; is insufficient for teaching purposes. According to Shulman (1986), pedagogical

content knowledge is knowledge about how to combine pedagogy and content effectively.

It includes, knowing what approaches fit the content, knowing how elements of content can

be arranged for better teaching. It also involves knowledge of teaching strategies that

incorporate appropriate conceptual representations to address learner difficulties and

misconceptions and foster meaningful understanding; and knowledge of what the students

bring to the learning situation; knowledge that might be either facilitative or dysfunctional

for the particular learning task at hand. Shulman (1986) lay emphasis on the pedagogical

content knowledge as the combination of the most regular taught topics, the most useful

forms of representations of those ideas, the most powerful analogies, examples,

illustrations, explanations and demonstrations in the art of teaching. Pedagogical Content

16
Knowledge also includes the ways of representing and formulating the subject matter that

makes it comprehensible to students with diverse views and understandings. In teaching

Mathematics through activity oriented base and problem solving techniques, teachers need

to design and present the lesson using appropriate teaching learning materials (TLMs) that

can enable the students construct their own knowledge of the concept. They need to know

the pedagogical strategies and techniques most appropriate for reorganizing the

understanding of learners who might appear before them as blank slates (Shulman, 2000);

hence the knowledge of subject matter in the training of a mathematics teacher in particular

and the classroom teacher in general is as important as the methodology aspect of it, and

that the course outline in the Teacher Training Institutions should be reviewed in a more

pragmatic approach by encouraging students to appreciate the need for both methodology

and content courses

(Asiedu-Addo & Yidana, 2004).

2.1.3 Curriculum Knowledge

The word ‘curriculum’ comes from a Latin root which originally meant ‘a course to be

run’, that is, a course in the sense of ‘race-course’ (Mereku & Agbemaka, 2009).

Curriculum has numerous definitions which can be slightly confusing; especially meeting

it the first time. It refers to all the courses offered at a school; it is the prescribed course of

studies which students must fulfil in order to pass a certain level of education. Curriculum

is really more than just what is taught in the classroom. The term was once used to refer

only to the content of educational provision. It was therefore barely distinguishable from

terms like ‘syllabus’ or even timetable (Mereku, 2004). It is anything and everything that

teaches a lesson planned or otherwise. Humans are born learning, thus the learned

17
curriculum actually encompasses a combination of the hidden, null, written, political and

societal etc. Since students learn all the times through exposure and modelled behaviours,

it means that they learn important social and emotional lessons from everyone who inhabits

the school.

According to Tanner and Tanner (1975) cited in Mereku and Agbemaka (2009),

“Curriculum is the planned and guided learning experiences and

intended outcomes, formulated through the systematic
reconstruction of knowledge and experience under the auspices
of the school, for the learner’s continuous and wilful growth in
personal-social competence”

This definition according to Mereku and Agbemaka (2009) highlights the fact that the

curriculum must take into account not only established knowledge but also emergent

knowledge. This is because curriculum while transmitting the cumulative tradition of

knowledge also concerns with the systematic reconstruction of knowledge in relation to the

life experience, growth and development of the learner.

An interesting interpretation of the term ‘curriculum’ by Costa and Liebmann (1997) cited

in Mereku and Agbemaka (2009) is given below:

“Curriculum is the pulse of the school; it is the currency through

which educators exchange thoughts and ideas with students and
the school community. It is the passion that binds the organization
together. Curriculum, in the broader sense, is everything that
influences the learning of students both overtly and covertly,
inside and outside the school.”

Whereas, Young (1998) cited in Mereku and Agbemaka (2009) looks at the ‘curriculum’

as ‘socially organized knowledge’; and said

“….. academic curricula are as much the products of people’s

actions in history as any other form of social organization. They
18
 are not given, nor, in today’s language, do they represent an
unchanging gold standard. They can therefore be transformed.
The issue is one of purposes and the extent to which the existing
curriculum represents a future society that we can endorse or a
past society that we want to change”,

From the definitions above, it is possible to state that a curriculum has the following

characteristics:

• It comprises the experiences of children for which the school is

responsible.

• It has content.

• It is planned.

• It is a series of courses to be taken by students.

In addition, a curriculum considers the learners and their interaction with each other, the

teacher and the materials. The output and outcomes of a curriculum are evaluated. Bringing

all these points together, the curriculum is viewed as a composite whole including the

learner, the teacher, teaching and learning methodologies, anticipated and unanticipated

experiences, outputs and outcomes possible within a learning institution (Mereku &

Agbemaka, 2009). The Mathematics Curriculum therefore is represented by a full range of

programmes designed for the teaching of mathematics topics at a given grade level. It

covers a wide variety of instructional materials available in relation to the subject matter to

be handled and the set of characteristics that guides the use of particular curriculum

materials in particular circumstances (Shulman, 1986). Teachers need to think hard about

students mathematical ideas analyze textbooks presentations and judge the relative value

of two different representations in the face of a particular mathematical issue (Ball & Bass,

2000). Mathematics teachers need to have thorough understanding of the curricular

19
resources available for instruction so as to make them available to students when teaching

mathematics for students to make their own meaning of concepts.

2.1.4 Constructivist Idea of Learning

Constructivism is a philosophy of learning founded on the premise that by reflecting on

our experiences, we construct our own understanding of the world we live in. I believe in

constructivism because I view an individual as a knowledge constructor. Constructivists

believe that mathematics does not grow through a number of indubitable established

theorems, but through the incessant improvement of guesses by speculation and criticism

(Fletcher, 2005). Constructivism can be traced at least to the eighteenth century and the

work of the Neapolitan philosopher Giambattista Vico, who held that humans can only

clearly understand what they have themselves constructed

(http://www.sedl.org/scimath/compass/v01n03/2.html). Each of us generates our own

“rules” and “mental model”, which we use to make sense of our experiences. Learning

therefore, is simply the process of adjusting our mental models to accommodate new

experiences. The constructivists claim that learning is an active process and that knowledge

is constructed rather than innate, or passively absorbed. Knowledge is invented not

discovered and that all knowledge is personal, distinctive and socially constructed. To the

constructivist, learning is essentially a process of making sense of the world and requires

meaningful, open-ended, challenging problems for the learner to solve. However, social

constructivist thesis is that mathematics is a social construction, a cultural product, fallible

like any other branch of mathematics. They claim that knowledge is not passively received

but actively built up by the cognizing subject and the function of cognition is adaptive and

serves the organization of the experiential world (vonGlasersfeld, 1989).

20
 Many others worked with these ideas, but the first major contemporaries to develop

a clear idea of constructivism as applied to classrooms and childhood development were

Jean Piaget and John Dewey http://www.sedl.org/scimath/compass/v01n03/2.html).

For Dewey education depends on action. Knowledge and ideas emerged only from a

situation in which learners had to draw them out of experiences that had meaning and

importance to them (Dewey, 1966). These situations had to occur in a social context, such

as a classroom, where students joined in manipulating materials and, thus, created a

community of learners who built their knowledge together. Piaget's constructivism is based

on his view of the psychological development of children. In a short summation of his

educational thoughts, Piaget called for teachers to understand the steps in the development

of the child's mind (Piaget, 1973). The fundamental basis of learning, he believed, was

discovery: "To understand is to discover, or reconstruct by rediscovery”

(http://www.sedl.org/scimath/compass/v01n03/2.html); which suggest that a student who

understands a concept can explain it a variety of ways anytime without following a rigidly

procedure.

The philosophical view on how we come to understand or know; is characterized by three

(3) propositions:

Understanding is in our interactions with the environment

This is the core concept of constructivism because we cannot talk about what is learned

separately from how it is learned as if a variety of experiences all lead to the same

understanding. Rather, what we understand is a function of the content, the context, the

activity of the learner, and perhaps most importantly, the goals of the learner.

Understanding is an individual construction; as such cannot be shared but rather, we can

test the degree to which our understandings are compatible. An implication of this

21
proposition is not just within the individual but rather it is a part of the entire context

(Gaffney and Anderson, 1991).

Cognitive conflict or puzzlement is the stimulus for learning and determines the

organization and nature of what is learned

When we are learning in an environment, there is some stimulus or goal for learning. The

learner has a purpose for being there. That goal is not only the stimulus for learning, but it

is a primary factor in determining what the learner attends to, what prior experience the

learner brings to bear in constructing an understanding, and, basically, what understanding

is eventually constructed. In Dewey’s terms, it is “problematic” that leads to and is the

organizer for learning (Dewey, 1938; Rochelle, 1992), but for Piaget, it is the need for

accommodation when current experience cannot be assimilated in existing schema (Piaget,

1977; vonGlaserfeld, 1989).

Knowledge evolves through social negotiation and through the evaluation of the

viability of individual understandings

The social environment is critical to the development of our individual understanding as

well as to the development of the body of propositions we call knowledge.

At the individual level, other individuals are a primary mechanism for testing our

understanding. Collaborative groups are important because we can test our own

understanding and examine the understanding of others as a mechanism for enriching,

interweaving and expanding our understanding of particular issues or phenomena.

vonGlaserfeld (1989) noted that, other people are the greatest source of alternative views

22
to challenge our current views and hence serve as the source of puzzlement that stimulates

new learning.

2.1.5 Classroom Implication of Constructivism to the Teacher

In constructivism, teachers and pupils are viewed as active meaning makers who

continually give contextually based meanings to each others' words and actions as

they interact. From this perspective, mathematical structures are not perceived, intuited

or taken in but are constructed by reflectively abstracting from and re-organising

Sensori-Motor and conceptual activity. Thus the mathematical structures that the teacher

'sees' are considered to be the product of his or her own conceptual activity and could be

different from those of the pupils. (VonGlasserfeld, 1989). Consequently, the teacher

cannot be said to be a transmitter of such structures nor can he or she build any structures

for pupils. The teacher's role here is viewed as that of a facilitator in the learning process.

Indeed if pupils are to be empowered and given greater control over their own lives,

then as Fletcher (1997) points out, they should be encouraged to choose their own

areas of study in mathematics and should also be encouraged to work in groups

and generate mathematical problems. In the classroom, the teacher’s view of learning must

point to a number of different teaching practices. It means encouraging students to use

active techniques to create more knowledge and then to reflect on and talk about what they

are doing and how their understanding is changing. The teacher makes sure he/she

understands the students' pre-existing conceptions, and guides the activity to address them

and then build on them. Constructivist teacher encourages students to constantly assess

how the activity is helping them gain understanding. By questioning themselves and their

strategies, students in the constructivist classroom ideally become "expert learners." This

23
gives them ever-broadening tools to keep learning. With a wellplanned classroom

environment, the students learn how to learn. When they continuously reflect on their

experiences, students find their ideas gaining in complexity and power, and they develop

increasingly strong abilities to integrate new information. The teacher's main role is to

facilitate and encourage this learning and reflection processes.

2.2 The Nature of Mathematics

Mathematics is not only a list of facts and techniques which children memorise but is made

up of a number of processes which together form a way of thinking. These processes are;

problem solving and investigation, generalizing, abstracting, specializing, classifying,

conjecturing, communicating mathematically, justifying, forming and testing hypothesis,

applying, comparing and ordering among others (Martin, 1994; Apronti, et al 2004). Views

held on the nature of mathematics according to Mereku (2004) can be described in terms

of the constituents or elements of knowledge embodied in the subject. The constituents of

mathematical knowledge or things that have to be learned to possess mathematical

knowledge are usually expressed by rules, definitions, methods and conventions. Ernest

(1985) and Van Dormolen (1986) cited in Mereku (2004) referred to this constituent as

‘Objects’ and ‘Kernels’ respectively. These constituents have theoretical, communicative

and methodological implications. Children find it difficult to understand abstract concepts.

Besides, the difficulties intrinsic in mathematics itself are termed subject-based factors.

They arise from the nature of mathematics, its symbolism and language. The mathematical

concepts are very many; and are represented using mathematical symbols, which by their

nature are very abstract right from the concept one; that even the mathematical concepts

24
we teach in the primary one are far removed from reality (Nabie, 2002). Similarly,

mathematical symbols are seldom experienced in real life situations that have meaning to

children. If they experience them at all, they have no real value to them until they start with

symbolic work in school; hence this abstract nature and structure of mathematics make

abstraction, generalisation, deduction and recall of concepts and principles difficult for

learners.

2.3 Cuisenaire Rods and Mathematics Teaching

Cuisenaire rods are versatile manipulative materials for teaching concepts in mathematics

and one of such very important concepts is Fractions. These rods were invented over 75

years ago by George Cuisenaire – a Belgian Mathematics teacher (Kurumeh & Achor,

2008). However the use of Cuisenaire rod is still prominent in the intended curriculum of

Colleges of Education today due to the important role it plays in teaching mathematical

concepts especially Fractions. These materials were invented to help students grasp abstract

concepts in mathematics using coloured cardboards strips of varying lengths called

Cuisenaire rods. The original pack of Cuisenaire rods consist of 74 rectangular rods in 10

different lengths and 10 different colours as shown below:

25
Each colour corresponds to a different length. The content of the pack is thus: 22 white

rods of 1cm each, 12 red rods of 2cm each, 10 light green rods of 3cm each, 6 purple rods

of 4cm each, 4 yellow rods of 5cm each, 4 dark green rods of 6cm each, 4 black rods of

7cm each brown rods of 8cm each, 4 blue rods of 9cm each and 4 orange rods of 10cm

each. These rods could be used as manipulative and symbolic concrete representations in

teaching concepts in mathematics. Learners explore whole numbers, Fractions,

measurements, ratio, area and perimeter etc using Cuisenaire rods (Thompson, 1994) and

develop a link between ordinal and cardinal numbers and counting (Martin, 1994).

The use of Cuisenaire rods’ approach is a hands-on and minds-on manipulative

activity filed approach for teaching abstract concepts in mathematics and sciences. It is a

valuable educational tool for modelling relationships between what is taught in school and

their everyday life activities (Elia, Gagatsis & Demetrico, 2007) thereby enabling students
26
to work independently and in groups on meaningful mathematics while the teacher

provides individual attention to other students. Because Cuisenaire rods are ready-made

tools, its approach minimizes preparation and set up time both for the teacher and the

students. This approach helps to develop key skills such as classification, critical thinking,

problem solving and logical mathematics and spatial reasoning (Rule & Hllagan, 2006).

However, Taylor-Chapman (1967) said there are several advantages for colouring the rods.

Some of these may be doubtful but seem beyond argument:

1. You can use the rods for sorting and matching by colour; eg ‘all yellows together’

or ‘match each green with a black’.

2. The children quickly learn to pick out any length very quickly.
3. We can call a rod by its colour and make it our unit. Thus if a brown is the unit,

purple will be found to be half, white (natural) will be an eighth and if light-green

is the unit, then dark-green is two; and natural is one-third. These are great

advantages when learning about relationships.

2.4 Meaning and Concept of Fractions

The word Fraction is taking from the Latin word ‘Frangere’ which means ‘to

break’ (Downes & Paling, 1965; Apronti et al, 2004). This suggests that, a Fraction may
be described as a part of a whole where the whole could be ‘a unit’ or a set of objects. In a
related development, Martin, et al (1994) pointed out the importance to realise that the pairs
of numbers ‘ ’, etc and the phrases ‘one third’, ‘two fifths’ etc are not Fractions but
merely symbols and words representing the concept of particular Fractions. They are of
the view that; to understand what a Fraction is, then we must first look at how they arise.
‘A half’ is what we get when we share something equally into two parts. They noted that
what ‘a half’ is depends upon what we started with. This suggests that ‘a half’ of Mr. A
may not be the same as ‘a half’ of Mr. B. It is not possible therefore to show any single
object and say ‘this is what a half is’. They illustrated these in a diagram as all representing
a half.

27
From the above, Fractions are not objects but actions (Martin, et al 1994, Kusi-Appau,

1997) and that; we perform an action to halve something. It is only when we learn to

represent these actions that these symbols can be treated as objects.

However, Hilton and Pedersen (1983) said the words ‘a half’, ‘a quarter’, ‘a third’, and

‘three-quarter’ etc are used frequently in everyday speech and their meaning is clear to the

reader; suggesting that one can say ‘a fourth’ instead of ‘a quarter’. The phrase ‘half’ can

be used in subtly different ways. For instance, would you like a piece of cake? We may

reply ‘please just a half’. The host or hostess may then cut the piece of cake into two equal

pieces and give him one of those pieces. He has received ‘a half’ of the original piece of

cake. On the other hand, a realtor showing us two possible lots for purchase may say ‘Lots

A is more attractively situated but there is only half as much land as on lots B’. There is no

suggestion that lots A has been created by cutting up lot B; the realtor only means that the

amount of land on lot A is the same as the amount of land we would get by taking half of

lot B. This means that when we say that 10 Ghana pesewa is a tenth of GH¢ 1.0, we

certainly do not mean that 10 Gp is obtained by cutting or breaking GH¢ 1.0 into ten equal

pieces and taking one of the pieces; rather, we mean that 10 Gp is worth a tenth of GH¢

1.0, that we would require ten 10 Gp to purchase what we can purchase for GH¢ 1.0.

Fractions, Decimals and Percentages are number ideas that are not whole numbers.

These three concepts are closely related to each other for the fact that one can move from

28
one domain to the other. In line with this, the teacher must help the child to see these

relations and how to move from one form to the other (Kusi-Appau, 1997). In developing

the concept of Fractions, the teacher must be able to use activities in real life situations

(Apronti et al 2004). According to Barnette and Ted (2000), Kusi-Appau

(1997) and Apronti et al (2004); Fractions can be considered in three ways:

i. Part-whole model (Sharing)

ii. Part-group model iii. Ratio

model

• Part-whole model (sharing)

This is the case where children share a number of items like oranges, among themselves.

In a situation where the number of items being shared is not enough for the children, it

becomes necessary for them to cut or break the items up into bits and to share; and as they

do this they make use of Fractions to denote part of a whole. Very often, teachers make

mistake of telling children that the statements like etc which are symbols and words

representing the concept of Fractions, are Fractions. When teaching Fractions in schools,

the emphasis is often on situations where the object can easily be cut, folded, split or

coloured in equal parts. Although there is some need for this sort of activity, children should

be exposed to a wide variety of situations, some where such folding or splitting strategies

will not be successful. In experiencing a variety of situations where Fractions can be found,

learners will have the opportunity to reflect and abstract critical relations in different

contextual situations. In other words, children must see a whole in all its representational

forms. To overcome such misconception, teachers must let children see that Fractions are

29
not objects but are actions of dividing objects into equal parts and taking some parts. In

developing a sound understanding of the part-whole concept of Fractions, it is necessary

for teachers to present situations of fair sharing, where the child is expected to reason out

the consequences of different actions http://nrich.maths.org/2550. Children must therefore

know how Fractions arise. Confusion among children is from what we take as a whole.

Very often teachers use a unit object as a whole and therefore when children come to meet

groups of objects, they become confused when we take a Fraction from it. Considering the

figures below:

(i) (ii) (iii)

The child may see the part shaded in (i) as half. However, in other situation when you have

an object of the shape in (ii) and divide it into two as in (iii), the child finds it difficult to

understand that the shaded portion is half. This creates misconception and confusion in the

child’s mind. To overcome this confusion, the teacher must help the child understand that

the whole could be one unit, a group or part of a unit or anything we are taking part could

be our whole (Kusi-Appau, 1997). Fractions taught as a part-whole concept, can ensure

that children have a sound foundation for conceptualizing other concepts in Fractions.

However, it must be noted that despite the wealth of possible examples, an approach to

Fractions based solely on "part-whole" is too restricted - yielding proper Fractions only.

Therefore other concepts of Fractions need to be explored if children are to have a fuller

and better understanding of rational numbers http://nrich.maths.org/2550.

30
 • Part-group model

In everyday activities of children, it is often becomes necessary for them to consider part

of a set in relation to the major set. This is illustrated in the diagram below:

Part of a group

• Ratio model

According to Apronti et al (2004) the ratio model shows the relationship between objects

or quantities of the same kind. It is a way of comparing the objects and this ends up in the

form of a Fraction; that is to say if there are 30 boys and 50 girls in a class then ratio of

boys to girls is -Appau, 1997). Using Cuisenaire rods to compare

the lengths of two rods side by side for instance, it takes 5 white rods to equal 1 yellow rod.
Hence the length of the white rod is of the length of the yellow rod. This ratio of the
length of the white rod to yellow rod is 1:5 as illustrated diagrammatically as:
W

Yellow

According to Pamela (1984), Fractions are well identified area of difficulty for many

children and even adults. There are two obstacles to understanding of Fractions.

1. Fractions cannot be taught of as separate, independent entities. They have meaning

only in relation to the whole to which they apply. To recognise Fraction of

something, you need a concept of the whole. It is relatively easy to imagine the

whole apple of which you have a quarter, but it is not easy to imagine the whole
31
 kilogram of which you have a quarter, or the whole hour of which a quarter has

passed.

2. Complicated notations by which Fractions are symbolized. The numeral at the

bottom of a Fraction (denominator) has an entirely different function from the

numeral at the top (numerator). For instance, the denominator of the Fraction

tells us that the ‘whole’ has been divided into three equal shares. The numerator

tells us that two of those shares are under consideration. The word ‘denominator’

means ‘the thing that names’. The denominator of the Fraction gives the

Fraction its name; ‘third’. The word ‘numerator’ means; ‘the thing that numbers’.

Hence the numerator of the tells us the number of thirds to be considered. The

denominator and numerator for Fractions also make it possible to denote the same

Fraction in infinitely many ways. For instance is the same as

. is called equivalent Fractions of . This idea takes a long time

to sink in, and can prove another obstacle to understanding.

To overcome the first obstacle, we should always in the early stages refer to the whole to

which any Fraction applies. We should not talk about a ‘quarter’ but ‘a quarter of an apple’,

‘a quarter of a metre’ or ‘a quarter of twelve’ etc.

2.5 Equivalent Fractions

Apronti et al (2004) explained equivalent Fractions as Fractions of the same value but

different names. They are Fractions which represent that same number but have different

names (Kusi-Appau, 1997: 97). For instance are equivalent Fractions.

32
According to Apronti et al (2004) equivalent Fractions can be introduced using:

i. Paper folding and shading

ii. Fractional boards iii.

Cuisenaire rods

Paper Folding and Shading

They illustrated ½ by folding vertically, a sheet of paper strip into two equal parts and
shaded one part shown below:

To have its equivalence, they again fold the strip of paper horizontally thereby having four

equal parts with two parts shaded.

By folding the same paper again you will have eight equal parts with four of the parts

shaded

It is noted from the above that the portion shaded for the first time, no other part had been

shaded again. It is the same portion that has been named differently.

33
Fractional Boards

Using Fractional boards, Apronti et al (2004) to identical strips of cards or paper, fold one

into two equal parts and another into four equal parts and so on as shown below:

Whole

From the illustrations, 2 halves make 1 whole, 2 one-fourths make one-half, 4 oneeighths

make one-half and so on. This implies that etc.

Using Cuisenaire Rod

According to Kusi-Appau, (1997) and Apronti et al (2004), one can choose any rod or set
of rods like Orange and Dark green to be the whole. You can then make up as many rows
using rods of one colour only as shown below.
Orange Dark green

Brown Brown

Purple Purple Purple Purple

Red Red Red Red Red Red Red Red

W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W

34
It can be seen from the diagram that:

• Two browns make the orange and dark green whole

• Two purples make one brown

• Four purples make two browns

• Two reds make one purple

• Four reds make one brown

• Eights reds make the orange and dark green whole

• Two whites make one red

• Four whites make one purple

• Eight whites make one brown sixteen whites make the orange and dark green whole

These colour observation can then be turned into Fractional statements as a brown is

onehalf of the orange and dark green whole, a purple is one-fourth of the orange and dark

green whole, a red is one-eighth of the orange and dark green whole and a white is

onesixteenth of the orange and dark green whole.

Pupils can the progress from concrete objects to diagrams, to words and eventually to

symbols and deduce that etc and and so on.

2.6 Addition and Subtraction of Fractions

Dolan (2000) observes that apart from whole-number computations, no topic in elementary

mathematics curriculum demands more time than the study of Fractions. To him, for

students to understand, the teaching about Fractions and their operations must be grounded

in concrete models. A firm foundation for number sense involving Fractions and a deeper

35
understanding of the algorithms for operations with must be developed before formal work

with Fractions.

According to Owusu and Manu, (2007) before pupils are introduced to addition and

subtraction of Fractions, they must be able to rename Fractions using their equivalence to

confirm their readiness for operations on rational numbers. However, children often think

that whenever two Fractions are added, the result is less than 1 (Owusu & Manu, 2007).

This is because their exposure to addition of Fractions is always less than 1. This means

that they need early exposure to problems where the sum is greater than 1 to erase such

misconception.

Teaching addition and subtraction of Fractions for better understanding, it is expected that

we use concrete materials. However, usually the first step is to learn to add and subtract

Fractions with the same denominator which is fairly straightforward and activities using

concrete materials are easy to devise (Martin et al, 1994). To Apronti et al (2004), paper

folding and shading, number line and Cuisenaire rods could be used to teach addition and

subtraction of like Fractions.

i. Using Paper folding and Shading

36
This shows that and respectively.

ii. Using Number line

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
0 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
8

iii. Using Cuisenaire rods

Pupils pick the brown rod as the whole.

W W W W W W W W

Brown

Pupils to take two whites and three whites to represent two-eighths and three-eighths

respectively.
W W W W W

They have to join the white rods end-to-end and then compare to the whole as:

W W W W W

Brown

For subtraction, the two whites are subtracted from the three whites to have one white.

37
One white rod is then compared to the whole which is the brown rod as shown below.

1
W
8
Brown
2.7 The Part of Language in Teaching Mathematics

The language used by the teacher in teaching any topic is very important if he or she is to

make positive impact on his or her learners. Language plays an important role in the

teaching and learning process. Mathematics language should be carefully and accurately

used from the beginning of the child’s learning experiences (William, 1986).

Torbe (1982) cited in Mereku and Cofie (2008) pointed out that “without language, without

the telling and listening, the reading and the writing which fills every school day, there

could be no communication and no educational process; it is language which makes the

whole educational process possible”. One of the main reasons why children experience

difficulty in mathematics is in the understanding the nuance of mathematical language

(Warrant, 2006) and since mathematics, as a language makes use of symbolic notation as

such requires using and interpreting this symbolic notation and grasping the abstract ideas

and concepts which underlie it (Mereku & Cofie, 2008). They laid emphasis on the fact

that the child’s inability to use language in mathematics will not only hinder his

understanding of the subject but will also prevent the teacher from having a deeper insight

into the child’s grasp of mathematics. The appropriate use of mathematical language and

symbols can also help children develop mathematical concepts. An understanding of the

mathematical symbols and examples will enhance children’s mathematical ability (Nabie,

2002, 2009). This is more so if they are combined jointly manipulated and linked to their

everyday life situations. In line with this, Skemp

38
(1986) cited in Martin (1994) and Apronti et al (2004) proposed that:

• “concepts of a higher order than those a person already has cannot

be communicated to that person by a definition. Only by arranging
for the person to encounter a suitable collection of examples can such
concept be communicated”.

• “Since in mathematics examples are almost invariably other

concepts, the concepts used in the examples must already be formed
in the mind of the learner”.

Beginning a lesson with children’s previous knowledge, of which the mother tongue forms

a part, gives them a perpetual momentum to forge ahead in the learning process. New ideas

are easily developed and understood if they are linked with already existing ones. Hence

children mathematical concepts can easily be developed if incoming concepts are correctly

linked with what the child knows already in an understandable language.

39
 CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY

3.0 Overview

This aspect of the research dealt with the methods and procedures used to obtain data for

the research work. This was done under the following themes:

• Research design

• Population and Sample

• Sampling Techniques

• Instrument

• Intervention

• Method of data collection

• Data analysis procedure

3.1 Research Design

The design for this study is an Action Research in the form of pre-test, intervention and

post-test structured to examine how the performance of second year students in teaching

fractions is improved using Cuisenaire rods at Dambai College of Education. Action

research according to Cannae (2004) involves the application of scientific methods to solve

classroom problems. It uses pre-test and post-test data from the teaching of two

instructional units to identify student teacher controlled factors which promote or inhibit

pupils’ academic achievement (Bill, 1986).

40
Action research is attractive to educational researchers because it seeks to identify peculiar

problem in the educational field especially in the classroom and suggest possible

rectification to the problem by offering suitable intervention and recommendations for use

by other educators to also apply such intervention. Put simply by O’Brien, (1998), action

research is “learning by doing” - a group of people identify a problem, do something to

resolve it, see how successful their efforts were, and if not satisfied, try again

http://www.web.net/~robrien/papers/arfinal.html .

This design was chosen in order to find possible solution to the problem identified and that

teachers will be able to have command on the teaching of fractions in Ghanaian schools.

3.2 Population and Sample

According to Anamoah-Mensah et al (2004), the quality and integrity of any study depend

on the validity and the efficiency of the samples used in the study. In this regard, the sample

was carefully selected. Out of the target population of two hundred (200) Second Year

Students of Dambai College of Education in the Krachi-East District of the Volta Region

for which 165 are males and 35 females, a sample size of 50 students comprising 41 males

and 9 females were selected for the study.

3.3 Sampling Techniques

The sampling technique used was the stratified sampling alongside with the random

sampling techniques to select the samples for the study. Stratified sampling according to

Awanta and Asiedu-Addo (2008) is the process of selecting a sample in such a way that

identified subgroups in the population are represented in the sample the same proportion

that they exist in the population. The percentage representation of male and female students

41
was calculated to be 82% and 18% respectively. Therefore to have a good representation,

these percentages were used on the sample size of 50 students. The sample was therefore

selected by writing “YES” and “NO” on paper and fold for both the males and the female

to pick at random. For the female group, 9 “YES” and 26 “NO” was written on paper for

the 35 female to pick randomly. All those with the “YES” were selected for the study. The

same process was repeated for the male students to have 41 of them on the study.

3.4 Research Instruments

The instruments used for the collection of data were tests. The tests were used in two folds,

that is, pre-test and post-test.

3.5 Validity and Reliability

3.5.1 Validity

Validity of an instrument according to Taale and Ngman (2003) refers to whether the

instrument truthfully does what it is constructed to do. In other words, when the instrument

measures what it is intended to measure, then it is valid.

To ensure the validity of the test items, the researcher consulted the curriculum for

methodology and some prescribed mathematics textbooks for teacher trainees. The purpose

was to gain insight into what learners were expected to learn in order to develop the

instrument accordingly. The researcher made sure that the content of the test was based on

what the research questions were set to find out. Thus,, only questions on teacher trainees

Pedagogical Content Knowledge were asked.

After constructing the test items, the researcher approached other tutors in the

42
Mathematics Department to cross check the appropriateness of the test items. Durrheim

(1999) suggests that the researcher approach others in the academic community to check

the appropriateness of his or her measurement tools. Colleague tutors responses indicated

that the contents examined in this study reflected the prescribed Content for students’

Pedagogical Content Knowledge

3.5.2 Reliability

Reliability on the other hand refers to how well the instrument provides a

consistent set of results across similar test situation, time periods and examiners (Taale &

Ngman-Wara, 2003). It means the degree of dependability of a measuring instrument. It is

worth mentioning that it is possible to have an instrument which is reliable because the

responses are consistent, but may be invalid because it fails to measure the concept it

intends to measure (Fraenkel & Wallen, 2000).

In this study, the split-half method was used to check the reliability of the instrument

because it is a “more efficient way of testing reliability” and was less time consuming

(Durrheim, 1999). The split-half method requires the construction of a single test consisting

of a number of items. These items are then divided or split into two parallel halves (usually,

making use of the even-odd item criterion). Students’ scores from these halves were then

correlated using the Spearman-Brown formula used in reliability testing. The value of the

coefficient was 0.72. This value indicates a good degree of reliability of the instrument as

asserted by (Fraekel & Wallen, 2000).

43
3.6 Data Collection Procedure

All the fifty (50) students sampled for the study responded to the pre-test administered to

determine their previous thoughts on teaching Fractions using concrete materials. The pre-

test was conducted on 5th February, 2011. In the 2nd week of March 2011, the

implementation for the intervention begun. After four (4) weeks of lessons and activities

on the teaching and learning of Fractions, the students were again tested (Posttest) which

involved similar concepts but different set of questions as compared to that of the pre-test

to determine the amount of knowledge the students have gained from the intervention

activities. The Pre-test and the Post-test were marked and the scores by the students are

shown in appendices C and D.

3.7 Intervention

The intervention the researcher employed in the study is the use of Cuisenaire rods as a

Concrete Material to help teacher trainees in teaching and learning of fractions. The

intervention spanned four (4) weeks and lessons were conducted three times a week for 60

minutes per meeting. Students were introduced to the concept of Fractions, comparing

Fractions (equivalent fractions) and addition and subtraction of fractions using materials

including Cuisenaire rods, paper folding, number lines and fractional boards. The

researcher demonstrated the concepts using the materials in range of activities to help the

teacher trainees overcome their difficulties in teaching the concept of Fractions. The lesson

was taken out of their syllabuses and other sources of information that researcher deem

vital to use. Different methods, techniques and strategies were employed to enable

students’ involvement in the lesson by relating the object of learning to the needs of the

learner, their involvement in the learning process become increasingly significant. The

44
students were allowed to work in groups and in pairs as they manipulate these materials

while the teacher serve as a facilitator providing help when needed and asking thought

provoking questions to stimulate critical analytical and complex thinking in order to help

them construct their own meaning as the study focused on promoting constructivist

approach of learning.

3.8 Intervention Implementation

Students were taken through series of activities using concrete materials but concentrated

on the use of Cuisenaire rods in solving and teaching problems involving Fractions.

3.8.1 Concept of Fractions

The researcher demonstrated the concept of fractions by folding a sheet of paper equally

for the students to see. The researcher discussed with students to identify one part as one-

half because a whole has been divided into two halves.

After demonstration the students were asked to do likewise.

Students were put in groups and the Cuisenaire rods were given to them. The researcher
instructed them to choose a rod say (orange) and try to make up as many rows as they can
using rods of one colour only as shown below.
W W W W W W W W W W

Yellow Yellow

Red Red Red Red Red

Orange

45
From the diagram above, five red rods make an orange rod. In fraction statement a red is

one-fifth of the orange whole which is written symbolically as . In the same vein, two

yellow rods make an orange rod. In a fraction form, a yellow is one-half of the orange rod

written as and a white is one-tenth written as .

3.8.2 Equivalent Fractions

The idea of equivalence occurs and every opportunity should be taken during discussion

with teacher trainees. The idea should grow out of the teacher trainees’ experience rather

than being taught as a separate topic. It is helpful to draw the various ideas which they have

acquired. Using paper folding, students were taken through the following activities.

3.8.3 Paper Folding and Shading

The students were guided to fold vertically, a sheet of paper strip into two equal parts and

shade one part to represent one-half as shown below:

The activities continued by guiding them again to fold the strip of paper horizontally
thereby having four equal parts with two parts shaded.

46
By folding the same paper again you will have eight equal parts with four of the parts

shaded

It was noted from the above that the portion shaded for the first time, no other part had been

shaded again. It is the same portion that has been named differently.

3.8.4 Using Cuisenaire Rods

The researcher guided the teacher trainees to choose any rod or set of rods to be the ‘whole’

for instance the orange and dark green rods joined end-to-end to make up as many rows as

possible using rods of the same colour only making sure that each row is of the same length

as the original ‘whole’ chosen and write down their observations in words.

W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W

Red Red Red Red Red Red Red Red

Purple Purple Purple Purple

Brown Brown

Orange Dark green

From the diagram students were guided to identify the following:

i. Two browns make the orange and dark green rods put end-to-end as
‘whole’.

47
 ii. Two purples make one brown. iii. Four purples make two browns. iv.

Four purples make orange and dark green whole put end-to end.

v. Two reds make one purple. vi.

Four reds make one brown.

vii. Eight reds make the orange and dark green whole put end-to-end.

viii. Two whites make one red. ix. Four whites make one

purple.

x. Eight whites make one brown.

xi. Sixteen whites make the orange and dark green whole. etc These colour

observations were then turned into fractional statements as

1. A brown is one-half of the orange and dark green rods put end-to-end.

2. A purple is one-fourth of the orange and dark green rods wholes put end-to-end.

3. A red is one-eighth of the orange and dark green whole.

4. A white is one-sixteenth of the orange and dark green whole.

A critical look at the diagram shows a pattern as and also

etc. Equivalent fractions are fractions of the same value but different names illustrated by

the diagram above i. etc and etc. It was therefore deduce

that when the top (numerator) and bottom (denominator) of a Fraction is multiply by the

same counting number, the value of the fraction remains unchanged though with different

names.

48
3.8.5 Comparing Fractions

With the idea of equivalent fractions, students were also guided to compare both

like fractions and unlike fractions using paper folding. I guided the students to compare

firstly like fractions. For instance comparing and . Students were guided to take two

strips of paper of the same size and fold them such that each one is divided equally into

four parts and shade the corresponding parts. Students were asked to compare the shaded

parts by putting the strip of papers side by side as shown below. It was clear from the

diagram that is greater than since they all the same denominator.

Activities concerning unlike Fractions were also carried out using the paper folding. For

instance using and , the students were asked to take two strips of paper with the same

size, fold first one into three equal parts and shade two of the equal parts as . The second

strip of paper is also folded into two equal parts and shade one part of it to have . The

strips of papers were placed side by side for students to identify which of the shaded area

is larger as shown below. Students did see clearly that is greater than .

49
3.8.6 Addition of like Fractions

Cuisenaire rods were used extensively here to teach and develop algorithm of Fraction.
Specific examples were used e.g. addition of . Students were guided to choose a rod
(whole) that can be split into five exactly of other rods. Students were able to pick orange
and yellow since orange can be split into five reds and yellow into five whites a rod of each
represents one-fifth respectively. I did not restrict the students of which rods to work with,
rather some used the orange rod whiles others used the yellow rods as shown below.
W W W W W

Yellow

Students were guided to pick one and two of the white rods to represents and

respectively. Putting these rods end-to-end, we have WW W

Comparing the three rods put end-to-end with the whole (i.e. yellow rod), we have this
diagram below.
W W W

Yellow

Thus .

On the other hand students who picked orange as the whole were also guided to pick one
red rod and two red rod to represent and respectively. They joined the rods and then
compared to the whole which is the orange rod and got .
Red Red Red Red Red

50
 Orange

Red Red Red

Orange

Thus .

In the same way, adding and , students were guided to pick a rod that can be split into
three equal rods. Students pick light green and dark green as the whole and worked with
them as follows.
Red Red Red

Dark green

The red rods are each one-third so two red rods are taken as whiles a red rod is taken as .

Thus two reds and one red joined end-to-end and compared to the whole fit exactly onto

the whole as above. Thus .

3.8.7 Subtraction of like Fractions

Students were guided to understand that the algorithm of subtraction is done in the same

way as in addition. In solving for instance, students were again guided to pick rod or

a train of rods that can be split into five of other rod. Students were able to pick yellow and

orange rods. The yellow can be split into five whites whiles the orange rod can also be split

into five red rods. It suggests that any of the rods could be worked with. Using the yellow

rod as shown bellow, each of the white rods represent one-fifth. Students were guided to

take three whites rods and compare to the whole represent and out of the 3 whites rods

take one from it and the result is 2 whites.

51
 W W W W W

Yellow
3
W W W
1 W
5 Yellow
5 Yellow

Thus .

3.8.8 Addition of unlike Fractions

Through discussion, I explained to the understanding of students that Fractions with unlike

denominators can be classified under the following categories:

i. one denominator as a multiple of the other

ii. a common factor iii. denominators being

prime numbers

There was a thorough discussion on fractions with one denominator as a multiple of the

other the same before they add them. For instance was obtained by multiplying the

numerator and denominator by 2. In adding fractions with different denominators for

instance we listed down sets of Fractions that are equivalent to both and as shown

below.

etc.

etc.

For the set of equivalent Fractions shown above, we pick those with the same name to

represent the original fractions and . This shows that is equivalent to whiles is also

52
equivalent to . This shows that .

Using Cuisenaire rods as a concrete material to solve for example , it is clear that

10 is a multiple of 5 hence we need to choose a rod which is the whole such that the rod
can be split into ten which is the orange rod.
W W W W W W W W W W

Red Red Red Red Red

Orange

From the diagram one red represents and one white represents of the whole which is

the orange rod. Therefore in the question , 2 white rods represent W

Red Red Red

W whiles 3 red rods represents

It is clear that we cannot combine two different rods and have meaningful explanation

hence we change 3 red rods for 6 whites rods to have its equivalent as .

6
W W W W W W 10

Red Red Red 3

5

Now the two W W W W W W W W

white rods 2

and six white rods

10

are joined end-to-end and then compared side-by-side to the whole which is the orange

rod.
W W W W W W W W

Orange
Therefore becomes
.

53
For the question , you need a rod that can be split into 2 and 3 respectively and that

rod is dark green rod. 1 red rod represents and 1 light green rod represents of the whole

below.

W W W W W W

Red Red Red

Light green Light green

Students were guided to Dark green exchange 1 light green rod

for 3 whites and 1 red rod for 2 whites.

1
i. Light green 3 WW W W W and

Red
2

Putting the exchanged white rods end-to-end we have W W W W W

Comparing the 5 white rods to the whole which is Dark
green rod we have .

Hence .

Also there are situations in which one has to choose a set of rods as the whole.

For instance in questions like , one need to choose a rod that could be split into 3

and 4. No single rod could be split in this way hence any of the following could be chosen

as the whole

• Orange and Red

• Blue and Light Rod

• Brown and Purple

• Black and Yellow

• Dark green and Dark green

54
Any of the above combination could be used as a whole for the question and discussion

was done for all for students to realize that they all arrive at the same answer. Using the

orange and Red rods as the whole, I guided the students to put the two rods end-to-end and

look for a rod that can go into the whole 3 and 4 respectively as shown below.

Light green Light green Light green Light green

Purple Purple Purple

Orange Red
From the above
diagram 1 purple represents one-third (1/3) and 1 light green represent

one-fourth (1/4). Purple Purple

Light green

Students now change the two purple rods for eight (8) white rods and one light green rod

for three white rods, join end-to-end and compared to the whole.

W W W W W W W W W W W

Orange Red

It implies that .

3.8.9 Subtraction of unlike Fractions

The researcher guided the students to understand that subtraction and addition of Fractions

follow the same procedure or algorithm. The only different thing you have to do is where

you need to take away instead of addition. Using , students were

55
guided to choose a rod which could be split into eight equal parts. Since 2 is a factor of 8
or 8 is a multiple of 2 the rod chosen can be split into 2 too. The appropriate rod is the
brown rod. As shown in the diagram below, 1 purple rod represents and 1 white rod
represents of the whole (which is the brown rod).

Purple

W W W W W W W W

Purple Purple

Brown

Students change 1 purple for 4 white rods and compare with the whole and can now take

away1 white rod from 4 white rods to have 3 white rods. Students now compare 3 white

rods with the whole to have 3/8.

Purple W W W W

W W W -
W W W W
W

Hence .

56
 CHAPTER 4

DATA PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION

4.0 Overview

This chapter dealt with the presentation of data, analysis of scores collected from

the pre-test and the post-test and discussions based on the results of the study.

The data collected was analyzed quantitatively and qualitatively. The results from the pre-

test and post-test raw scores were analyzed using both the descriptive and inferential

statistics employed on the Statistical Package of Social Sciences (SPSS). The descriptive

statistic used to analyze the data projected the sample size, minimum and maximum scores,

the mean scores and standard deviation for both the pre-test and post-test. The data was

further analyzed using inferential statistics to project the p-values and t-values from the

paired sample T-test.

4.1 Data Presentation and Analysis

Table 4.1 shows the frequency distribution of the raw scores of the pre-test conducted for

fifty (50) students. (See Appendix C).

Table 4.1: Frequency distribution of Pre-test Scores by percentage

Scores Frequency Percentage (%)

57
 1 – 10 10 20
11 - 20 27 54
21 – 30 10 20
31 – 40 3 6
41 – 50 - 0
Total 50 100

Table 4.1 shows that 10 students representing 20% of the total number of students scored

between 1 and 10 inclusive, 27 students representing 54% of the total number of students

scored marks ranging from 11 to 20. Again, 10 students representing 20% of the total

number of students involved in the study scored marks ranging from 21 to 30 whiles only

3 students representing 6% the number scored marks between 31 and 40 inclusive. No

student scored marks ranging from 41 to 50. It is obvious from the marks that out of the 50

students who took the test, 42 students representing 84% obtained marks less than half of

the total marks and only 8 students representing about 16% of the total number of students

scored half or more of the total marks indicating poor performance of students in teaching

problems involving addition and subtraction of Fractions.

Table 4.2: Frequency distribution of post-test results for fifty (50) students by

percentage
Scores Frequency
Percentage (%)

58
 1 – 10 -2 0

11 - 20 22 4

21 – 30 19 44

31 – 40 7 38

41 – 50 14

Total 50 100

From the post-test results in Table 4.2, it can be seen that no student obtained marks

between 1 and 10 inclusive. Two (2) students representing 4% of the total number of

students got marks from 11 to 20 whiles 22 students representing 44% of the total number

of students scored marks ranging from 21 to 30. Again, 19 students which represent 38%

of the total number scored marks between 31 and 40 inclusive whiles 7 students

representing 14% of the students’ total number scored marks from 41 to 50. It was realized

from the post-test results that, 44 students representing 88% of the total number of students

who took the test obtained half or more of the total marks. These improvements in students’

performance indicate the effect of the use of Cuisenaire Rods with questioning skills in

teaching students on problems involving Fractions. However, 6 students representing 12%

of the total number of students scored marks less than half of the total marks which indicate

that some students still have little problems in solving Fraction related problems using

concrete materials.

Table 4.3: Descriptive Statistics of Pre-test and Post-test Scores

N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation

59
 Pretest 50 5 37 16.94 7.175

Posttest 50 20 48 32.12 6.915

From table 4.3, the mean of pre-test score was 16.94 and that of post-test score was 32.12.

Thus, the Gain score which is 32.12 − 16.94 is 15.18 when compared to the pre-test mean

score of 16.94 show a significant improvement in students’ performance in solving

problems involving Fractions by the use of Cuisenaire rods.

A comparison of standard deviations of the pre-test score which was 7.175 and post-test

score which was 6.915 revealed that the standard deviation of the post-test was less than

that of the pre-test which indicates that the scores in the post-test were more spread around

the mean mark which is 32.12 than it was in the pre-test scores. The minimum and

maximum marks of pre-test scores and post-test scores are respectively 5, 37 and 20,

48. It is clear that both the minimum and the maximum marks of post-test scores are by far

larger than that of the pre-test scores. Also, the range which is the difference in the

maximum and minimum marks of pre-test and post-test is 32 and 28 respectively. It could

be realised that, the range for pre-test is larger than the range for post-test which buttresses

the interpretation for standard deviation; the fact that the data for the pre-test are less spread

around the mean compared to that of the post-test.

Testing of the Hypothesis

Null hypothesis 𝐻0: There is no significant difference in scores between the mean pre-test

scores and the mean post- test scores of students.

Alternative hypothesis 𝐻𝑎: There is significant difference in scores between the mean

60
 pre-test scores and mean post- test scores of students.

Table 4.4: Paired Sample Test for Pre-test and Post-test scores
𝑵 𝑴𝒆𝒂𝒏 𝑺𝒕𝒅 𝑫𝒆𝒗𝒊𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝒕 𝒅𝒇 𝑷 − 𝒗𝒂𝒍𝒖𝒆

𝑃𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑠𝑡 50 −15.180 8.395 −12.786 49 0.000

− 𝑃𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑡𝑒𝑠𝑡

From the Table 4.4 above, analyzing the data with paired sample test produced the P-value

(0.000) which is less than the level of significance (0.05). Hence we reject the null

hypothesis 𝐻0 and accept the alternative hypothesis 𝐻𝑎 (Asiedu-Addo et al 2004 ).

Accordingly, it is concluded that there is a significant difference in mean scores between

students in the Pre-test (𝜇 =16.94) and the post-test (𝜇 = 32.12).

4.2 Discussions of Results

Considering the pre-test scores, 84% of the students obtained marks less than the total

mark. This is an indication that students had difficulty in working with fraction related

problems. From the post-test results, 88% of the students scored half or more of the total

mark. This is an improvement in students’ performance compared to their performance in

the pre-test. The mean pre-test score of 16.94 and the mean post-test score of 32.12 with a

gain score of 15.18 indicated that students’ performance was about twice better than when

the intervention was not administered. In answering the research question, it is clear that

after the intervention, the evidence gathered suggest that incorporating the intervention tool

(Cuisenaire Rods) into mathematics classroom teaching of fractions improved the

achievement scores of students.

61
Also in the paired sample t-test, the P-value of (0.000) is far less than the significance level

of (0.05) which means that the null hypothesis must be rejected in order to accept the

alternative hypothesis indicating that there is significant difference in the mean scores

between students in the pre-test and post-test scores.

4.3 Summary of Findings from Research Questions

4.3.1 Research Question 1

What effect has the use of Cuisenaire rods on students’ performance in teaching problems

involving Fractions?

In answering the first research question, the initial result (Pre-test results) from Table 4.1

and appendix C suggest that the overall performance of students in teaching was very poor

which reflected in the performance of pupils as well. It was also realised from Table 4.1

and appendix C that about 84% of the students obtained marks less than half of the total

mark. This is a clear indication that students had difficulty in teaching Fraction. After the

intervention, the evidence gathered from the results (Post-test results) suggested that

incorporating the intervention tool (Cuisenaire Rods) into Mathematics classroom teaching

improved the achievement scores of students, since about 88% of the students scored half

or more marks of the total score. This is shown in the mean value of 32.12 over the mean

value of 16.94 by the pre-test scores with a gain score of 15.18 indicating that students’

performance was twice better than when the intervention tool was not used. These

evidences showed that the use of Cuisenaire rods on students have positive effect since

students’ performance improved tremendously as a result of the use of the intervention tool.

4.3.2 Research Question 2

62
To what extent would the use of Cuisenaire rods as concrete materials sustain and motivate

students’ interest in teaching and learning of Fractions?

Table 4.3 shows descriptive statistics of pre-test and post-test scores. The minimum and

maximum marks of pre-test and post-test scores are respectively 5, 37 and 20, 48.

Comparing the standard deviations of pre-test scores which was 7.175 and posttest scores

6.915 (Table 4.3) revealed that the standard deviation of post-test was less than that of the

pre-test indicating that the scores in the post-test (ie by the use of intervention tool) were

more spread around the mean mark of 32.12 than it was in the pre-test indicating significant

improvement in students performance. This improvement is as a result of the motivation

derived from the use of the intervention tool (Cuisenaire Rods) thereby sustaining their

interest in problems involving Fractions.

4.3.3 Research Question 3

Is there any difference in students mean score performance by the use of Cuisenaire Rods

in solving problems involving Fractions?

From Table 4.4, the Paired Sample Test analysis of the data yielded the P-value of (𝑃 =

0.000) which is less that the level of significance of 0.05. Hence, we reject the null

hypothesis (𝐻𝑜) which states “there is no significant difference in students means score

performance by the use of Cuisenaire rods in solving problems involving Fractions”,

accordingly accept the alternative hypothesis(𝐻𝑎). We conclude from the results by this

result that there is a significant difference in the mean scores of students in the pre-test

(16.94) and the post-test (32.12).

63
 CHAPTER 5

SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

5.0 Overview

This chapter summarises the research findings, conclusion and gives recommendation and

suggestions for further research and for curriculum development.

5.1 Summary

The research was conducted to improve second year students of Dambai College of

Education in solving problems involving Fractions using Cuisenaire rods. The data

collected from the pre-test scores and post-test scores were first subjected to descriptive

statistics using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS). It was realised that before

the intervention, only 16% of the students were able to solve problems involving fractions

64
satisfactorily. But after teaching them by the use of Cuisenaire Rods through activities,

about 88% of the students were able to solve problems involving fractions satisfactorily.

The main research question the researcher asked was to find out whether

“there is any difference in students’ performance in using Cuisenaire rods in solving

problems involving Fractions”

The process of intervention revealed that there is a significant difference in the mean

achievement scores of students using the Cuisenaire rods to their mean achievement scores

than when Cuisenaire rods were not used. The statistical difference showed that the

intervention tool (Cuisenaire rods) used improved students knowledge in problems

involving fractions. The students now develop more positive attitudes towards fractions

and mathematics as a whole because they were excited as they could easily answer thought

provoking problems and reach conclusions once they can manipulate the

materials.

The findings have serious implications for mathematics teaching and learning.

The question about teachers’ pedagogical and content knowledge requirements cannot be

over-emphasised for effective classroom mathematics teaching and learning. This is

because effective lesson presentation requires expert execution of a set of decisions and

actions in the pre-instructional, interactive and post instructional phases of teaching that

depend on the knowledge base of the teacher. At the pre-instructional phase, decisions

about what content to include in lesson presentation and organising the content in a logical

and meaningful manner require extensive content knowledge base with a repertoire of

pedagogical strategies; thereby enabling the students to construct ideas and make meaning

of on their own. The teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge cannot exclude the issue of

65
language since it is only through language of a kind that any form of teaching can be

possible.

5.2 Conclusion

It is evident from the findings of the study that using Cuisenaire Rods improved immensely

on students’ achievement in Mathematics and Fractions in particular. There was a common

feeling of confidence among students using the Cuisenaire rods. There is therefore growing

evidence in the research conducted by Kurumeh and Achor (2008) who have found

Cuisenaire rods effective in the teaching and learning of Fractions and other topics in

Mathematics.

Since Cuisenaire rods are materials recommended in the curriculum of the Colleges of

Education, a deep insight into its use is required so that students can follow the step by step

procedure in its use to teach the topics in Mathematics at the Basic schools.

5.3 Recommendation

The importance of Mathematics cannot be over-emphasised. From the study, it was useful

in helping students through the use of Cuisenaire rods develop a meaningful understanding

in problems involving Fractions. Based on the results gathered from this study, the

researcher has this recommendations and suggestion to make.

• Since Cuisenaire rod is one important material that students are required to be

abreast with its usage in teaching mathematics concepts, the researcher

recommends that tutors teaching mathematics in the Colleges of Education must be

familiar with its usage so that they can incorporate these materials in their teaching

processes.

66
 • This study as well as the study conducted by Kurumeh and Achor (2008) in Nigeria

suggests that there is significantly positive effect of using Cuisenaire rods in

teaching mathematics. It is therefore recommended that more emphasis should be

laid on its use especially at the Colleges of Education.

REFERENCES

Anamuah-Mensah, J., Mereku, D. K. & Asabere-Ameyaw, A. (2004). Ghanaian JSS

students Achievement in Mathematics and Science: Results from Ghana’s

participation in the 2003 Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study

(TIMSS). Accra: Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports.

Anamuah-Mensah, J. & Mereku, D. K. (2005). Ghanaian JSS2 students’ Abysmal

Mathematics Achievement in TIMSS 2003: A consequence of the Basic School

Mathematics Curriculum. Paper presented at the West African Examination

Council (WAEC) Conference Hall, Accra, May 27, 2005.

Anamuah-Mensah, J., Mereku, D.K. & Ghartey-Ampiah, J. (2008). TIMSS 2007 Ghana

Report: Findings from IEA’S Trends in International Mathematics and Science

Study at the eighth grade. Accra: Ministry of Education.

67
Apronti, D. O., Afful, J. A., Ibrahim, M., Antwi, M. M. & Oduro, E. O. (2004). Methods

of Teaching Mathematics; For UTTDBE Programme. Accra: Teacher Education

Division; Ghana Education Service.

Asiedu-Addo, S. K. & Yidana, I. (2004). Mathematics Teachers’ Knowledge of Subject

Content and Methodology. Mathematics Connection, Vol. 4, 45-47. Winneba:

Mathematical Association of Ghana.

Awanta, E. K. & Asiedu-Addo, S. K. (2008). Essential Statistical Techniques in

Research. For Universities, Colleges and Research Institutions. Accra: Salt ‘N’

Light Publishers.

Ball, D. & Bass, H. (2000). Interweaving Content and Pedagogy in Teaching and Learning

to teach: Knowing and using mathematics. In J. Boaler (ed.), Multiple Perspectives

on Mathematics Teaching and Learning, Westport, CT: Ablex.

Barnett, A. & Ted, N. (2000). Mathematics for Elementary Schools. London:

vanHoffinmann Press Inc.

Bill, H. (1986). Improving Student Teaching Effectiveness through Action Research

Projects. Action in Teacher Education. The Journal of the Association of Teacher

Educators, Vol. 8(3), p. 51.

Building an understanding of constructivism (n.d.). Retrieved July 20, 2011, from

http://www.sedl.org/scimath/compass/v01n03/2.html

Cannae, L.A. (2004). Research Skills Capacity building for National Teachers’

Organizations Training Manual. Lome-Togo: Pan African Teachers’ Centre.

Chief Exerminer’s Report (2002, 2004, 2008). Basic Education Certificate Examination.

Accra: West African Examination Council (WAEC).

68
Chief Examiner’s Report (2005, 2006, 2007). Diploma in Basic Education. Methods of

Teaching Primary School Mathematics. Institute of Education: University of Cape

Coast.

Cooney, J. J., Davis, E. J., & Henderson, K. B. (1975). Dynamics of Teaching Secondary

School Mathematics. USA: Wavelang Press Inc.

Curriculum Research and Development Division (CRDD) (2004). Mathematics Syllabus

for Primary Schools. Accra: Ministry of Education.

Curriculum Research and Development Division (CRDD) (2007). Junior High School

Mathematics Syllabus . Accra: Ministry of Education.

Dewey, J. (1938). Logic: The Theory of Inquiry. New York: Holt and Co.
Dewey, J. (1966). Democracy and Education. New York: Free Press. Retrieved July 20,

2011, from http://www.sedl.org/scimath/compass/v01n03/2.html

Dogbe, E. B., Morrison, K. A. & Speed, B. (1995). Core Mathematics. Senior Secondary

Guide. Accra: Sedco Publishing Limited

Dolan, D. (2000). Activities for Elementary Mathematics Teachers. 4th Edition. London: Longman

Group Ltd

Downes, L.W. & Paling, D. (1965). The teaching of arithmetic in primary school. London:

Oxford University Press.

Durrheim, K. (1999). Quantitative measurement. In M.T Blanche, & K. Durrheim,

Research in practise: Applied Methods for the Social Sciences. Cape Town:

University of Cape Town Press

Elia, L., Gagatsis, A. & Demetrico, A. (2007). The effects of different Modes of

Representation on the solution one-step additive problems. Federal Republic of

Nigeria (2004). National Policy on education. Yaba-Lagos: NERDC Press.

69
Fletcher, J. A. (1997). A study of the Appraisal of Mathematics Teachers in Ghana.

Unpublished Ph.D Thesis. London: University of London Institute of Education.

Fletcher, J. A. (2005). Constructivism and mathematics Education in Ghana. Mathematics

connection. Vol. 5, 30.

Fraenkel, J. R & Wallen, N. E. (2000). How to design and evaluate research in education

(4th ed). In L. Akers (ed). USA: McGraw-Hill Inc.

Gaffney, J. S. & Anderson, R. C. (1991). Two-tiered scaffolding: Congruent processes of

teaching and learning. In E. H. Hiebert (Ed.), Literacy for a diverse society:

Perspective, practices and policies. N:Y: Teachers College Press.

Harris, J., Mishra, P. & Koehler, M. (2009). Teachers’ Technological Petagogical Content

Knowledge and Learning activity types: Curriculum-based technology reframed.

Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41 (4), 393-416

Hilton, P. & Pederson, J. (1983). Fear No More. An Adult Approach to Mathematics.

London: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.

INSET project Sourcebook, 2007. Sample lesson plans in mathematics. (2nd ed.). Accra:

Ghana Education Service.

Kurumeh, M. S. C. & Achor, E. E. (2008). Effect of Cuisenaire Rods’ approach on some

Nigeria primary pupils’ achievement in decimal Fractions. Educational Research

and Review, vol. 3 (11), pp. 339-343.

Kusi-Appau, B. (1997). Basic Mathematics for Teacher Training Colleges. Revision notes

on Mathematics Content and Methodology. Vol. 1

Martin, J. L. (Ed.) (1994). Mathematics for Teacher Training Colleges in Ghana. Accra:

Ministry of Education.

70
Mereku, D. K. (1992). ‘School Mathematics: The Misplaced Emphasis’, The people Daily

Graphic, September 19, 1992.

Mereku, D. K. (2004). Mathematics Curriculum Implementation in Ghana. (2nd Ed);

Winneba: University of Education.

Mereku, D. K. & Cofie, P. O. (2008). Overcoming Language Difficulties in Solving

Mathematics Problems in Basic Schools in Ghana. Mathematics Connections,

Vol.7p. 78. Winneba: Mathematics Association of Ghana.

Mereku, D. K. & Agbemaka, J. B. (2009). Curriculum Development, Implementation and

Evaluation. Winneba: Institute for Educational Development and Extension;

University of Education, Winneba.

Nabie, M. J. (2002). Fundamentals of the Psychology of learning mathematics. Mallam-

Accra: Akonta Publication

Nabie, M. J. (2009). Fundamentals of the Psychology of learning mathematics. Winneba;

Ghana: Akwa Impression.

O’Brien, R. (1998). An Overview of the Methodological Approach of Action Research.

(n.d.). Toronto: University of Toronto. Retrieved July 27, 2011 from

http://www.web.net/~robrien/papers/arfinal.html

Owusu, G. & Manu, M. A. (2007). Methods of Teaching Junior High School

Mathematics. Diploma in Basic Education by Distance. Accra: Ministry of

Education Youth and Sports

Pamela, L. (1984). How children learn mathematics. A guide for parents and teachers.

London: Penguin Ltd.

Piaget, J. (1973). To Understand is to Invent. New York: Grossman. Retrieved July 20,

2011 from http://www.sedl.org/scimath/compass/v01n03/2.html

71
Piaget, J. (1977). The developmental of thought: Equilibrium of cognitive structures. New

York: Viking Press.

Rochelle, J. (1992). Reflections on Dewey and Technology for situated learning. Paper

presented at annual meeting of American Educational Research Association, San

Francisco, CA.
Rule, A. C. & Hllagan, J. E. (2006). Pre-service elementary teachers’ use: Drawing and

make-sets of materials to explain multiplication and division of Fractions. ETA

production.

Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching.

Educational researcher, 15(2), 4-14.

Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching Foundations of the new reforms. Harvard

Educational Review, 57(1), 1-22.

Shulman, L. S. (2000). Teacher development: Roles of domain expertise and pedagogical

knowledge. Journal of Applied developmental Psychology, 21(1), 129-135.

Taale, D. K. & Ngman-Wara, E. (2003). Methods and Assessment in Integrated Science.

Diploma in Basic Education by distance. University of Education, Winneba:

Institute for Educational Development and Extention.

Talabi, J. K. (2003). Educational Technology, Methods, Tools and Techniques for

Effective Teaching. Winneba: University of Education, Winneba.

Taylor-Chapman, R. (1967). Discovering Number with children: A guide to teachers in

Africa. London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd.

Teaching Fractions with Understanding: Part-whole Concept (n.d.). Retrieved July 20,

2011, from http://nrich.maths.org/2550.

Teaching syllabus (Revised) for Colleges of Education. Diploma in Basic Education

72
 (2007).

Thompson, P. W. (1994). Concrete materials and teaching for mathematical understanding.

Centre for research in mathematics and science education.

Arithmetic Teacher, 41(9), 556-558.

vonGlaserfeld, E. (1989). Cognition, Construction of Knowledge and Teaching, Synthese,

80, 121-140.

Warrant, D. (2006). Comparative Mathematics Language in Elementary School. A

longitudinal study. Educational Studies in mathematics, vol. 62 No.2, 169-189.

William, G. C. (1986). Primary Mathematics Today. Hong Kong: Longman Group Ltd.

73
 APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

PRE-TEST ITEMS

1. Show, step by step, how you would use concrete materials to solve

2. Describe one way in which you would guide pupils in primary class 4 to determine

for themselves that and are equivalent Fractions, using concrete materials.

3. Describe an activity you would use to guide pupils in primary class 4 to find

4. Describe an activity you would use to guide pupils in primary class 4 to find

5. Describe briefly how you would use a named concrete material to introduce the

Fraction to pupils in primary class 3.

74
 APPENDIX B

POST-TEST ITEMS

1. Describe an activity you would use to guide pupils in primary class 4 to find

2. How will you explain to an upper primary pupil that is greater than using

concrete material.

3. A primary class four (4) pupil does the following

i. State the child’s mistakes.

ii. Describe how you would use concrete materials to help the pupil to overcome

his/her problem.

4. Show, step by step, how you would use concrete materials to solve .

5. Describe an activity you would use to guide pupils in primary class 4 to find
APPENDIX C

PRE-TEST SCORES

12 23 11 19 Error! Bookmark not defined.

25 76

31 77

75
 9 13 16

18 12 19

20 11 16

21 14 17

18 16 14

33 10

15 8

21 9

19 7

37 23

25 12

18 10

14 15

11 20

15 9

26 8

30 5

21 8
APPENDIX D

POST-TEST SCORES

26 27 26
29 30 31
30 36 48
29 38 27

76
31 46

25 43

41 32

40 20

46 34

43 36

37 22

36 20

33 38

30 31

32 25

29 33

30 28

26 32

23 24

33 27

24 30

44 36

39 30

77