Comparative Study of Analytical and Synthetic Methods of Teaching Mathematics

Journal of International Academic Research (2010) Vol.10, No.3.
31 Decemer 2010
Comparative Study of Analytical and synthetic methods of
Teaching Mathematics
Muhammad Asif, !"#$A%$ Institute of Information %echnolo&' Aottaad,
(a)istan
Dr. Muhammad Mushtaq Khan, !"#$A%$ Institute of Information %echnolo&'
Aottaad, (a)istan
Khalid Zaman, !"#$A%$ Institute of Information %echnolo&' Aottaad, (a)istan
Astract
%he *ur*ose of this *a*er is to anal'se the achie+ements of the students at secondar' le+el
,hen tau&ht ' anal'tical and s'nthetic methods of teachin& mathematics. A sam*le of
hundred students ,as ta)en from fi+e &o+ernment secondar' schools and di+ided them into
t,o &rou*s- e.*erimental and control &rou*. %he *re/test scores of the students sho, that
there is no si&nificant difference et,een the *erformances of t,o &rou*s. 0nder a control
en+ironment, the students of e.*erimental &rou* ,ere tau&ht ' s'nthetic method and
students of control &rou* ' anal'tical method. After e.*eriment, a researcher made *ost/test
,as conducted. %he *ost/test result sho,s that there is a si&nificant difference et,een the
*erformances of students of t,o &rou*s. %he students of e.*erimental &rou* *erformed
etter than the control &rou*.
Key !ords
Anal'tical #ethod, $'nthetic #ethod, %eachin& of #athematics
". #ntroduction
A teacher of mathematics has a +ariet' of methods and techni1ues ,hich he mi&ht use in his
e+er'da' classroom teachin&. %he main o2ecti+e of theses methods is to ma)e teachin&
learnin& *rocess more interacti+e and effecti+e. In &eneral, there is an interaction et,een
the teacher and learner. %o enhance or im*ro+e this interaction, a teacher uses ne,
instructional material, ne, techni1ues and methods of teachin& to ma)e learnin& rele+ant and
useful. %here are +arious )inds of teachin& methods and techni1ues ' ,hich a teacher can
select the most rele+ant one )ee*in& in +ie, the needs of the learner and its rele+ance to the
contents. $ome of the commonl' used methods are, *ro2ect method, heuristic method,
inducti+e 3 deducti+e methods and anal'tical 3 s'nthetic method.
%o &ras* on the su2ect matter of mathematics it is necessar' to use multi*le methods in the
teachin& learnin& *rocess at secondar' le+el. It is &enerall' oser+ed that the students sol+ed
a 1uestion or set of 1uestions 1uic)l' ' usin& a techni1ue or formula alread' learnt in the
class ut the' ha+e no understandin& aout the hidden lo&ic that ho, it done. (rior is the
deducti+e or s'nthetic a**roach to find a solution for a 1uestion ut later is the inducti+e
reasonin& of anal'tic a**roach.
!om*arati+e $tud' of Anal'tical and s'nthetic methods of %eachin& #athematics 1
Journal of International Academic Research (2010) Vol.10, No.3. 31 Decemer 2010
".". Analytic Approach
4irst ,e understand the meanin&s of 5Anal'sis6 and then &o throu&h the 5Anal'tic A**roach6.
Accordin& to the 7ester !om*rehensi+e Dictionar' (1892), the 5Anal'sis6 means, the
resolution of a ,hole unit into its *arts or elements or the *rocess of resol+in& a *rolem into
its first element (inducti+e reasonin&). Accordin& to %ro,rid&e (189:), Anal'sis is the ailit'
to rea) do,n material to its fundamental elements for etter understandin& of the
or&ani;ation. Anal'sis ma' include identif'in& *arts, clarif'in& relationshi*s amon& *arts and
reco&ni;in& or&ani;ational *rinci*les of scientific s'stem.
%he anal'tical method *roceeds from un)no,n to )no,n facts. In this method the *rolem is
anal'sed to find out the relations. A statement is anal'sed into sim*ler statements and then
truth is disco+ered. It is ased on inducti+e reasonin& and critical thin)in&. All the related facts
are anal'sed to see) hel* in *roceedin& to the )no,n conclusion. It is a lo&ical method ,hich
lea+es no dout in the minds of students in understandin& the core conce*t and discoura&es
crammin& and rote memor' of the learner. It facilitates the understandin& of the students and
moti+ates them to disco+er facts ' him (Rehman, 2000). It is a *s'cholo&ical method ased
on the *rinci*le of interest, ,hich inculcates the s*irit of in1uir' and in+esti&ation in the
students (<ato;ai, 2002). %here are some demerits of the a**roach as ,ell, stated '
Rehman (2000) and <ato;ai (2002), that it=s a time ta)in& a**roach ecause the teachin&
learnin& *rocess throu&h anal'sis ta)e more time to im*art )no,led&e from teacher to
students. In sol+in& a *rolem if )no,n facts are not *ro*er se1uence or in a lo&ical order,
the students feel it orin& and laorious.
$rocedure%
If a>?c>d, *ro+e that (ac/2
2)
>? (c
2
/2d)>d
%he un)no,n *art is (ac/2
2
)>? (c
2
/2d)>d is true,
if a c d @ 2
2
d ? c
2
@ 2
2
d is true,
if a c d ? c
2
is true,
if a d ? c is true
that is, if a> ? c>d is true,
,hich is )no,n.
".&. Synthetic Approach
Accordin& to the 7ester !om*rehensi+e Dictionar', the 5$'nthesis6 means the assemlin&
of se*arate or suordinate *arts into a ne, form. It is a *rocess of reasonin& from ,hole to a
*art and from &eneral to the *articular (deducti+e reasonin&). Accordin& to %ro,rid&e (189:),
the s'nthesis re1uires the formulation of ne, understandin& of scientific s'stems. If anal'sis
stresses the *arts, s'nthesis stresses the ,hole com*onents of scientific s'stems ma' e
reco&ni;ed into ne, *atterns. 0nli)e anal'sis, s'nthesis as)s 'our students to *ut *arts
to&ether, to ma)e *atterns that one, ne, to them.
$'nthetic a**roach is 2ust a**osite to the anal'tical method. In this method ,e *roceed from
)no,n to un)no,n as s'nthesis means comin& to&ether +arious *arts. In mathematics
+arious facts are collected and comined to find out the result ,hich is un)no,n (Rehman,
2000). Accordin& to <ato;ai (2002), it is the *rocess of *uttin& to&ether )no,n its of
information to reach the *oint ,here un)no,n formation ecause o+ious and true.
Accordin& to Rehman (2000) and <ato;ai (2002) there are certain merits and demerits of the
s'nthetic method. It is a short method and sa+e time in teachin& learnin& *rocess. It is
suitale oth for intelli&ent and ,ea) students. Aut at the other hand, it encoura&es the
memor' ,or) and does not de+elo* an' reasonin& *o,er and students are unale to
disco+er ne, idea.
$rocedure%
%he )no,n *art is a>?c>d
$utract 2>c on oth sides (Aut ,h' and ho, the child should rememer to sutract 2>c
and not an' other 1uantit')
a> @ 2>c ? c>d @ 2>c
or, (ac @ 2
2
)> c ? (c
2
/2 d ) > c d
or, (ac @ 2
2
)> ? (c
2
/2 d ) > d
,hich is un)no,n.
%hus, ,e conclude that oth the methods &o to&ether. Anal'sis hel* in understandin& and
s'nthetic hel*s in retainin& )no,led&e. %he teacher should realise that he ma' offer hel* for
the anal'tic form of the solution and that the s'nthetic ,or) should e left to the *u*ils
(#ar,aha, 2008).
%he o2ecti+e of this is to anal'se the com*arati+e effecti+eness of the anal'tical and
s'nthetic methods of teachin& mathematics at secondar' le+el. After introduction, the rest of
the article is or&ani;ed as follo,s. $ection II descries the literature re+ie, and $ection III
includes methodolo&'. $imilarl', $ection IV discusses the em*irical results and finall' the
$ection V concludes the *a*er.
&. 'iterature (evie!
#an' scholars ha+e defined Bducation in their o,n ,a's (<halid, 18CD). Accordin& to
$ocrates, 5Bducation is the mean that hel*s in searchin& the truth6. Accordin& to Aristotle,
5Bducation is a *rocess necessar' for the creation of sound mind in the sound od'6.
Accordin& to the Imam Eha;ali, 5Bducation is a *rocess ,hich enales an indi+idual to
distin&uish et,een the true and the false, the &ood and ad and the ri&ht conduct and the
e+il doin&6. %hese definitions *ro+ide the asic conce*t of Bducation. In the ne, conce*t of
education, the child is the centre of interest. $o the curriculum is desi&ned accordin& to the
needs and demands of the child. %o de+elo* the intellectual and anal'tical ailit' of the child it
is necessar' to desi&n the su2ect matter more interacti+e and deli+er the contents to the
child ,ith more a**ro*riate ,a'.
#athematics is the one of the *rime su2ect of the an' curriculum at *rimar' and secondar'
le+el. $o, a mathematics teacher uses +arious techni1ues and methods for effecti+e learnin&.
%he method under consideration is anal'tic and s'nthetic a**roach of teachin& mathematics.
Anal'sis and s'nthesis, as scientific methods, al,a's &o hand in handF the' com*lement one
another. B+er' s'nthesis is uilt u*on the results of a *recedin& anal'sis, and e+er' anal'sis
re1uires a suse1uent s'nthesis in order to +erif' and correct its results. In this conte.t, to
re&ard one method as ein& inherentl' etter than the other, is meanin&less. %here are,
ho,e+er, im*ortant situations in ,hich one method can e re&arded as more suitale than
the other. %his concerns the 1uestion of ,hich method is most a**ro*riate as the *rimar'
method or chief *oint of de*arture for the stud' of a &i+en s'stem or o2ect of scientific in1uir'
(Ritche', 188:).
Accordin& to Ruio (200G), the em*irical research sho,s that the use of the anal'sis
(5numerical anal'sis6) of the anal'tical method of numerical e.*loration fosters the
de+elo*ment of the student=s ailit' to estalish and *roduce meanin&s for- a) the numerical
relationshi*s et,een the un)no,nsF ) the relationshi*s et,een them and the dataF andF c)
the com*arison et,een t,o 1uantities ,hich re*resent the same in the *rolem, that is, that
the' are e1ui+alent re&ardin& their meanin&.
In the *re+ious ,or)s (4illo', Ruio, 1883 and Ruio, 2002), it has een *ro+en that the use
of a didactical model ased in the anal'tical method of numerical e.*loration ma)es *ossile
the unleash of anal'tical *rocesses that allo, the student to s'molise arithmetic/al&eraic
,ord *rolems ,ith one e1uation, ,here the numerical a**roach *la's a mediatin& role
et,een the arithmetic and al&eraic methods.
). Methodology
%o anal'se the com*arati+e effecti+eness of oth the anal'tical and s'nthetic methods, an
e.*eriment ,as conducted in the 8
th
class. %he selected *o*ulation for this ,as all the
&o+ernment o's= secondar' schools of the district Hari*ur (Ha;ara). 4rom these *o*ulation
100 students ,as selected from fi+e different schools. 4rom each school t,ent' students
,ere selected on the asis of their *ast *erformance. %he students ,ere di+ided into t,o
&rou*s (control &rou* and e.*erimental &rou*) ' e+en and odd numerin& to a+oid the
iasness.
A researcher made *re test ,as distriuted amon& the students to anal'se the *erformance
of students efore the e.*eriment. %he results of the *re test sho,ed that there is no
si&nificant difference of the *erformance of t,o &rou*s. After *re test, a sam*le of t,o
cha*ters ,as selected from the te.t oo) of #athematics tau&ht at 8
th
class. %he control
&rou* ,as tau&ht ' anal'tical method ,hile e.*erimental &rou* ,as tau&ht ' s'nthetic
method and oth the &rou*s ,ere )e*t a,a' from each other so, that one could not influence
the *erformance of other. %he duration of the classroom teachin& ,as fort' minutes and one
,ee) for ,hole e.*eriment.
Althou&h the teachers ,ere alread' trained, ho,e+er the' ,ere &uided aout the anal'tical
and s'nthetic methods once a&ain to enhance their efficienc'. %he teachers had same
academic and *rofessional 1ualification and e.*erience. %he course contents for oth the
&rou*s ,ere same ut the onl' difference et,een the t,o &rou*s ,as the method of
teachin&. After conductin& the e.*eriment, a researcher made *ost test ,as distriuted
amon& the students of t,o &rou*s. %here ,ere ten 1uestions (Amme. A) in the *ost test
ha+in& one mar) for each 1uestion. %he data ,as anal'sed throu&h ;/test statistics-
1 2
2 2
1 2
1 2
x x
Z
s s
n n
=
+
7here-
1
x ? #eans of the control &rou*
2
x ? #eans of the e.*erimental &rou*
2
1
s ? Variation of the control &rou*
2
2
s ? Variation of the e.*erimental &rou*
1
n ? Numer of students of control &rou*
2
n ? Numer of students of e.*erimental &rou*
!om*arati+e $tud' of Anal'tical and s'nthetic methods of %eachin& #athematics G
*. Data Analysis
%he data ,ere anal'sed throu&h I/test statistic at the si&nificance le+el of 0.0D and taulated
;/+alue is 1.8:. In tale.1, the com*utation of ;/test for mean *re test scores for e.*erimental
and control &rou* ,ere *resented. %he results sho,ed that the means and +ariance of
e.*erimental and control &rou*s ,ere 2.2G 3 2.2G and 1.C9 3 1.G2 res*ecti+el'. %he
calculated ;/+alue is less than the taulated ;/+alue, ,hich sho,ed that the t,o inde*endent
&rou*s ,ere e1ui+alent in *erformance efore e.*eriment.
Tale "%
Computation of Z+value for the mean pre test scores for e,perimental and control
groups
Variales No. of $tudents #ean Difference of #ean Variance I/Value
B.*. Erou* D0 2.2G 0 1.C9 0
!ont. Erou* D0 2.2G 1.G2
In tale 2, the com*utation of ;/test for mean *ost test scores for e.*erimental and control
&rou* ,ere *resented. %he results sho,ed that the means and +ariance of e.*erimental and
control &rou*s ,ere C.DG 3 :.:: and 1.:G 3 2.1G res*ecti+el'. %he calculated ;/+alue is &rater
than the taulated ;/+alue, ,hich sho,ed that the t,o inde*endent &rou*s ,ere not
e1ui+alent in *erformance after e.*eriment.
Tale &%
Computation of Z+value for the mean post test scores for e,perimental and control
groups
B.*. Erou* D0 C.DG 0.99 1.:G 3.2:
!ont. Erou* D0 :.:: 2.1G
%he com*utation of ;/+alue for the mean *ost test score of oth the &rou*s for 1uestions 1 to
10 ,ere *resented in anne.ure A. %he *ositi+e difference of for oth the &rou*s sho,ed that
the students tau&ht ' s'nthetic method *erform etter than the students tau&ht ' anal'tical
method and ne&ati+e difference of mean sho,ed that students tau&ht ' anal'tical method
*erformed etter than the other. In all 1uestions control &rou* *erform etter e.ce*t
1uestions 3 and :. %he ;/+alue in all 1uestions is not si&nificant ,hich sho,s that there is no
si&nificant difference of the achie+ements of the students ,hen tau&ht ' anal'tical method or
s'nthetic method at secondar' le+el.
-. Conclusion and (ecommendation
%he o2ecti+e of this stud' ,as to *resent a com*arati+e anal'sis of anal'tical and s'nthetic
method of teachin& mathematics at secondar' le+el. 4or this *ur*ose hundred students ,ere
selected from fi+e different secondar' schools of district Hari*ur from 8th class onl'. $tudents
,ere di+ided into t,o &rou*s (control and e.*erimental &rou*s). A *re/test ,as conducted
efore the e.*eriment. %he results of *re/test sho,ed that there ,as no si&nificant difference
in the achie+ements of the t,o &rou*s. Aoth the &rou*s ,ere tau&ht ' anal'tical and
s'nthetic methods res*ecti+el'. After the end of treatment *eriod, a researcher made *ost test
,as administered amon& the students and scored. %he data ,ere anal';ed throu&h ;/test
statistics. %he results of the *ost test sho,ed that there is a si&nificant difference et,een the
!om*arati+e $tud' of Anal'tical and s'nthetic methods of %eachin& #athematics D
achie+ements of the students tau&ht ' anal'tical and s'nthetic methods. %he mean *ost test
scores of the e.*erimental &rou*s ,ere hi&her than the control &rou*, ,hich indicated that
the s'nthetic method of teachin& mathematics ha+e a *ositi+e and si&nificant effect on the
academic achie+ements of the students of 8th class. %he difference of mean of oth &rou*s,
in res*onse to each 1uestion in *ost test did not sho, a si&nificant difference, ,hich indicated
that student also ta)e interest in the anal'tical a**roach (Anne.. A). Althou&h the students
tau&ht ' the s'nthetic method scored hi&h *erformance ut not a *redicted le+el thus, ased
on the results it is recommended to use a comination of anal'tical and s'nthetic method at
secondar' le+el.
.. (eferences
4illo', B. and Ruio, E. (1883). 5Didactic #odels, !o&nition and !om*etence in the $olutions
of Arithmetic 3 Al&era 7ord (rolems in Hiraa'ashi6, In. et al. (eds). Proceedings of the
17th International Conference for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Vol.I, **. 1DG/
1:1. 0ni+ersit' of %su)ua, Ja*an
<ato;ai, #.A. (2002). Senior English Teacher: A Book for Prearation for PCS. 0ni+ersit'
(ulishers=. (esha,ar.
<halid, %.#. (18C:). Education: An Introduction to Educational Psychology and !istory, Anmol
(ulishers. <arachi.
#ar,aha, (. (2008). %he %eachin& of #athematics, Accessed on 20
th
of #a', 2010.
htt*->>,,,.articlesase.com>,ritin&/articles>the/teachin&/of/mathematics/
10D99G8.htmlJi.;;0o$9AiI<3
Rehman, #. (2000). %eachin& of $cience and #athematics, 0ni+ersit' of (esha,ar.
(esha,ar.
Ritche', %. (1881). Re+ised Version (188:). Anal'sis and $'nthesis on $cientific #ethod/
Aased on a stud' ' Aernhard Riemann, System "esearch, Vol. 9 No. G. **/21/2G.
Ruio, E. (2002). $olution of 7ord (rolems %hrou&h a Numerical A**roach. B+idences on
the detachment of the arithmetical use of the un)no,n and the construction of its al&eraic
sense ' *re/uni+ersit' students in !oc)urn, A. and B.Nardi (eds), Proceedings of the #$th
Conference for the PME. Vol G, ** 1GD/1D2. Nor,ich, 0<.
Ruio, E. and Valle, R.D. (200G). %he !om*etent use of the Anal'tic #ethod in the $olution
of Al&eraic 7ord (rolems. A didactical model ased on a numerical a**roach ,ith 2unior
hi&h students=, Proceedings of the #%th Conference of the International &rou for the
Psychology of Mathematics Education. Vol. G.** 128/13:. 0ni+ersidad Nacional AutKnoma
de #L.ico. !!H $ur.
%he 7ester !om*rehensi+e Dictionar'. (1892). Bnc'clo*edic ed. Vol. I 3 II. 4er&uson
(ulishin& !om*an'. !hica&o.
%ro,rid&e. (189:). Becoming a Secondary School Science Teacher, G
th
ed. #errill
(ulishin& !om*an'. !olumus.
Anne,ure A
!om*arati+e $tud' of Anal'tical and s'nthetic methods of %eachin& #athematics :
Tale " /0uestion "1
!om*utation of I/+alue for the mean *ost test scores for e.*erimental and control &rou*s
B.*. Erou* D0 0.89 0.09 9.:G 0.1G
!ont. Erou* D0 0.8 C.3C
Tale &/0uestion &1
B.*. Erou* D0 0.C9 0.22 D.D3 0.D3
!ont. Erou* D0 0.D: 2.9G
Tale )/0uestion )1
B.*. Erou* D0 0.D9 /0.1 3.09 0.0D
!ont. Erou* D0 0.:9 G.28
Tale */0uestion *1
B.*. Erou* D0 0.9 0.2 D.82 0.G:
!ont. Erou* D0 0.: 3.G0
Tale -/0uestion -1
B.*. Erou* D0 0.CG 0.19 D.0C 0.G:
!ont. Erou* D0 0.D: 2.82
Tale ./0uestion .1
B.*. Erou* D0 0.9G /0.0: :.GD /0.11
!ont. Erou* D0 0.8 C.:G
Tale 2/0uestion 21
!om*arati+e $tud' of Anal'tical and s'nthetic methods of %eachin& #athematics C
B.*. Erou* D0 0.C 0.0: G.:1 1.D
!ont. Erou* D0 0.:G 3.C1
Tale 3/0uestion 31
B.*. Erou* D0 0.DG 0.02 3.C8 0.0D
!ont. Erou* D0 0.:2 3.D8
Tale 4/0uestion 41
B.*. Erou* D0 0.9 0.19 :.2G 0.G
!ont. Erou* D0 0.:2 3.:C
Tale "5/0uestion "51
B.*. Erou* D0 0.:9 0.1 G.39 0.::
!ont. Erou* D0 0.D9 3.32
Anne,ure+6
Post Test
Name: ---------------------------- Marks Obtained: ------------
Fill in the blanks with right answer.
1. The solution set of
2
8 15 x x + = is ----------------.
2
!" 1# $" 1# x x = + is ----------------.
!. The solution set of
2
ax bx c + + = is -------------------.
%. The solution set of
2
! 1 2 x x + = is ------------------.
2
1
! 12 2%
x x
= is -------------------.
&. '( eliminating )*+ from 5 % %! a x = and% ! 22 a x + = , we ha-e -----------------.
.. '( eliminating )*+ from 1/ 2 x x t + = and 1/ 2 x x t = + , we ha-e ---------------.
8. '( eliminating )*+ from
! !
1/ x x p + = and
! !
1/ x x q = , we ha-e -----------------.
$. '( eliminating )*+ from
2 . 25 x y + =
and
. 2 2 x y + =
, we ha-e -----------------.
1. '( eliminating )t+ from
2
x at = and
!
y bt = , we ha-e ---------------------.

Comparative Study of Analytical and Synthetic Methods of Teaching Mathematics

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Comparative Study of Analytical and Synthetic Methods of Teaching Mathematics

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Journal of International Academic Research (2010) Vol.10, No.3.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen