UNIVERSITY OF EDUCATION, WINNEBA

IMPROVING THE TEACHING OF MULTIPLICATION IN STAGE 3

REBECCA MIREKU

January 2019
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................ ii

List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. v

List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ vi

1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Background ................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Statement of the Problem ............................................................................................. 2

1.3 Objectives ..................................................................................................................... 2

1.4 Relevance of the Study ................................................................................................. 3

1.5 Limitation of the Study ................................................................................................. 3

1.6 Delimitation of the Study ............................................................................................. 3

1.7 Organisation of the Study ............................................................................................. 3

2. Literature Review................................................................................................................. 4

2.1 Theoretical Framework................................................................................................. 4

2.1.1 Jean Piaget's Theory of Learning .......................................................................... 4

2.2 Empirical ...................................................................................................................... 5

3. Methodology ........................................................................................................................ 6

3.1 Research Design and Approach .................................................................................... 6

3.2 Profile of Case Study School ........................................................................................ 6

ii
 3.3 Population and Sample ................................................................................................. 6

3.4 Data Analysis Technique .............................................................................................. 6

4. Data Analysis and Discussion of Findings .......................................................................... 7

4.1 Profile of Respondents.................................................................................................. 7

4.2 Identification of Teaching Methods ............................................................................. 8

4.2.1 Analysis for Class Organisation ............................................................................ 8

4.2.2 Teaching Processes ............................................................................................... 8

4.3 Effectiveness of Laid-down Teaching Methods ........................................................... 9

4.4 Assessment of Challenges .......................................................................................... 10

5. Recommendations suggested by participants .................................................................... 10

References ..................................................................................................................................... 11

iii
iv
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Profile of Respondents ...................................................................................................... 7

Table 2: Teaching Method (Class Organisation) ............................................................................ 8

Table 3: Teaching Method (Processes) ........................................................................................... 8

Table 4: Assessment of Challenges .............................................................................................. 10

v
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Effectiveness of GES laid-down teaching methods ........................................................ 9

vi
1. Introduction

1.1 Background

Mathematics is defined as ‘the abstract science of number, quantity and space’ (Taylor, 2013).

Multiplication, a subset of mathematics is defined as a mathematical operation performed on a

pair of numbers in order to derive a third number called a product (American Heritage

Dictionary, 2005). It is one of the four elementary mathematical of arithmetic; with the others

being addition, subtraction and division. For positive integers, multiplication consists of adding a

number (the multiplicand) to itself a specified number of times. Thus multiplying 6 by 3 means

adding 6 to itself three times. The operation of multiplication is extended to other real numbers

according to the rules governing the multiplicative properties of positive integers.

Stage 3 mathematics teaching is important because it marks a transition from the more informal

approach in primary schools to the formal, more abstract mathematics of Stage 4 and beyond

(Gardiner, 2016). Hence those teaching Stage 3 classes need a clear picture of how the

constituent parts of secondary mathematics interlock, and how Stage 3 work can best support

progression - first progression to Stage 4, and then to Stage 5 (at ages 7-9). Evidence does

suggest is that a good understanding of multiplication and division is crucial to children’s

mathematical development (Bana & Korbosky, 1995; Mulligan & Mitchelmore, 2009; Taylor,

2013).

Studies also show that performance increases with deliberate, focused and levelled practices as

well as high quality instructions (Bauer, 2013). However, students don’t always learn at the level

of their peers, leaving a gap in fact recall knowledge. Teachers need to recognize this gap and

understand that all students must achieve proficiency with fact recall. Doing so not only helps

1
students avoid mathematics anxiety but also encourages seeking mathematical applications

outside of school (Lyons & Beilock, 2012).

1.2 Statement of the Problem

No nation can improve upon her scientific and technological status to supersede her mathematics

status; an indication that mathematics is indispensable for science (Appiah, 2015). Studies has

shown that even teachers who have an in depth knowledge in mathematics cannot integrate them

in their teaching (Appiahene, Opoku, Akweittey, Adoba, & Kwarteng, 2014). Multiplication and

Division starts from Stage 3. Students in elementary schools are usually drilled mentally on the

multiplication table, addition and subtraction facts under the label “mental”. Some students are

made to recite the multiplication table in a parrot-like fashion in the belief that once mastered it

would facilitate the learning of other mathematical concepts. However, maths aversion is very

high in Ghana; it has permeated all ranks of the country’s academic ladder. It is therefore

important that we go back to the beginning, where the core of understanding mathematics

begins- Stage 3 to deal with the problem.

1.3 Objectives

The main objective of this study is to suggest ways of enhancing the teaching of multiplication in

Stage 3. The specific objectives are as follows:

a. To identify the methods stage 3 teachers apply in teaching multiplication

b. To find out teachers’ perception on the effectiveness of multiplication teaching methods

c. To identify the challenges stage 3 teachers face in teaching multiplication

d. To make recommendations on how to improve the teaching of multiplication in Stage 3

2
1.4 Relevance of the Study

By identifying the challenges and providing solutions, the teaching of multiplication will be

enhanced at the basic level; and this would reduce the mathematics phobia of most pupils who

would have shied away from this important subject.

1.5 Limitation of the Study

The study was limited by cost and time. There was not enough time to expand the sample size to

include more schools. This would also have meant more cost and a strain on the limited funds of

the researcher.

1.6 Delimitation of the Study

The findings of this study depends on information gathered from teachers of Feliham Memorial

School in Accra, Ghana.

1.7 Organisation of the Study

This report is organised in five sections to facilitate comprehensive reading. Section one is the

general introduction which covers the background, problem statement objectives, and

significance of the study. Section two presents the profile of the case study entity. Section three

covers the methods that were used to achieve the objectives of the study. Section four covers the

analysis of data and findings; and section five presents the recommendations of the study.

3
2. Literature Review

This section presents the literature review. It covers the theoretical foundation of teaching and

review of some empirical studies in line with the objectives.

2.1 Theoretical Framework

2.1.1 Jean Piaget's Theory of Learning

According to Jean Piaget (1979), human intellectual development progresses chronologically

through four sequential stages. The order in which the stages occur have been found to be largely

invariant, however the ages at which people enter each higher order stage vary according to each

person's hereditary and environmental characteristics. Piaget defined intelligence as the ability to

adapt to the environment. Adaptation takes place through assimilation and through

accommodation, with the two processes interacting throughout life in different ways, according

to the stage of mental development.

The stages of cognitive development that Piaget distinguished are four: (Piaget, 1968)

Sensorimotor (0-2 years of age) - children begin to use imitation, memory and thought. They

begin to recognize that objects do not cease to exist when they are hidden from view. They move

from reflex actions to goal-directed activity.

Preoperational (2-7 years) - Children gradually develop language and the ability to think in

symbolic form. They are able to think operations through logically in one direction and they have

difficulty seeing another person’s point of view.

Concrete operational (7-11 years) - Children are able to solve concrete (hands-on) problems in

logical fashion. They understand the laws of conservation and are able to classify and seriate.

They also understand reversibility.

4
Formal operational (11-15 years of age) - Children are able to solve abstract problems in logical

fashion. Their thinking becomes more scientific, they develop concerns about social issues and

about identity.

Piaget’s Theory provides reasons why different methods must be applied at different stages in

the learning process.

2.2 Empirical

Studies has shown that even teachers who have an in depth knowledge in mathematics cannot

integrate them in their teaching. They have attributed this to a high number of teachers who teach

mathematics is not professional teachers and lack basic skills in teaching. Some students also do

not have mathematics anxiety and all that they say is “I fear mathematics” (Appiahene et al.,

2014).

According to Fasasi (2015) the challenges of Mathematics education in the 21st century are

highlighted to include: incorporating new developments in Science and Technology into

Mathematics, Acceleration of programs for the continued professional development of teachers;

and Need for Mathematics educators to find new assessment instruments that reflect the new

expectation of mathematics education.

Baroody (2006) also identified two major categories of challenges in teaching multiplication.

These are the conventional wisdom, which refers to difficulties due to deficits inherent in the

learner; and the number-sense view which refers to difficulties are due to defects inherent in

conventional instruction.

5
3. Methodology

3.1 Research Design and Approach

A descriptive research design was adopted using a quantitative approach.

3.2 Profile of Case Study School

The study used Feliham Memorial School as a case. Founded in 2010, the school is located at

Odokor-Official Town and currently has a total staff strength of 28 and pupil population of 389.

The school is managed by the proprietress, Madam Sophia Hammond, assisted by two

headmistresses. The schools has computer laboratory and library, science laboratory, a worship

hall, and play ground.

3.3 Population and Sample

Given a population of 20 teachers, an ideal sample size of 19 was used (Krejcie & Morgan,

1970). Questionnaires were used to collect data from the sample. The questionnaires collected

data on the demographics and the objectives of the study.

3.4 Data Analysis Technique

The Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) was used to analyse the data. The

questionnaire responses were keyed into the application after screening; and the frequencies and

mean scores of the responses were determined to find answers to the objectives of the study.

6
4. Data Analysis and Discussion of Findings

4.1 Profile of Respondents

Table 1 shows a summary of the respondents’ profile in terms of gender, age, educational

qualification, subject speciality, years’ experience in teaching.

Table 1: Profile of Respondents

Variables Frequency Percent
i. Gender of Respondent
Male 14 74%
Female 5 26%
Total 19 100%
ii Age of Respondent
21-30 9 47%
31-40 7 37%
41-50 2 11%
50+ 1 5%
Total 19 100%
iii. Educational Qualification
Diploma 9 47%
Bachelors 10 53%
Total 19 100%
iv. Subject Speciality
Mathematics 8 42%
No Speciality 4 21%
Other 7 37%
Total 19 100%
v. Teaching Experience in years
4-6 years 13 68%
10 years + 6 32%
Total 19 100%

7
The results in Table 1 shows that majority of the respondents were males (74%, n=14); aged up

to 40 years (84%, n=16); Bachelor Degree holders (53%, n=10); other subjects trained (58%,

n=11); and had up to 6 years’ teaching experience (68%, n=13).

4.2 Identification of Teaching Methods

4.2.1 Analysis for Class Organisation

Table 2 shows the mean score results for the way teachers organised their pupils in teaching

multiplication.

Table 2: Teaching Method (Class Organisation)

Class Organisation N Mean Score
Multiplication is taught to the whole class 19 4.58
Divide class into smaller groups 19 3.95
Concentrate on pupils individually 19 4.37

The Table shows that the mean score for whole class was 4.58, smaller groups was 3.95, and

individually was 4.37. This means that the teaching of multiplication was done to the class as a

whole.

4.2.2 Teaching Processes

Table 3 shows the mean score results for the ranking of processes followed in teaching

multiplication.

Table 3: Teaching Method (Processes)

Teaching Processes N Mean Score
Setting and marking of homework 19 5.00
Preparing and using teaching/learning material in lessons 19 4.74
Giving meaningful answers to pupils’ questions 19 4.58
Engaging pupils in practical and game activities in lessons 19 4.42
Encouraging pupils to use their own methods in solving problem 19 3.47
Using mainly textbook examples and exercises 19 3.16

8
The results show that setting and marking of homework with a mean score of (5.0) was the most

sued technique in teaching multiplication; this is followed by use of teaching materials (4.74);

answering pupils’ questions meaningfully (4.58), engaging pupils games (4.42); encouraging

pupils to try their own methods (3.47); and using mainly textbook examples and exercises (3.16).

The results shows that the first four processes were practiced by the teachers to a large extent.

4.3 Effectiveness of Laid-down Teaching Methods

Respondents were required to indicate their perspective of the effectiveness of GES laid-down

teaching methods. The options were “not effective”, “somehow effective”, and “very effective”.

The bar chart below shows how participants responded.

Figure 1: Effectiveness of GES laid-down teaching methods

Effectiveness of GES laid-down teaching methods

63%

70%
60%
37%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Somehow Effective Very Effective
7 12

The Figure shows that none of the participants indicated the GES laid down methods of teaching

multiplication were ineffective. 37% (n=7) indicated somehow effective, and 63% (n=12)

indicated very effective. This means that respondents’ rated GES laid down teaching methods as

generally effective.

9
4.4 Assessment of Challenges

Table 4 shows the mean score results for the ranking of challenges faced in teaching

multiplication.

Table 4: Assessment of Challenges

Challenges N Mean Score
Low level of guardian / parent support 19 3.58
Lack of Teaching materials 19 3.53
Class sizes are too large 19 3.21
Weak mathematics background of teachers 19 2.68
Poor teaching skills 19 2.26

The mean score results show that low level of guardian / parent support with a mean score of

3.58 was the greatest challenge teachers faced in teaching multiplication. This is followed by

lack of teaching materials (3.53), too large class sizes (3.21), teachers’ weak foundation in

mathematics (2.68) and poor teaching skills (2.26).

5. Recommendations suggested by participants

Based on the findings and challenges observed, the following recommendations are put forward

for consideration.

 Parental involvement in their homework and collaboration with teachers

 Provision of teaching materials

 Investment in high quality teacher education

 Frequent assessment of pupils in class to see their understanding

 More practical and innovative methods

10
 REFERENCES

American Heritage Dictionary. (2005). The American Heritage Science Dictionary. Boston:

Houghton Mifflin Company.

Appiah, D. B. (2015). Gamification in Education: Improving elementary mathematics through

engagement in hybrid learning in the classroom. MPhil Thesis.

Appiahene, P., Opoku, M., Akweittey, E., Adoba, E., & Kwarteng, R. (2014). Assessing the

Challenges of Learning and Teaching of Mathematics in Second Cycle Institutions in

Ghana. International Journal of Innovation and Applied Studies, 6(3), 362–368.

Bana, J., & Korbosky, R. (1995). Children ’ s knowledge and understanding of basic number

facts. Perth, Australia: Edith Cowan University.

Baroody, A. J. (2006). Mastering the Basic Number Combinations and How to Help Them.

Teaching Children Mathematics, (August).

Bauer, B. J. (2013). Improving multiplication fact recall ; Interventions that lead to proficiency

with mathematical facts.

Fasasi, K. M. (2015). Effects of Heuristic Teaching Approach on Academic Achievement of

Senior Secondary School Mathematics Students in Girei Local Government Area of

Adamawa State , Nigeria. International Journal of Innovative Science, Engineering &

Technology, 2(6), 598–606.

Gardiner, T. (2016). Teaching Mathematics at Secondary Level. Cambridge, UK: Open Book.

Krejcie, R. V, & Morgan, D. W. (1970). Determining sample size for research activities.

Educational and Psychological Measurement, 38, 607–610.

Lyons, I. M., & Beilock, S. L. (2012). When Math Hurts : Math Anxiety Predicts Pain Network

Activation in Anticipation of Doing Math. PLoS ONE, 7(10), 1–6.

11
 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0048076

Mulligan, J., & Mitchelmore, M. (2009). Awareness of Pattern and Structure in Early

Mathematical Development. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 21(2), 33–49.

Piaget, J. (1968). Le point de vue de piaget. Internatiowl Journal Oj Prychology, 3(4), 281–299.

Taylor, H. (2013). How children learn Mathematics and the Implications for Teaching. In

Learning and Teaching Mathematics (pp. 3–19).

12
 APPENDIX- QUESTIONNAIRE

QUESTIONNAIRE
Dear Respondent,
I am undertaking a study on the topic “How to enhance the teaching of multiplication in Stage
3” in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the award of a Diploma Degree in Basic
Education from the University of Education, Winneba. For this purpose, we would be grateful if
you could spare a little of your time to answer these questions.
All information provided shall be treated strictly confidential.

Rebecca Mireku
Section A – Profile of Respondent
1. Gender
a. Male [ ]
b. Female [ ]
2. Age Group
a. 21-30 [ ]
b. 31-40 [ ]
c. 41-50 [ ]
d. 50+ [ ]
3. Qualification (Highest level of formal education)
a. WASSCE [ ]
b. Diploma [ ]
c. Bachelor Degree [ ]
d. Masters Degree [ ]
e. PhD [ ]
4. Subject Speciality
a. Mathematics [ ]
b. Science [ ]
c. No speciality [ ]
d. Other (please specify) [ ]
5. Teaching Experience (Number of Years)
a. Up to 3 years [ ]
b. 4- 6 years [ ]
c. 7 – 9 years [ ]
d. 10 year plus [ ]
Section B – Identification of Multiplication Teaching Methods
6. Please indicate how strongly you agree to each of the following statements.
7. SD: Strongly Disagree, DA: Disagree, NS: Not Sure, AG: Agree, SA: Strongly Agree

No. Teaching Methods SD DA NS AG SA

1 Class Organisation
Multiplication is taught to the whole class
Divide class into smaller groups
Concentrate on pupils individually

13
 2 Teaching Processes
Giving meaningful answers to pupils’
questions
Encouraging pupils to use their own
methods in solving problem
Using mainly textbook examples and
exercises
Preparing and using teaching/learning
material in lessons
Setting and marking of homework
Engaging pupils in practical and game
activities in lessons

8. To what extent would you rate the effectiveness of the teaching method of multiplication
in Stage 3 laid down by the GES.

a. Not Effective [ ] b. Somehow Effective [ ] c. Very Effective [ ]

9. Please indicate the extent to which the following represent your challenges in teaching
multiplication in stage 3.
SD: Strongly Disagree, DA: Disagree, NS: Not Sure, AG: Agree, SA: Strongly Agree
No. Challenge SD DA NS AG SA
a Class sizes are too large
b Lack of Teaching materials
c Weak mathematics background of teachers
d Poor teaching skills
e Low level of guardian / parent support

10. Please suggest recommendations on improving the teaching of multiplication in stage 3.

Recommendation
a
b
c
Thank you!!!

14