ARTICLE

EFFECTIVENESS OF KUMON METHOD OF TEACHING MATHEMATICS AT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL LEVEL IN PAKISTAN A LONGITUDINAL STUDY

  1. HOME
  2. ARTICLE

65 Pages : 531 - 545

http://dx.doi.org/10.31703/gssr.2019(IV-IV).65      10.31703/gssr.2019(IV-IV).65      Published : Dec 2019

Effectiveness of Kumon Method of Teaching Mathematics at Elementary School Level in Pakistan: A Longitudinal Study

Abstract

    The experimental study was designed to determine the effectiveness of Kumon method in comparison with traditional lecture method in the teaching of Mathematics to grade-6. The objective of the study was to determine the effectiveness of Kumon method for academic achievement of children in Mathematics. All students of grade-6 of Fazaia Inter colleges of Rawalpindi and Islamabad was the population.Cluster sampling technique randomly was used. One of the three Fazaia colleges (Grade-6) was selected randomly. All grade-6 students of theselected cluster formed the sample of the study. Data was collected and analyzed by applying t-test and recommendations were given on the basis of findings of the study. This study shows that Kumon method is more effective for teaching mathematics to Grade 6 students in comparison with traditional lecture method and equally helpful in teaching mathematics effectively to boys and girls.

    (1) Jamila Begum
    Lecturer, Department of Education, Faculty of Social Sciences, NUM, Islamabad, Pakistan.
    (2) Wajeeha Aurangzeb
    Assistant Professor, Department of Education, Faculty of Social Sciences, NUM, Islamabad, Pakistan.
    (3) Aisha Bibi
    Assistant Professor, Department of Education, Faculty of Social Sciences, NUM, Islamabad, Pakistan.
Fulltext PDF

References

  • Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). Improving Science Teachers’ Conceptions of Nature of Science: A critical Review of the Literature. International Journal of Science Education, 665–701.
  • Aggarwal, Y. P (2004). Statistical Method, Concept, Application and Computation. Sterling Publisher, New Delhi, India, 28-54.
  • hmed, A., Clark-Jeavons, A., & Oldknow, A. (2004). How Can Teaching Aids Improve the Quality of Mathematics Education. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 56(2), 313–328. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:EDUC.0000040412.39121.e0
  • Arends, R. I. (2004). Learning to Teach. (6th Ed) New York: McGraw Hill Company. 13, 26, 267, 271, 278.
  • Atkins, J. M. & Karplus, R. (1962).Discovery of Invention? Science Teacher 29(5),
  • Barrett, P. P., & Zhang, Y. (2009). Optimal learning spaces: design implications for primary schools. SCRI Research Report, (October), 47. http://usir.salford.ac.uk/18471/
  • Boruch, R. (2005). Beyond the laboratory or classroom: The empirical basis of educational policy. In G. D. Phye, D. H. Robinson, & J. Levin (Eds.), Empirical methods for evaluating educational interventions, 177–192, San Diego: Elsevier Academic Press.
  • Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
  • BSCS. (2006). BSCS Biology: A Human Approach (third edition). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company toward achieving the educational objectives.
  • Burtless, G. (2002). Randomized field trials for policy evaluation: Why not in education? In F. Mosteller& R. Boruch (Eds.), Evidence matters: Randomized trials in educational research, 179–197. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
  • Bybee et.al. (2006). A Report for Science Education National Institutes of Health BSCS 5415 Mark Dabling Boulevard Colorado CO 80918 (719) 531-5550.
  • Carlson Powell, J. (1999). A Study of Teacher Beliefs and the Implementation of Reform-oriented Curricula. Unpublished dissertation: University of Colorado.
  • Chen, Z., & Klahr, D. (1999). All other Things being Equal: Acquisition and Transfer of the Control of Variables Strategy. Child Development, 70(5), 1098-1120.
  • Ciftci, S. K., & Karadag, E. (2016). Developing a Mathematics Education Quality Scale. Africa Education Review, 13(3–4), 211–234. https://doi.org/10.1080/18146627.2016.1224590
  • CONSORT Transparent Reporting of Trials. (2008). http://www.consortstatement.org
  • Constas, M. A. (2007). Reshaping the methodological identity of education research. Evaluation Review, 31(4), 391–399.
  • Duschl, R. A., Ellenbogen, K. M. & Erduran, S. (1999). Understanding Dialogic Argumentation among Middle School Science Students. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada.
  • Erickson, F., & Gutierrez, K. (2002). Culture, rigor, and science in educational research. Educational Researcher, 31(8), 21–24.
  • Finn, J. D., & Achilles, C. M. (1999). Tennessee's class size study: Findings, implications, misconceptions. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 21, 97–109.
  • Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(23), 8410–8415. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1319030111
  • Gawron, P., Ostaszewski, M., Satagopam, V., Gebel, S., Mazein, A., Kuzma, M., & Schneider, R. (2016). MINERVA - a platform for visualization and curation of molecular interaction networks (in revision). Systems Biology and Applications, 2(January), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1038/npjsba.2016.20
  • Gay, L. R. (2000). Educational Research. (6th Ed).National Book Foundation Islamabad, Pakistan. (148-149,439).
  • Gomez, R. (2012). Users’ Perceptions of the Impact of Public Access Computing in Colombia: Libraries, Tele centers and Cybercafés (Links to an external site.). Information Technologies & International Development, 8(3). pp. 19-33
  • Goodrum, D., Hackling, M., & Rennie, L. (2001).The Status and Quality of Teaching and Learning of Science in Australian schools. Canberra City: Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs.
  • Goodrun, D., Hackling, M., &Rennie, L. (2000). The Status and Quality of Teaching and Learning of Science in Australian schools: A Research Report Prepared for the Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Canberra, Australia: Department of Ed.
  • Grayson H. W, (2006).Teaching Resource Center. The University of Tennessee at Chattanooga; 401 Hunter Hall- Mail Codes, 4354.TennesseeGueron, J. M. (2002). The politics of random assignment: Implementing studies and affecting policy. In F. Mosteller & R. Boruch (Eds.), Evidence matters: Randomized trials in educational research (pp. 15–49). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
  • Hackling, M.(2005).Working Scientifically: Implementing and assessing open investigation work in science, Western Australia Department of Education and Training.
  • Healy, B. (2006, September 11). Who says what's best? U.S. News and World Report, 141.9. 75.
  • How Teachers Can Motivate Students of Any Age | MindShift | KQED News. (n.d.). https://ww2.kqed.org/mindshift/2014/10/22/how-teachers-can-motivate-students-of-any-age/
  • Hsieh, P., Acee, T., Chung, W., Hsieh, Y., Kim, H., Thomas, G. D., et al. (2005). Is educational intervention research on the decline? Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 523–530.
  • Janet, C. (2009). What the Research California High School Science Summit Ontario, California 5415 Mark Dabling Blvd.
  • Jenna, W. (2010). The relationship between kumon and achievement in mathematics. Lethbridge, alberta.
  • Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1989). Cooperation and Competition: Theory and Research. Edina, Minn.: Interaction Books p.28, 25.
  • Klein, J. E., & Fleischman, A. R. (2002). The private practicing physician-investigator: ethical implications of clinical research in the office setting. Hastings Center Report, 32(4), 22–26.
  • Kochhar, S. K. (1999). Methods and techniques of teaching. Sterling, New Delhi.
  • Kopelman, L. M. (2004). Clinical trials. In S. Post (Ed.) Encyclopedia of bioethics (3rd ed.), pp. 2334–2343. New York: MacMillan Reference USA.
  • Linn, M., & Hsi, S. (2000). Computers, Teachers, Peers: Science Learning Partners. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Mason, E. J., & Bramble, W. J. (1997). Research in Education and the Behavioral Sciences: Concept and Method. London: Brown & Benchmark. Massachusetts: Allyn and Bacon.
  • Mattern, N. & Schau, C. (2002). Gender Difference in Attitude-Achievement Relationships over Time Among White Middle-School Students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 39(4), 324-340.
  • Mayer, R. E. (2005). The failure of educational research to impact educational practice: Six obstacles to educational reform. In G. D. Phye, D. H. Robinson, & J. Levin (Eds.), Empirical methods for evaluating educational interventions (pp. 67–81). San Diego: Elsevier Academic Press.
  • Miendlarzewska, E. A., & Trost, W. J. (2013). How musical training affects cognitive development: rhythm, reward and other modulating variables. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 7, 279. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2013.00279
  • Mosteller, F., & Boruch, R. (2002). Evidence matters: Randomized trials in educational research. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.al Psychology, 22, 4.
  • Mumba. F., Chabalengula V. M., & Wise, K. (2007) Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science& Technology Educatio. USA.
  • National Research Council (NRC). (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school (Expanded Edition). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
  • Normah & Salleh, Y. (2006). Problem Solving Skills in Probability, Among Matriculation Students. Presented at National Educational Research Seminar XIII, 40-55.
  • NRC. (2006). Investigation in High School Science. Washington DC: The National Press Academies Press.
  • Phye, G. D., Robinson, D. H., & Levin, J. (2005). Empirical methods for evaluating educational interventions. San Diego: Elsevier Academic Press.
  • Private tuition for children in core subjects of maths & English. (n.d.). Retrieved February 17, 2017, from http://www.kumon.co.uk/private-tuition/index.htm
  • Reid & Skryabina, N. (2002). Attitude Towards Physics: Research in Science and Technological Education.
  • Reyna, V. F. (2005). The no child left behind act, scientific research, and federal education policy: A view from Washington, D.C. In G. D. Phye, D. H. Robinson, & J. Levin (Eds.), Empirical methods for evaluating educational intervention (pp. 29–52). San Diego: Elsevier Academic Press.
  • Rivard & Straw, L. P. (2000). The Effect of Talk and Writing on Learning Science. Science Education, 84, 566-593.
  • Shavelson, R. J., & Towne, L. (Eds.). (2002). Scientific research in education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
  • Sungur, S, &Tekkaya, C. (2006). Effects of Problem-Based Learning and Traditional Instruction on Self-Regulated Learning. The Journal of Educational Research.99,307-317.
  • Tarasenkova, N. (2014). Specifications of the University Course “Methods of Teaching Mathematics in Higher Education Institutions.” American Journal of Educational Research, 2(12B), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.12691/education-2-12B-1
  • Tiberghien, A. (2000). Designing Teaching Situations in the Secondary School.OpenUniversity Press.
  • Toyama, K. (2010). "Can Technology End Poverty?” (Links to an external site.) Boston Review, 36(5).
  • Van Dijk , J. (2005). The Deepening Divide. Sage Publishers. (Intro & Ch. 2). Deepening Divide intro, ch 2.pdf
  • Zohrevand, Y., Jafari, S. S., & Arshad, M. H. (2010). A case study in Math Education: Mathematics Education to Adult and Young students in a same classroom at IAU. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 8, 158– 163. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.12.022

Cite this article

APA

    APA : Begum, J., Aurangzeb, W., & Bibi, A. (2019). Effectiveness of Kumon Method of Teaching Mathematics at Elementary School Level in Pakistan: A Longitudinal Study. Global Social Sciences Review, IV(IV), 531 - 545. https://doi.org/10.31703/gssr.2019(IV-IV).65

CHICAGO

    CHICAGO : Begum, Jamila, Wajeeha Aurangzeb, and Aisha Bibi. 2019. "Effectiveness of Kumon Method of Teaching Mathematics at Elementary School Level in Pakistan: A Longitudinal Study." Global Social Sciences Review, IV (IV): 531 - 545 doi: 10.31703/gssr.2019(IV-IV).65

HARVARD

    HARVARD : BEGUM, J., AURANGZEB, W. & BIBI, A. 2019. Effectiveness of Kumon Method of Teaching Mathematics at Elementary School Level in Pakistan: A Longitudinal Study. Global Social Sciences Review, IV, 531 - 545.

MHRA

    MHRA : Begum, Jamila, Wajeeha Aurangzeb, and Aisha Bibi. 2019. "Effectiveness of Kumon Method of Teaching Mathematics at Elementary School Level in Pakistan: A Longitudinal Study." Global Social Sciences Review, IV: 531 - 545

MLA

    MLA : Begum, Jamila, Wajeeha Aurangzeb, and Aisha Bibi. "Effectiveness of Kumon Method of Teaching Mathematics at Elementary School Level in Pakistan: A Longitudinal Study." Global Social Sciences Review, IV.IV (2019): 531 - 545 Print.

OXFORD

    OXFORD : Begum, Jamila, Aurangzeb, Wajeeha, and Bibi, Aisha (2019), "Effectiveness of Kumon Method of Teaching Mathematics at Elementary School Level in Pakistan: A Longitudinal Study", Global Social Sciences Review, IV (IV), 531 - 545

TURABIAN

    TURABIAN : Begum, Jamila, Wajeeha Aurangzeb, and Aisha Bibi. "Effectiveness of Kumon Method of Teaching Mathematics at Elementary School Level in Pakistan: A Longitudinal Study." Global Social Sciences Review IV, no. IV (2019): 531 - 545. https://doi.org/10.31703/gssr.2019(IV-IV).65