1

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

Primary school children who have not mastered multiplication which is one

of the basic skills in the four arithmetic operations are regarded as being at-risk

for mathematical failure (Stegemann & Grünke, 2014). The lack of understanding

and mastering multiplication skills of a student has been verifiably demonstrated

that it is more difficult for them to achieve higher learning (Stegemann and

Grünke, 2014). Furthermore, Southwell and Penglase (2015) found that most

elementary students cannot solve multiplication problems and that’s the reason

why they cannot explain how it works.

In another study done by Harkness and Thomas (2013) shows that

students who did not acquire multiplication skills are most like to fail

academically. Moreover, the lack of interest in learning multiplication occurs in

group of low achievers (May and Ahmad, 2018). Mastering multiplication is a

very important skills for a pupil, but most of the students face difficulties in

learning it. Undeniably, this also happens among low achievers, which have lack

of interest in mastering it (Ahmat et al., 2017). In addition, students’ interest in

learning multiplication is determined by the way in which the teaching, learning

and assessment of mathematical knowledge are carried out however, some

teachers are lacked of knowledge and did not apply strategies in teaching it

(Voinea & Purcaru, 2013).

Multiplication is a basic skill besides addition, subtraction and division.

 2

Pupils need to master the four basic skills for the mastery of mathematics. In

addition, the multiplication affects the mastery of mathematics. Unfortunately, this

recent mathematical decision at the national level is alarming the whole

community (Ramirez et al., 2013). The alarming situation does not only occur at

school level but also at the national level. One of the factors of pupils’

achievement was not satisfactory as pupil failed to memorize the multiplication

(Cragg et al., 2017). In line with that, teachers who taught memorization method

in mastering multiplication found that pupils were not interested in memorizing

thus affecting the mathematics performance thoroughly (Aunio and Räsänen,

2016). Undeniably, pupils are still unable to dominate the multiplication with the

methods of memorization. The practice of memorization is a problem for pupils

and as for the outcome, pupils are not interested in empowering mathematics

(Chinn, 2013).

Meanwhile, Bahadir (2017) wrote that magic finger method helps students

to visualize and facilitate students to store information visually for longer period of

time. Besides, Ahmat et al (2017) revealed that there is an increase in students’

achievement after teaching using the finger method. This method is easily

accepted and implemented by the primary school students as it is not complex

and able to attract students' attention. Since this has not yet been studied by

others, particularly in Cateel Central Elementary School, the researchers are

eager to explore the use of magic finger method in teaching multiplication. Thus,

this study will explore the effectiveness of magic finger method in mastering

multiplication.
 3

Significance of the Study

The results of the study are deemed beneficial to the following:

Curriculum Makers. Through this study, educational content creator may devise

an educational program in fortifying the scholarly execution of the learner to carry

out quality instruction through integrating the use of magic finger method in

teaching multiplication.

Mathematics Teachers. It may serve as a tool for better understanding of the

Multiplication as part of the newest curriculum. This study will expand their minds

into a greater span and learn tools to enhance their knowledge using finger

method in multiplication.

School Administrator. The discoveries of the results may enable them to

design suitable intercessions to fit understudy’s needs. The study will also

provide sufficient knowledge for the school administrators the real needs of the

learners in attaining quality education through the use of magic finger method in

teaching multiplication.

Student. This study may assist students in learning how to multiply numbers. It

will provide them a tool that they can easily use and manipulate using their

fingers.

Statement of the Problem

The main focus of this study was to determine the effectiveness of finger

method to enhance the multiplication skills among Grade 3 pupils in Cateel

Central Elementary School. Thus, this study sought to answer the following

questions:
 4

1. What is the level of the pretest score between control and experimental

group in terms of multiplication?

2. What is the level of the posttest scores between control and experimental

group in terms of multiplication?

3. Is there any significant difference between the pretest scores of control

and experimental group?

4. Is there any significant difference between the posttest results of control

and experimental group?

5. Is there any significant difference between the pretest and posttest scores

of the control and experimental group?

Objectives of the Study

This research study aims to determine the effectiveness of magic finger

method and the specific objectives are as follows:

1. To determine the level of the pretest score in terms of multiplication

among Grade 3 pupils in Cateel Central Elementary School.

2. To determine the level of the post test score in terms of multiplication

among Grade 3 pupils in Cateel Central Elementary School.

3. To determine the significant difference in the pretest scores between

control and experimental group.

4. To determine the significant difference in post test result between control

and experimental group in terms of multiplication.

5. To determine the significant difference on the results between pretest and

post test scores of a control and experimental group.

 5

Scope and Delimitation

The focus of the study was to use magic finger method in mastering

multiplication particularly to the second and third sections of third –grade level in

Cateel Central Elementary School. The researchers utilized a self-made

questionnaire validated by a master teacher. The study was taken between last

April to May 2023, with an intervention that lasted for two weeks and was

consists of five sessions per week. This study was delimited on improving the

multiplication skills of the Grade 3 learners with the said intervention specifically

magic finger method was used in multiplying numbers from 6 to 10 only. Also, the

researchers were focusing on their stated objectives through this research.

Theoretical Framework

This theory is anchored on Jean Piaget’s Cognitivism Theory (1930).

Piaget was the first to explain the Cognitivism Theory. It is also known as

Cognitive Learning Theory. As claimed by Piaget, a Swiss psychologist,

transferring knowledge to the learner in the most efficient way is by allowing the

learner to use the most effective cognitive strategy to encode information

(Cacioppo et al., 2013). Thus, Piaget’s Cognitive Learning Theory entails that

humans learn from thinking, we learn from our experiences, and we can improve

our multiplication skills through learning and using new strategies for us to

master it (Pea, 2018).

As highlighted by Piaget, the dominant aspects of cognitive theory involve

the interaction between mental components and the information that is

processed through this complex network. Hence, Piaget believed that an

 6

individual’s thinking and understanding develop significantly (Feldman, 2013).

Other than that, Piaget also attested that the use of strategy in mastering

multiplication requires repeated practice until cognitive information forms

because he believes in the concept that one of the major challenges encountered

in performing number operations is retrieving mathematics facts from memory

(Supekar et al., 2013).

Piaget believed in the concept that a schema is the basic unit of

knowledge and schemata build up over a lifetime. In multiplication, a student

uses their existing knowledge to form a mental structure that an individual uses

to solve multiplication problems (Sarwadi and Shahrill, 2014). Furthermore,

students will use schemata to master multiplication. Piaget believed that before

children mastered multiplication, they relied on action or internalized action-

arithmetic to think, indicating that the source of children’s ability to solve

multiplication problems relied on strategies they’ve learned (Radmeh and Drake,

2019).

Assimilation is the cognitive process of associating new information to

what is already known. For cognitive learning, it is essential to understand well

the use of magic finger method in mastering multiplication (Kirsh, 2013). Also,

Piaget discourages cramming of information, which is very ineffective in learning

multiplication. He believed that having a deep understanding of the use of magic

finger method in mastering multiplication improves students’ ability to relate new

knowledge with previous experiences or information (Amin et al., 2015).

The process of accommodation, as stated by Piaget, involves altering

 7

one's existing ideas (schemas) about how the world operates in response to new

information and experiences (Ültanir, 2012). Cognitive learning theory founded

on the concept that, students apply the new strategy that they’ve learned which is

magic finger method that will help them in learning and mastering multiplication

(Anderson, 2017). Moreover, it will help encouraged students as they continue to

develop their problem-solving and multiplication skills. Piaget stated that making

small changes to that knowledge in order to cope with difficulties that they

encountered in mastering multiplication will be of a great help to their learning

process (Mubarik et al., 2018).

The researchers believed that the cognitivism theory of Jean Piaget is

deemed appropriate for this study. Particularly in this study, schema of the

students is their background knowledge and foundation in multiplication

specifically the nature of multiplication process. Further, the respondents

mastered the multiples of 1 until 5. Moreover, assimilation occurs the moment the

researchers will introduce a magic finger method as a new strategy to master

multiplication. Finally, accommodation will take place as the students will be able

to use a magic finger effectively in solving multiplication, specifically, when they

are able to answer correctly multiplication problems.

Definition of Terms

The following terms were defined conceptually and operationally.

Cognitivism. Cognitivists believe that humans learn from thinking. They believe

that we learn from our experiences and that we can change our behaviors based

on new information. Knowledge is considered an internal process rather than a

 8

product (Cacioppo et al., 2013).

Curriculum. A standard based sequence of planned experiences where

students practice and achieve proficiency in content and applied learning skills.

Curriculum is the central guide for all educators as to what essential for teaching

and learning, so that every student has access to rigorous academic experiences

(Malone, 2020).

Magic Finger Method (MFM). Magic finger method is defined as the ability to

sensually distinguish between fingers and to mentally represent bodily

representations (Dobres, 2019). Operationally, magic finger method refers to the

strategy to be used by the researchers to help learners master the multiplication.

Multiplicand. Is the first number in which the other is being multiplied (Su et al.,

2016).

Multiplication. Is one of the four basic arithmetic operations, alongside addition,

subtraction, and division, in math, multiply means the repeated addition of groups

of equal sizes (Su et al., 2016).

Multiplier. Is a factor that amplifies or increases the base value of something

else (Su et al., 2016).

Numeracy. The ability to understand and deal competently with numbers, tables,

graphs, and basic mathematical concepts (Luciani, 2018).

Product- is defined as the result of two or more numbers when multiplied

together (Su et al., 2016).

 9

CHAPTER 2
REVIEW RELATED LITERATURE

The researcher reviewed several works of literature and having bearing on

the topic of the study. This section tackles the different concepts, ideas, and

information that are relevant to the present study. This will serve as the

researcher's guide in developing future research.

Definition of Multiplication

Cathébras et al (2018) states that multiplication is a scalar operation that

uses two different amounts. The multiplier is a scaling factor that shows how the

operation changes the size, or scale, of the multiplicative unit. The new scaled

value is the answer to the multiplication. The rescaled result is the product of the

multiplication. However, Bahr et al (2015) wrote that multiplication is typically

introduced as repeated addition of equally sized groups which is regarded as a

natural way to introduce students to multiplication. In addition, multiplication is

viewed with different meanings when context changes. Thus, teachers’

understanding of the meanings of multiplication deserves study.

The understanding of multiplication often relates to a total amount when

the number of groups and the number in each group are known (Badawi et al.,

2019). More formally, the number of groups indicates the multiplier and the

number in each group refers to the multiplicand, giving the total amount as the

product (Sanaullah et al., 2018). For instance, there are three bags of marbles

and the number of marbles in each bag is two. In this case, the multiplier is three
 10

whereas the multiplicand is two. The product which represents the total amount

of marbles is six. Based on Siemon et al (2015) clarifies that we may interpret

multiplication as one-to-many correspondence. Take for instance, there are three

bags of wool on each sheep, five sheep are carrying the wools. The idea in this

case is, three times as many bags of wool as sheep. Moreover, multiplication is

defined as a mathematical operation in which two numbers are combined to give

a third number (the product), denoted by a×b or a*b or (for symbols) by ab

(MacLane, 2012).

Multiplication is efficient for the counting of large collections (Corrigan and

Boneh, 2017). As an illustration, we can write 2 × 3 as 3 + 3 and interpret it as

the total number of things in the two groups, each containing three things.

Obviously, this kind of interpretation is derived from the operation of addition.

While, Al and Dave (2018) claimed that the concept of multiplication is intuitively

attached to a repeated addition model but the multiplier must be a whole number.

Lo and Luo, (2012) also found that students tended to solve multiplication

problems based on equal groups of repeated addition. However, some

researches (Larsson et al., 2017) disagreed to reason multiplication solely based

on repeated addition.

Although equal groups are the starting point for multiplication, Siemon et

al (2015) stated that this idea is only suitable for small positive integers, not

helpful in fractions and decimals and does not apply to negative numbers.

Consequently, the interpretation of multiplication as repeated addition has been

extended from the notion of times to part of a part in the multiplication of fractions
 11

or alternatively the notion of all these open up a question about what is the

meaning of multiplication when it involves negative numbers (Webel & DeLeeuw,

2016). Moreover, Verschaffel et al (2020) says that the meaning of multiplication

changes based on contexts. Chin and Jiew (2019) interpreted the meaning of

multiplication as repeated addition.

However, when the numbers involved in the multiplication have changed

to another number system then the interpretation of multiplication may need to be

changed according to the new context. In the similar vein, Chin and Jiew (2019)

argued that it is possible to have other meanings of multiplication. Thus, they

explored the conceptions of two mathematics teachers possessed about the

multiplication symbol (×) in order to look for some possible alternative

conceptions. Further, Beth (2013) interpreted the meaning of multiplication as

division by focusing on the performed operation of symbolism. Amy (2019)

realized the change of meanings in multiplication when both the multiplicand and

multiplier were fractions. All these highlight the complexity in making sense of

multiplication over the longer term. Amy is more sensitive to the changes of

meanings of multiplication in comparison to Beth.

Problems in Mastering Multiplication

Multiplication facts are a fundamental ability in mathematics, children

should not only be able to execute the four basic arithmetic operations, they

should, more than anything else, also be able to understand them in terms of

content. Primary school children who have not acquired the basic skills in the

four arithmetic operations are regarded as being at-risk for mathematical failure
 12

(Stegemann & Grünke, 2014). The lack of understanding of the basic and

fundamental mathematical skills of such at-risk children has been verifiably

demonstrated to make it more difficult to achieve higher learning targets

(Stegemann & Grünke, 2014).

However, teaching multiplication is a challenge at all grade levels, but

technology has some specific attributes that support the learning of multiplication

new and exciting ways (Schrum & Levin, 2016). The lack of interest in learning

multiplication occurs in group of low achievers. Interest of pupils in learning

multiplication is determined by the way in which the teaching, learning and

assessment of mathematical knowledge are carried out (Voinea & Purcaru,

2013). Even though Mathematics is a very important subject for a pupil, but some

may face difficulties in learning it. This also happens among Mathematics low

achievers, which have lack of interest in this subject. A good method or

technique need to be developed because it can stimulate the thought or cognitive

of pupils to understand the basic mathematical concepts (Ahmat et al., 2017).

In schools, teaching of mathematics recurs on drilling, memorizing facts

and procedures (Abdullah et. al., 2014). These are essential in learning

mathematics. However, memorizing facts without an awareness of changes of

mathematical meanings and executing procedures without sense-making may

result in rote learning. As a result, learners may not be able to solve non-routine

problems. Hence, teaching multiplication requires mathematics teachers to

understand how the multiplication algorithm works before they can identify

appropriate learning opportunities for students (Whitacre & Nickerson, 2016).

 13

However, school pupils who can solve standard operation for multiplication

based on multiplication tables and multiplication facts but this didn’t help them to

solve real life problems.

On the other hand, Thanheiser (2015) found that prospective elementary

teachers can solve multiplication problems but they can’t explain why it works. In

another study done by Harkness and Thomas (2013) states that alternative

multiplication algorithm and they also didn’t realise why it works. Thus,

mathematics teachers need to reason sensibly and flexibly while doing

mathematics (Whitacre & Nickerson, 2016). Also, students can understand

multiplication concepts through understanding the underlying meanings of

mathematical operations (Burris, 2005). Making sense of multiplication is a

complex process (Chin & Jiew, 2019).

Pettersson and Andrews (2017) wrote that the way teachers taught

multiplication as repeated addition was problematic, especially encountered with

multiplication of multi-digits and decimals. In fact, solving multiplication problems

solely based on repeated addition is not enough. Children are meant to develop

a mental model that they can apply to solve symbolic problems as flexibly as

possible (Qu et al., 2021). To foster multiplication concepts, the use of

rectangular arrays has been established (Hurst & Hurrel, 2016), because they

represent in equal measure three quantities. Further, learning multiplication is an

essential part of primary school mathematics. Johnson and Schneider (2015)

demonstrated that multiplication was developed as a transition from additive to a

multiplicative way of thinking (Hurst & Hurrel, 2016). However, Moser Opitz
 14

(2013) states that very few at-risk children benefit from work done with the

multiplicative arrays, only about 30% of the at-risk students surveyed could solve

a problem using the manipulative approach, even though all children had learned

multiplication with the help of rectangular arrays in their second year. Primary

school children who have not acquired the basic skills in the four arithmetic

operations are regarded as being at-risk for mathematical failure (Stegemann &

Grünke, 2014).

Multiplication is one of the basic operations that is not being well

addressed in primary schools in Kavango East and West regions. It is evident

that the idea of repeated addition may become a problematic conception as an

individual moves from one number system to another number system such as

negative integers and fractions (Zhang et al., 2014). However, both of them

perceive repeated addition as a supportive conception and they are constantly

trying to build their understanding based on the idea of repeated addition in new

contexts (Lamon, 2020). Mathematics provides opportunities to build tool and

component skills that enable performance on composite skills (Johnson, &

Street, 2013). Educator must develop strategies that are underpinned by theories

in order. This is to overcome the challenges imposed by the global declines in

numeracy skills (Everingham et al., 2017). The educators can develop the

teaching of multiplication through a continuing and collaborative inquiry of

teaching practices (Lin et al., 2017).

Effectiveness of MFM on Mastering Multiplication

Mutlu et al., (2020) states that the finger knuckles counting method
 15

numbers are counted rhythmically using finger knuckles to perform the

operations. Jay and Betenson (2017) revealed that testing a finger training

intervention is to improve quantitative skills. The finger training aspect of the

intervention was effective in improving participants’ finger gnosis scores. The

number of games aspect of the intervention was effective in improving non-

symbolic magnitude comparison scores, but on its own was not sufficient to

improve quantitative skills (Anderson, 2013). The two versions of the intervention

that combined both the finger training and number games aspects were

successful in improving participants’ quantitative skills relative to controls, and

with a large effect size (Jay and Betenson, 2017).

Sixtus et al (2020) studied finger counting habits in Middle Eastern and

Western Individuals. The role of finger counting which is basic numerical and

arithmetic principles using finger-based representations, from a neurocognitive

perspective, and from a mathematics education perspective (Liudmila, 2017).

Accordingly, from the neurocognitive perspective, finger counting provides

multisensory input, which conveys both cardinal and ordinal aspects of numbers.

The data indicate that children with good finger-based numerical representations

show better arithmetic skills and that training finger sense, enhance multiplication

skills (Soylu et al., 2018).

The neurocognitive researchers concluded that elaborate finger-based

numerical representations are beneficial for later numerical development

(Barrocas et al., 2020). However, research in mathematics education

recommends fostering mentally based numerical representations so as to induce

 16

children to abandon finger counting (Baccaglini-Frank and Maracci,2015). Hence,

mathematics education recommends first using finger counting, then concrete

structured representations and, finally, mental representations of numbers to

perform numerical operations. Bertillo (2020) discussed the alternate proofs of

finger multiplication which generalizes the results of strategies of

mathematicians.

Barrocas and company (2020) also mentioned the important definitions,

notions, and examples of finger multiplication. It elucidates the justifications with

procedures delineating the proposition, proof, and example along with a pictorial

representation of finger multiplication. Moreover, the existence of alternative

methods for learning multiplication in the mathematics syllabus can help teachers

to diversify the method of their teaching and learning (Moller et al., 2013). The

current educational situation is that teachers do not dare to apply new discovered

methods from any research and innovation from other individuals (Fugate et al.,

2013). Further the study proved that there are many alternative methods that can

improve students’ achievement, especially in multiplication skills.

Bahadir (2017) wrote that finger method helps students to visualize and

facilitate students to store information visually for longer period of time. Besides,

Ahmat et al (2017) revealed that there is an increase in students’ achievement

after teaching using the finger method. This method is easily accepted and

implemented by the primary school students as it is not complex and able to

attract students' attention. Furthermore, Idris et al (2016) states that this method

did not only enhance students’ mastery of learning multiplication but also engage
 17

students in the learning process. Meanwhile, Palupi et al (2022) helps to explain

that this method has proven to strengthen the basic concepts of multiplication for

students when the findings show a positive impact. The cross method was

introduced by a Japanese national, which is still used until today. The concept of

a game-like method will be more appropriate for students. Students will compete

to solve the questions given the teacher. Students’ engagement in learning

process becomes active (Flores, 2016).

Finger-counting is a normal and healthy intermediate stage in the

development of complex problem-solving skills rather than a debilitating habit

that should be given up immediately or suppressed by parents and teachers at all

costs (Stegemann and Grünke, 2014). Students with different characteristics are

at the center of the discussion of finger counting in mathematics teaching

because it may be a necessity rather than a choice for some students. Therefore,

students’ characteristics should be determined before they are encouraged to

abandon finger-counting. Moreover, the limitation of finger-counting can be

overcome by using different strategies (Neveu et al., 2014).

Finger-counting should, therefore, be a transition process rather than an

obstacle to the development of mental arithmetic skills because people abandon

Bahadir (2017) suggest that use of visualization in mathematics education may

have a positive effect on students in both cognitive and affective aspects. For

this, use of visualization in mathematics education starting from the first stage of

elementary school will add a new dimension to mathematics education

(Presmeg, 2020). Visualization stands as a beneficial approach to attract

 18

students’ attention, motivate them, concretize learning and make it meaningful

and for students to organize their own knowledge and associate concrete and

abstract expressions of concepts (Seker, 2016).

 19

CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY

Research Locale and Duration

The study was conducted in Cateel Central Elementary School

particularly, the Grade 3 pupils of the School Year 2022-2023. The Grade 3

classrooms can be found in building 15 and building 16, the front side and right

side of building 21. The school located at Castro Ave., St. Población, Cateel,

Davao Oriental with zip code 8205. The school consist of K-6 grades.

Additionally, the intervention lasted for two weeks within April to May 2023 and

was consist of five sessions per week.

Figure 1. Map of Cateel Central

 20

Research Design

This study utilized the quantitative research design, specifically, a quasi-

experimental design that cover a control and experimental group to showcase

the efficacy of the implemented intervention. Yapo et al (2020) states that

quantitative research is the process of collecting and analysing numerical data. It

can be used to find patterns and averages, make predictions, test causal

relationships, and generalize results to wider populations. On the other hand, a

quasi-experimental design aims to establish a cause-and-effect relationship

between an independent and dependent variable (Thomas et al., 2022). In

addition, the researchers firmly believe that this was the most appropriate

research design for this study.

Respondents of the Study

The respondents of this study was the two sections of third-grade level of

Cateel Central Elementary School. The respondents was grouped as

experimental and control group. The experimental group was from grade 3

trustworthy with 20 respondents and the control group was from grade 3 integrity

with 17 respondents. The researchers together with the research adviser were

jointly tossed a coin. The groups were both consist of all pupils under set 1 class

schedule of the week.

Research Instrument

Researcher-made pre-test and post-test questionnaires were utilized as

the major tool in data collection. The questionnaires that were used underwent

validity and reliability testing. Its validity was established using content validity as
 21

certified by an expert in the field after matching the questionnaire’s content to the

curriculum guide. While, reliability was established through the conduct of pilot

test in Sta. Filomena Elementary School before administering it to the actual

respondents of the research study in Cateel Central Elementary School. Further,

the content of the questionnaires was anchored to a specific competency

covered by the K-12 curriculum guide. It has twenty (20) items consisted of

multiple choices, matching type, fill in the blank and true or false.

Data Gathering

The following steps were followed by the researchers in gathering the

data.

1. Secure research ethical clearance. To guarantee that the research is carried

out in a responsible and ethically accountable manner, the researchers seek

the school administration’s clearance. Additionally, it minimized the

respondent’s risk.

2. Requesting approval to carry out the action research. The researchers

submitted a letter of authorization to the school principal of Cateel Central

Elementary School in order to carry out the action research. Permission was

granted, the researchers also send a letter to the 3rd grade class adviser

asking permission to conduct the study and uses the tool with the students.

The study objectives was specified in great detail in the letter requesting

permission to conduct the study as well as the letter sent to the class adviser

and principal.
 22

3. Ensure validity and reliability. The researchers were conducting a pilot

testing in Grade 3 at Sta. Filomena Elementary School to examine the

reliability of the questionnaires. For validity the questionnaire was checked by

a master teacher in mathematics for content validity before administering to

the respondents.

4. Administering pretest. To determine whether the students have a

fundamental understanding or knowledge of the stated objectives and

measures, the researchers gave the students a pre-test. Students were given

this as a sneak peek at what to expect in the activities that came after and

what they need to learn.

5. Retrieval of pretest. The questionnaire was retrieved after the students have

completed the pretest that will be given by the researchers. The data from

the pretest was total, encoded, examined, and interpreted.

6. Carrying out of intervention. The researcher carried out the study with magic

finger method. However, only those pupils designated as the experimental

group got multiplication content standards instruction using magic finger

method. The control group received instruction without the intervention.

7. Administering of post-test. The post-test questionnaire was given out by the

researcher.

8. Retrieval of the post-test. The questionnaire was retrieved once the students

have completed the pre-test that the researcher delivers. The information

acquired during the post-test was counted, encoded, examined, and

 23

interpreted.

Data Analysis

Upon the completion of the responses came from experimental and

control group respondents through the pretest and posttest designed of

questionnaire, tabulation of the raw data was the initial step in encoding the

results. After tabulating the raw data that was gathered, the researcher had a

pre-observation that the test result of experimental group especially in posttest

part was dominated the control group. This means that there was an initial

assumption that the intervention that was used is quite effective. However, it was

not yet confirmed as reliable result to be presented. In analyzing and achieving

reliable, realistic and proper interpretation to the gathered data, it was used

Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS), a software program used for

quantifying data analysis and K-12 DepEd grading system was used for

interpreting remarks of data results, comparing the performances of the two

groups. Moreover, the statistical tools that were used are mean and independent

sample T-test.

Mean. This statistical tool was used in order to determine (1) the level of pretest

scores and (2) post test scores of the respondents from the two groups. In other

words, mean as a tool was appropriately utilized to answer objectives 1 and 2.

Independent sample T-test. This statistical tool was used in determining (3) the

significant difference of pretest results between control and experimental group,

(4) the significant difference of posttest scores between control and experimental

group and lastly, (5) to determine the significant difference between pretest and
 24

posttest scores of control and experimental groups. In other words, the

mentioned tool earlier was utilized accordingly to answer objectives 3, 4 and 5.

 25

CHAPTER 4

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

This chapter presents the results and discussion of the study. The results

are discussed thoroughly and the order is based on the study’s statement of the

problem.

Level of Third Graders’ Multiplication Skills in the Pre-test

The data was obtained through administering a pre-test. This was to

determine the pre-test score in terms of multiplication skills among third graders.

Table 1 shows a summary of scores of experimental and control groups of third

graders’ multiplication in the pretest. Control group have a grade percentage of

40.59 and experimental group have a grade percentage of 35.75 in which the

third graders did not meet the expected level of multiplication skill.

Table 1. Level of pre-test scores between the control and experimental groups
Grade
Total Standard
Group Mean Percentag Remarks
Score Deviation
e

Did not meet

Control 20 1.13 8.12 40.59
expectations

Did not meet

Experimental 20 1.85 7.50 35.75
expectations

The table 1 shows the pretest scores of the control group has a mean

score of 8.12 and for experimental group has a mean score of 7.50 which means
 26

did not meet the expectations. Primary school children who have not acquired

the basic skills in the four arithmetic operations are regarded as being at-risk for

mathematical failure. The lack of understanding of the basic and fundamental

mathematical skills of such at-risk children has been verifiably demonstrated to

make it more difficult to achieve higher learning targets (Stegemann & Grünke,

2014). Additionally, Southwell and Penglase (2015) found that most elementary

students cannot solve multiplication problems and that’s the reason why they

cannot explain how it works.

In support to that, Voinea & Purcaru (2013) states that the lack of interest

in learning multiplication occurs in group of low achievers. Interest of pupils in

learning multiplication is determined by the way in which the teaching, learning

and assessment of mathematical knowledge are carried out. Even though

Mathematics is a very important subject for a pupil, but some may face difficulties

in learning it. This also happens among Mathematics low achievers, which have

lack of interest in this subject.

Hence, teaching multiplication requires mathematics teachers to

understand how the multiplication algorithm works before they can identify

appropriate learning opportunities for students (Whitacre & Nickerson, 2016).

However, school pupils who can solve standard operation for multiplication

based on multiplication tables and multiplication facts but this didn’t help them to

solve real life problems.

 27

Level of Third Graders’ Multiplication Skills in Post-test

Table 2 shows the comparison of post-test scores between the

experimental and control groups. This is to determine the significant difference

between control and experimental groups in terms of multiplication skills. As

shown in the interpretation, there is no significant difference between the control

and experimental group. This means that both groups have the same level of

multiplication skills.

Table 2. Level of post-test scores between the control and experimental groups
Total Standard Grade
Group Mean Remarks
Score Deviation Percentage
Control 20 3.01 16.60 83.20 Satisfactory
Experimental 20 0.94 19.30 96.25 Outstanding
The table 2 presented that the level of the post-test scores of control

group which is 16.60 which means satisfactory and for experimental group is

19.30 which means outstanding. Based on the results, the researcher concluded

that the multiplication skills of the students were improved on the level of the

experimental group’s post-test scores as compared to the pretest. This was

especially true given that the experimental group’s performance was outstanding.

This clarifies why the magic finger method was found to be a successful strategy

in this situation, as students received instruction regarding to magic finger

method, finger-counting is a normal and healthy intermediate stage in the

development of complex problem-solving skills rather than a debilitating habit

 28

that should be given up immediately or suppressed by parents and teachers at all

costs (Stegemann and Grünke, 2014). Students with different characteristics are

at the centre of the discussion of finger counting in mathematics teaching

because it may be a necessity rather than a choice for students (Neveu et al.,

2014).

In connection to the result, mathematics provides opportunities to build

tool and component skills that enable performance on composite skills (Johnson,

& Street, 2013). Educator uses strategies that are underpinned by theories in

order to overcome the challenges imposed by the global declines in numeracy

skills (Everingham et al., 2017). The educators can develop the teaching of

multiplication through a continuing and collaborative inquiry of teaching practices

(Lin et al., 2017).

Additionally, Jay and Betenson (2017) revealed that testing a finger

training intervention is to improve quantitative skills. The finger training aspect of

the intervention was effective in improving participants’ finger gnosis scores. The

number of games aspect of the intervention was effective in improving the

multiplication skills of third graders, but on its own was not sufficient to improve

quantitative skills (Anderson, 2013). Also, the intervention that combined both the

finger training and number games aspects was successful in improving

participants’ quantitative skills relative to controls, and with a large effect size

(Jay and Betenson, 2017).

Bahadir (2017) wrote that finger method helps students to visualize and

facilitate students to store information visually for longer period of time. Besides,
 29

Ahmat et al (2017) revealed that there is an increase in students’ achievement

after teaching using the finger method. This method is easily accepted and

implemented by the primary school students as it is not complex and able to

attract students' attention. Furthermore, Idris et al (2016) states that this method

did not only enhance students’ mastery of learning multiplication but also engage

students in the learning process.

Difference between Control and Experimental Groups in Pre-Test

The data obtained in this table were from the post-test administered by the

researcher. This was to determine the level of post-test score in terms of

multiplication skills among third graders after the intervention has been

conducted. Table 3 shows the level of post-test scores between the control and

experimental groups.

Table 3. Mean comparison between pre-test scores of control and experimental

group
Standard
Group Mean t-value p-value Interpretation
Deviation

Control 8.12 Pre-test scores between

1.13
-0.2853 0.3892 the two groups do not
Experimental 7.50 differ significantly.
1.85
As observed, the pre-test scores of control group shows 8.12 while the

experimental group shows 7.50. The findings implied that the pre-test between

the control and experimental group do not differ significantly which means that

there is a need to improve the multiplication skills of the third graders. Based on

the findings, the third graders lack understanding of multiplication problems. It

 30

was supported by the study of Whitacre & Nickerson (2016) which states

memorizing facts without an awareness of changes of mathematical meanings

and executing procedures without sense-making may result in rote learning. As a

result, learners may not be able to solve non-routine problems. Hence, teaching

multiplication requires mathematics teachers to understand how the multiplication

algorithm works before they can identify appropriate learning opportunities for

students. However, school pupils who can solve standard operation for

multiplication based on multiplication tables and multiplication facts but this didn’t

help them to solve real life problems.

It was supported by the claim of Piaget (1960) which states that

transferring of Knowledge to the learner in the most efficient way is by allowing

the learner to use the most effective cognitive strategy to encode information

(Cacioppo et al., 2013). Thus, Piaget’s Cognitive Learning Theory entails that

humans learn from thinking, we learn from our experiences, and we can improve

our multiplication skills through learning and using new strategies for them to

master it (Pea, 2018).

Furthermore, Palupi et al (2022) helps to explain that this method has

proven to strengthen the basic concepts of multiplication for students when the

findings show a positive impact. The cross method was introduced by a

Japanese national, which is still used until today. The concept of a game-like

method will be more appropriate for students. Students will compete to solve the

questions given the teacher. Students’ engagement in learning process becomes

active (Flores, 2016).

 31

Difference between Control and Experimental Groups in Post Test

Table 4 shows the comparison between post-test scores of control and

experimental groups. This answers the question about any significant difference

between control and experimental groups in the post-test. The experimental

group showed greater scores than the control group.

Table 4. Mean comparison between post-test scores of control and experimental

group
Standard
Group Mean t-value p-value Interpretation
Deviation
Control 16.60 3.01
Post-test scores between
-3.5110 0.0012 the two groups differ
Experimental 19.30 0.94 significantly.

As observed, the post-test scores of the control group has a mean score

of 16.60 and the experimental group has a mean score of 19.30 which shows

that the respondents’ multiplication skills, without using the intervention, differ

significantly from the post-test scores after the intervention process, which is the

magic finger method. In connection to the result, finger-counting is a normal and

healthy intermediate stage in the development of complex problem-solving skills

rather than a debilitating habit that should be given up immediately or

suppressed by parents and teachers at all costs (Stegemann and Grünke, 2014).

Students with different characteristics are at the centre of the discussion of finger

counting in mathematics teaching because it may be a necessity rather than a

choice for some students.

 32

Additionally, Palupi et al (2022) helps to explain that this method has

proven to strengthen the basic concepts of multiplication for students which the

findings show a positive impact. The concept of a game-like method will be more

appropriate for students. Students will compete to solve the questions given the

teacher. Students’ engagement in learning process becomes active (Flores,

2016).

As highlighted by Piaget, the dominant aspects of cognitive theory involve

the interaction between mental components and the information that is

processed through this complex network. Hence, Piaget believed that an

individual’s thinking and understanding develop significantly (Feldman, 2013).

Other than that, Piaget also attested that the use of strategy in mastering

multiplication requires repeated practice until cognitive information forms

because he believes in the concept that one of the major challenges encountered

in performing number operations is retrieving mathematics facts from memory

(Supekar et al., 2013).

Comparison between Pre-test and Post Test Scores among Respondents

Table 5 shows the comparison between pre-test and post-test of

experimental and control groups. This is to determine the significant difference

between the test scores of the experimental and control group. The result implied

that the group who received the intervention had a greater score than the group

which did not. It can be shown in the table that the scores of the experimental

group increased after the conduct of magic finger method.

 33

Table 5. Mean comparison between pre-test and post-test scores

Type of Standard
Mean t-value p-value Interpretation
Test Deviation

Pre-Test 7.59 1.64

Pre-test and post-test
-17.938 0.001 scores differ
Post-Test 18.1 2.51 significantly.

As observed, the pre-test scores of the initial performance of the

respondents’ multiplication skills, without using the intervention, differ significantly

from the post-test scores after the intervention process, which is the magic finger

method. It proved that the results of the post-test administered to the students

following the intervention procedure were similar to those of the study by Bahadir

(2017) wrote that finger method helps students to visualize and facilitate students

to store information visually for longer period of time. Besides, Ahmat et al (2017)

revealed that there is an increase in students’ achievement after teaching using

the finger method. This method is easily accepted and implemented by the

primary school students as it is not complex and able to attract students'

attention.

In support to the result, Piaget believed in the concept that a schema is

the basic unit of knowledge and schemata build up over a lifetime. In

multiplication, a student uses their existing knowledge to form a mental

structure that an individual uses to solve multiplication problems (Sarwadi and

Shahrill, 2014). Furthermore, students will use schemata to master

multiplication. Piaget believed that before children mastered multiplication, they

 34

relied on action or internalized action-arithmetic to think, indicating that the

source of children’s ability to solve multiplication problems relied on strategies

they’ve learned (Radmeh and Drake, 2019).

Further, he states that finger-counting should, therefore, be a transition

process rather than an obstacle to the development of mental arithmetic skills

because people abandon. Bahadir (2017) suggest that use of visualization in

mathematics education may have a positive effect on students in both cognitive

and affective aspects. For this, use of visualization in mathematics education

starting from the first stage of elementary school will add a new dimension to

mathematics education (Presmeg, 2020). Visualization stands as a beneficial

approach to attract students’ attention, motivate them, concretize learning and

make it meaningful and for students to organize their own knowledge and

associate concrete and abstract expressions of concepts (Seker, 2016).

Also, cognitive learning theory founded on the concept that, students

apply the new strategy that they’ve learned which is magic finger method that will

help them in learning and mastering multiplication (Anderson, 2017). Moreover, it

will help encouraged students as they continue to develop their problem-solving

and multiplication skills. Piaget stated that making small changes to that

knowledge in order to cope with difficulties that they encountered in mastering

multiplication will be of a great help to their learning process (Mubarik et al.,

2018).
 35

In addition to that, the existence of alternative methods for learning

multiplication in the mathematics syllabus can help teachers to diversify the

method of their teaching and learning (Moller et al., 2013). The current

educational situation is that teachers do not dare to apply new discovered

methods from any research and innovation from other individuals (Fugate et al.,

2013). Further the study proved that there are many alternative methods that can

improve students’ achievement, especially in multiplication skills.

 CHAPTER 5
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This chapter presents the summary, conclusions and the

recommendations of this study.

Summary

This study was focused on the issue of enhancing multiplication skills of

the Grade 3 learners in Cateel Central Elementary School. In studying this

observable problem, the researchers found a learning strategy to improve the

multiplication of these learners through magic finger method. The level of

multiplication skills of the learners is determined through the use of a self-made

questionnaire composed of multiple choices which is anchored to a specific

Mathematics competency.

The respondents of this study were the grade 3 learners of Cateel Central

Elementary School that comprises of 20 third graders in the experimental group

and 17 in the control group. The data were analyzed using a statistical tool such

as mean for determining the level of pretest scores and post test scores of the

respondents from the two groups and the independent sample for determining

the significant difference between pretest and posttest scores of control and

experimental group.

The results showed that the experimental and control groups have the

same level of multiplication skill in the pretest. It was revealed that after

introducing magic finger method as an intervention to improve the multiplication

skills of the Grade 3 learners, the post test scores showed that the experimental

group has greater scores than the control group. Magic finger method helped to

improve the multiplication skills of the third graders as implied by the results.

Lastly, there is a significant difference between pre-test results and post-test

results for both control and experimental group.

Conclusions

Based on the findings, the researcher concludes the following:

1.) The multiplication skills of Grade 3 learners in the pre-test did not meet

expectations as shown in the result.

2.) The pre-test scores between control group and experimental group did not

differ significantly which shows that both groups have the same level of

multiplication skills.

3.) Prior to the results presented, magic finger method is effective in improving

the multiplication skills of the grade 3 learners. The third graders’

(experimental group) multiplication skills significantly improved from the pre-

test to post-test after magic finger method was conducted. The magic finger

method helped them develop their multiplication skills from not meeting the

expectation to outstanding level.

4.) The experimental group who received the intervention scored higher than the

control group. This finding showed that the conduct of intervention effectively

improved the multiplication skills of the third graders.

5.) The comparison showed that post-test has positive t-value which means that

there was a large difference between the groups of respondents. The post-

test was mostly associated with the experimental group that dominates the

given test.

Recommendations

This paper recommends the following:

1.) The researcher suggests that the third graders should magic finger method

regularly as the result showed that they did not meet the expected level of

multiplication skill.

2.) The third graders in this study have the same level of multiplication skills in

the pre-test therefore the researcher suggests that the third graders

multiplication skills should be given attention and activities that may help them

improve the said skills.

3.) The result in this paper showed that the experimental group has an

outstanding level of multiplication skills after the intervention, which is the

magic finger method. The researcher recommends that magic finger method

may be adapted in teaching multiplication. The teachers should be mindful of

the learners’ multiplication skill that has a significant effect in learning

mathematics.

4.) The experimental group scored higher than the control group as what the

result showed. With this, the researcher suggests that the teacher should use
 magic finger method to improve the multiplication skills of the learners. It is

further recommended by the researcher to encourage their students to use

their fingers whenever the learners are doing math for it will help them solve

the problem.

5.) The effectiveness of magic finger method in solving multiplication problems

of grade 3 pupils may also be used by the future researchers this may gave

them a chance to test the effectiveness of magic finger method to another

grade level.
 40

References

Abdullah, A. H., Enayatifar, R., & Isnin, I. F. (2014). Chaos-based image

encryption using a hybrid genetic algorithm and a DNA
sequence. Optics and Lasers in Engineering, 56, 83-93.

Ahmat, T., Davy, C., Kite, E., Sivak, L., Brown, A., Brahim, G., ... & Thomas, T.
(2017). Towards the development of a wellbeing model for
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples living with chronic
disease. BMC Health Services Research, 17(1), 1-13.

Al Hasan, M., & Dave, V. S. (2018). Triangle counting in large networks: a

review. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Data Mining and Knowledge
Discovery, 8(2), e1226.

Albright, B., & Fox, W. P. (2019). Mathematical modeling with Excel. CRC Press.

Amin, T. G., Jeppsson, F., & Haglund, J. (2015). Conceptual metaphor and
embodied cognition in science learning: Introduction to special
issue. International Journal of Science Education, 37(5-6), 745-758.

Amy, J. (2019, August). Six Phase Synchronous Machine Model in Machine

Variables and “dq” Variables. In 2019 IEEE Electric Ship Technologies
Symposium (ESTS) (pp. 421-429). IEEE.

Anderson, R. C. (2017). The notion of schemata and the educational enterprise:

General discussion of the conference. In Schooling and the acquisition of
knowledge (pp. 415-431). Routledge.

Aunio, P., & Räsänen, P. (2016). Core numerical skills for learning mathematics
in children aged five to eight years–a working model for
educators. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 24(5),
684-704.

Babakr, Z., Mohamedamin, P., & Kakamad, K. (2019). Piaget’s cognitive

developmental theory: Critical review. Education Quarterly Reviews, 2(3).

Baccaglini-Frank, A., & Maracci, M. (2015). Multi-touch technology and

preschoolers’ development of number-sense. Digital Experiences in
Mathematics Education, 1, 7-27.

Badawi, R. D., Shi, H., Hu, P., Chen, S., Xu, T., Price, P. M., ... & Cherry, S. R.
(2019). First human imaging studies with the EXPLORER total-body PET
 41

scanner. Journal of Nuclear Medicine, 60(3), 299-303.

Bahadir, B. (2017). Catching up or drifting apart: Convergence of household and

business credit in Europe. International Review ofEconomics & Finance, 47,
101-114.

Bahr, D. B., Pfeffer, W. T., & Kaser, G. (2015). A review of volume‐area scaling
of glaciers. Reviews of Geophysics, 53(1), 95-140.

Barrocas, R., Roesch, S., Gawrilow, C., & Moeller, K. (2020). Putting a finger on
numerical development–reviewing the contributions of kindergarten finger
gnosis and fine motor skills to numerical abilities. Frontiers in
Psychology, 11, 1012.

Barrocas, R., Roesch, S., Gawrilow, C., & Moeller, K. (2020). Putting a finger on
numerical development–reviewing the contributions of kindergarten finger
gnosis and fine motor skills to numerical abilities. Frontiers in
Psychology, 11, 1012.

Barrouillet, P. (2015). Theories of cognitive development: From Piaget to

today. Developmental Review, 38, 1-12.

Bertillo, E. B. (2020). Magic Finger Technique in Learning Multiplication of One to

Two Digit Whole Numbers. Available at SSRN 3525544.

Bormanaki, H. B., & Khoshhal, Y. (2017). The role of equilibration in Piaget’s

theory of cognitive development and its implication for receptive skills: A
theoretical study. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 8(5),
996-1005.

Carey, S., Zaitchik, D., & Bascandziev, I. (2015). Theories of development: In

dialog with Jean Piaget. Developmental Review, 38, 36-54.

Cathébras, J., Carbon, A., Milder, P., Sirdey, R., & Ventroux, N. (2018). Data
flow-oriented hardware design of RNS-based polynomial multiplication
for SHE acceleration. IACR Transactions on Cryptographic
Hardware and Embedded Systems, 69-88.

Chin, K. E., & Jiew, F. F. (2019). Changes of meanings in multiplication across

different contexts: The case of Amy and Beth. EURASIA Journal of
Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 15(8), em1739.
 42

Chinn, S. (2013). The trouble with maths: A practical guide to helping learners
with numeracy difficulties, Routledge.

Corrigan-Gibbs, H., & Boneh, D. (2017, March). Prio: Private, Robust, and
Scalable Computation of Aggregate Statistics. In NSDI (pp. 259-282).

Cragg, L., Keeble, S., Richardson, S., Roome, H. E., & Gilmore, C. (2017). Direct
and indirect influences of executive functions on mathematics
achievement. Cognition, 162, 12-26.

Figueroa-Flores, J. F. (2016). Gamification and game-based learning: Two

strategies for the 21st century learner. World, 3(2), 507-522.

Fugate, J. M., Macrine, S. L., & Cipriano, C. (2019). The role of embodied
cognition for transforming learning. International Journal of School &
Educational `Psychology, 7(4), 274-288.

Ghazi, S. R., Khan, U. A., Shahzada, G., & Ullah, K. (2014). Formal operational
stage of Piaget's cognitive development theory: An implication in
learning mathematics. Journal of Educational Research, 17(2), 71.

Hurst, C., & Hurrell, 3D. (2016). Investigating children's multiplicative

thinking:
implications for teaching. European Journal of STEM Education, 1(3).

Idris¹, S., & Maat, S. M. Use and effectiveness of multiplication alternative

method in Mathematics learning: A systematic review.

Jay, T., & Betenson, J. (2017, June). Mathematics at your fingertips: testing a
finger training intervention to improve quantitative skills. In Frontiers in
Education (Vol. 2, p. 22). Frontiers Media SA.

Kirsh, D. (2013). Embodied cognition and the magical future of interaction

design. ACMTransactions on Computer-Human Interaction(TOCHI), 20(1),
1-30.

Lamon, S. J. (2020). Teaching fractions and ratios for understanding: Essential

content knowledge and instructional strategies for teachers. Routledge.

Larsson, E. G., Ngo, H. Q., Ashikhmin, A., Yang, H., & Marzetta, T. L. (2017).
Cell- free massive MIMO versus small cells. IEEE Transactions on
Wireless Communications, 16(3), 1834-1850.
 43

Liudmila, L. (2017). Embodied finger counting in children with different cultural

backgrounds and hand dominance. Psychology in Russia: State of the
art, 10(4), 86-92.

Lo, J. J., & Luo, F. (2012). Prospective elementary teachers’ knowledge of

fraction division. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 15, 481-500.

MacLane, S. (2012). Mathematics form and function. Springer Science &

Business Media.

May, Y. S., & Ahmad, N. A. (2018). Needs analysis of DoCtor WoRM’s Module in
improving multiplication skills among year four low
achievers. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and
Social Sciences, 8(5).

Moller, S., Mickelson, R. A., Stearns, E., Banerjee, N., & Bottia, M. C. (2013).
Collective pedagogical teacher culture and mathematics achievement:
Differences by race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status. Sociology of
Education, 86(2), 174-194.

Morra, S., Gobbo, C., Marini, Z., & Sheese, R. (2012). Cognitive development:
neo-Piagetian perspectives. Psychology Press.

Mubarik, M., Budiarto, M. T., & Sulaiman, R. (2018). Using the Schema Owned in
Solving Problems through Assimilation and Accommodation.
In Mathematics, Informatics, Science, and Education International
Conference (MISEIC 2018) (pp. 194-197). Atlantis Press.

Mutlu, Y., Akgün, L., & Akkusci, Y. E. (2020). What Do Teachers Think about
Finger-counting? International Journal of Curriculum and
Instruction, 12(1), 268-288.

Neveu, Maëlle, Marie Geurten, Nancy Durieux, and Laurence Rousselle. "Finger
Use and Arithmetic Skills in Children and Adolescents: a Scoping
Review." Educational Psychology Review 35, no. 1 (2023):
2.

Opitz, E. M. (2019). The language dimension of mathematical

difficulties. International handbook of mathematical learning difficulties:
From the laboratory to the classroom, 437-455.
 44

Palupi, E. L. W., Sumarto, S. N., & Purbaningrum, M. (2022). Senior high school
student's understanding of mathematical inequality. Jurnal
Elemen, 8(1), 201-215.

Pea, R. D. (2018). The social and technological dimensions of scaffolding and

related theoretical concepts for learning, education, and human activity.
In The journal of the learning sciences (pp. 423-451). Psychology Press.

Pettersson, K., & Andrews, P. (2017). Students’ conceptualisations of

multiplication as repeated addition or equal groups in relation to multi-digit
and decimal numbers. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 48, 1-13.

Presmeg, N. (2020). Visualization and learning in mathematics education.

Encyclopedia of mathematics education, 900-904.

Qu, C., Szkudlarek, E., & Brannon, E. M. (2021). Approximate multiplication in

young children prior to multiplication instruction. Journal of experimental
child psychology, 207, 105116.

Radmehr, F., & Drake, M. (2019). Revised Bloom’s taxonomy and major theories
and frameworks that influence the teaching, learning, and assessment
of mathematics: a comparison. International Journal of Mathematical
Education in Science and Technology, 50(6), 895-920.

Ramirez, G., Gunderson, E. A., Levine, S. C., & Beilock, S. L. (2013). Math
anxiety, working memory, and math achievement in early elementary
school. Journal of Cognition and Development, 14(2), 187- 202.

Sanaullah, A., Yang, C., Alexeev, Y., Yoshii, K., & Herbordt, M. C. (2018). Real-
time data analysis for medical diagnosis using FPGA-accelerated neural
networks. BMC bioinformatics, 19, 19-31.

Sarwadi, H. R. H., & Shahrill, M. (2014). Understanding students’ mathematical

errors and misconceptions: The case of year 11 repeating
students. Mathematics Education Trends and Research, 2014(2014),
1-10.

Scheinholtz, L., Holden, K., & Kalish, C. (2012). Cognitive development and
children’s understanding of personal finance. Consumer knowledge
andfinancial decisions: Lifespan perspectives, 29-47.

Schoenfeld, A. H. (2013). Cognitive science and mathematics education.

Routledge.
 45

Schrum, L., & Levin, B. B. (2016). Educational technologies and twenty-first

century leadership for learning. International Journal of Leadership in
Education, 19(1), 17-39.

Seker, B. S. (2016). An Evaluation of Digital Stories Created for Social Studies

Teaching. Journal of Education and practice, 7(29), 18-29.

Siemon, A., Breuer, T., Aslam, N., Ferch, S., Kim, W., Van Den Hurk, J., & Linn,
E. (2015). Realization of boolean logic functionality using redox‐based
memristive devices. Advanced functional materials, 25(40), 6414-6423.

Sixtus, E., Lindemann, O., & Fischer, M. H. (2020). Stimulating numbers:

signatures of finger counting in numerosity processing. Psychological
research, 84(1), 152-167.

Soylu, F., Lester Jr, F. K., & Newman, S. D. (2018). You can count on
your fingers: The role of fingers in early mathematical
development. Journal of Numerical Cognition, 4(1), 107-135.

Stegemann, K., & Grünke, M. (2014). Revisiting an Old Methodology for

Teaching Counting, Computation, and Place Value: The
Effectiveness of the Finger Calculation Method for At-
RiskChildren. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporar
Journal, 12(2),191-213.

Su, H. F. H., Ricci, F. A., & Mnatsakanian, M. (2016). Mathematical teaching

strategies: Pathways to critical thinking and metacognition. International
Journal of Research in Education and Science, 2(1), 190-200.

Supekar, K., Swigart, A. G., Tenison, C., Jolles, D. D., Rosenberg-Lee, M.,
Fuchs,L., & Menon, V. (2013). Neural predictors of individual
differences in response to math tutoring in primary- grade school
children. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(20),
8230- 8235.

Thanheiser, E. (2015). Developing prospective teachers’ conceptions with well-

designed tasks: Explaining successes and analyzing conceptual
difficulties. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 18, 141-172.

Thomas, J. N., & Harkness, S. S. (2013). Implications for intervention:

Categorising the quantitative mental imagery of children. Mathematics
Education Research Journal, 25, 231-256.
 46

Thomas, J. R., Martin, P., Etnier, J., & Silverman, S. J. (2022). Research
methods in physical activity. Human kinetics.

Ültanir, E. (2012). An epistemological glance at the constructivist approach:

Constructivist learning in Dewey, Piaget, and Montessori. International
journal of instruction, 5(2).

Verschaffel, L., Schukajlow, S., Star, J., & Van Dooren, W. (2020). Word
problems in mathematics education: A survey. ZDM, 52, 1-16.

Verschaffel, L., Schukajlow, S., Star, J., & Van Dooren, W. (2020). Word
problems in mathematics education: A survey. ZDM, 52, 1-16.

Voinea, M., & Purcaru, M. (2013). Individual learning plan in teaching

mathematics for children with sen–a constructivist approach. Procedia-
Social and Behavioral Sciences, 187, 190-195.

Webel, C., & DeLeeuw, W. W. (2016). Meaning for fraction multiplication:

Thematic analysis of mathematical talk in three third grade classes.
The
Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 41, 123-140.

Whitacre, I., & Nickerson, S. D. (2016). Investigating the improvement of

prospective elementary teachers’ number sense in reasoning about
fraction magnitude. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 19, 57-77.

Yapo, F., Tabiliran, J., Dagami, A., Navales, K., & Tus, J. (2021). The self-
efficacy and academic motivation of the graduating college students
during the Covid-19 pandemic in the Philippines. International Journal of
Advance Research and Innovative Ideas In Education, 7(3), 2128-2139.

Zhang, W Gu, K., Zhai, G., & Yang, X. (2014). Hybrid no-reference quality metric
for singly and multiply distorted images. IEEE
Transactions on
Broadcasting, 60(3), 555-567.
 47

Appendix A

Steps in Magic Finger Method

1. Hold your hands so that your palms are facing your body and your fingers

are facing each other. Again each finger will represent a number. Your

pinkies represent the number six, your ring fingers will represent the

number seven, your middle fingers will represent the number eight, your

index fingers represent nine, and your thumbs represent the number ten

2. Touch the fingers that represent your multiplication problem together. For

example, if you want to figure out the problem (7x6) you would touch your

left ring finger with your right pinky. Your left fingers represent the number

on the left of the problem, and your right fingers represent the numbers on

the right of the problem. Again, remember that each finger represents a
 48

number and that in this case, your ring finger represents seven and your

pinky represents six. Therefore, you need to touch these together to solve

this math problem.

 You may have to bend your wrist awkwardly to do this!

 As another example, if you were trying to calculate 9x7 you would

touch your left index finger with your right ring finger.

3. Add the fingers that touch together as well as the fingers beneath them. The

next step is to count the touching fingers as well as the fingers below them.

These will represent the 10s. In this case you would count the ring finger on your

left hand, the pinky on your left hand and the pinky on your right hand. Each

finger that you count will count as 10. In this case, the total is 30.

4. Multiply the remaining fingers. The next step is to add together the number of

fingers on each hand, not including the fingers that are touching. First count the
 49

number of fingers on your left hand that are above the touching fingers - in this

case there are 3. Next, count the number of fingers on your right hand above the

touching fingers - in this case there are 4. 3x4 = 12.

5. Add the two figures together to find your answer. In this case you will add 30 to

12 for a total of 42. The answer to 7x6 is 42.

 50

CURRICULUM VITAE

Name : Jaquelyn Dagansan

Age : 25 yrs. old

Civil Status : Single

Address : Sangab, Pichon Caraga

Davao Oriental

Phone no. : 09269144073

E-mail Address: [email protected]

Course : Bachelor of Elementary Education

Major in Generalist

Date of Birth : May 23, 1997

Place of Birth: Sangab Pichon Caraga, Davao Oriental

Religion : Roman Catholic

EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND
Tertiary : Davao Oriental State University – Cateel Extension Campus
Mahan-ob, Mainit, Cateel Davao Oriental

Secondary : Sangab National High School

Sangab Pichon Caraga, Davao Oriental

Year Graduated: School Year 2017-2018

Elementary : Sangab Elementary School

Sangab Pichon Caraga, Davao Oriental
 51

Year Graduated: School Year 2011-2012

CURRICULUM VITAE

Name : Ana Rose L. Pabon

Age : 22 yrs. old

Civil Status : Single

Address : Yapsay Taytayan Cateel,

Davao Oriental

Phone no. : 09263502968

E-mail Address: [email protected]

Course : Bachelor of Elementary Education

Major in Generalist

Date of Birth : October 7, 2000

Place of Birth: Minsalag Bonifacio, Aquino, Magsaysay, Misamis Oriental

Religion : Roman Catholic

EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND

Tertiary : Davao Oriental State University – Cateel Extension Campus

Mahan-ob, Mainit, Cateel Davao Oriental

Secondary : Maryknoll Academy of Cateel

Poblacion, Cateel, Davao Oriental
Year Graduated: School Year 2018-2019

Elementary : Yapsay Elementary School

Yapsay, Taytayan, Cateel, Davao Oriental
Year Graduated: School Year 2011-2012
52