AKLAN STATE UNIVERSITY- College of Teacher Education

Difficulty of 2nd Year Students of ASU - Laboratory High School in Solving Operations Involving Fractions

___________________________________

An Action Research
___________________________________

Researchers: Gladys D. Guiller Hanna M. Repaz Lino S. Casumpong Sherelyn T. Parohinog

Co- Researchers: Jane N. Nival Prof. Ma. Lourdes I. Ilarde

Adviser: Dr. Edna I. Gonzales

Second Semester, A.Y. 2011 2012

AKLAN STATE UNIVERSITY- College of Teacher Education

Table of Contents

Title

Page

Acknowledgement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i List of Tables. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii List of Appendices. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii Abstract. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv Chapter 1: Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 Statement of the Problem. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Review of Related Literature. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Chapter 2: Methodology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 The Planning Strategy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 The Respondents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Data Gathering Instruments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Data Gathering Procedures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 Data Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Action/ Intervention. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

AKLAN STATE UNIVERSITY- College of Teacher Education

Chapter 3: Findings and Result of the Study. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9 Chapter 4: Evaluation of Results. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16 Chapter 5: Summary, Conclusions, Recommendations and Next Steps. . . . . . . . . . . . . .18 Chapter 6: Insights, Reflection and Implications of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23 Appendix

AKLAN STATE UNIVERSITY- College of Teacher Education

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

With sincerity and appreciation, the researchers would like to extend their heartfelt thanks and profound gratitude to the following persons who inspired and supported them in the preparation of the research work, for without them, this undertaking will not be possible. To their parents, Mr. and Mrs. Jose S. Guiller, Jr., Mr. and Mrs. Pancho A. Repaz, Mr. and Mrs. Lito Casumpong, and Mr. and Mrs. Bonifacio T. Parohinog, for the prayers and inspirations and for the support they rendered most especially in financial aspects; To Dr. Edna I. Gonzales, Professor Clarita R. Tambong, Professor Ma. Lourdes I. Ilarde, and Ms. Jane N. Nival for their encouragement and for giving the researchers some background knowledge about research; To the staff of the ASU Library, for providing the available references that helped the researchers and made this action research a possible one as well as to the patience for all the noises done during the conduct of this research; To their ever-supportive friends and classmates, for the additional information they had contributed and for the laughter as well; Most especially, to the Lord Almighty, for giving physical and mental strength, perseverance and determination in spite of some trials and hardships encountered.

AKLAN STATE UNIVERSITY- College of Teacher Education

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. The Total Number of Second Year High School Students of ASU Table 2. Scale for the Level of Difficulty in Each Operation Table 3. Scale for the Level of Difficulty in all the Operations Involving Fractions Table 4. Levels of Difficulty of the Nine (9) Students in Addition (Pre-test and Post-Test) Table 5. Levels of Difficulty of the Nine (9) Students in Subtraction (Pre-test and Post-Test) Table 6. Levels of Difficulty of the Nine (9) Students in Multiplication (Pre-test and Post-Test) Table 7. Levels of Difficulty of the Nine (9) Students in Division (Pre-test and Post-Test) Table 8. Levels of Difficulty of the Nine (9) Students in the Four Operations Involving Fractions (Pre-Test &Post-Test) Table 9. Errors Committed by the Nine (9) Students in Addition (Pre-test and Post-Test) Table 10. Errors Committed by the Nine (9) Students in Subtraction (Pre-test and Post-Test) Table 11. Errors Committed by the Nine (9) Students in Multiplication (Pre-test and Post-Test) Table 12. Errors Committed by the Nine (9) Students in Division (Pre-test and Post-Test)

ii

AKLAN STATE UNIVERSITY- College of Teacher Education

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A. Letter of Request Appendix B. Plan of Action Appendix C. Questionnaire (Pre-Test) Appendix D. Questionnaire (Post-Test) Appendix E. Students Scores in Each Operation Involving Fractions (Pre-Test) Appendix F. Students Scores in Each Operation Involving Fractions (Post-Test) Appendix G. Photos for Documentation Appendix H. Lesson Guide During the Tutorial Sessions

iii

AKLAN STATE UNIVERSITY- College of Teacher Education

ABSTRACT

This study was conducted to determine the difficulty of Second Year Laboratory High School students of Aklan State University, S.Y. 2011-2012 in solving operations involving fractions. Specifically, it aimed to find out the following: which among the four fundamental operations involving fractions do students find the most difficult, what are the sources of errors committed mostly by students in these particular operations and the solutions and remedies in order to overcome the said difficulty. The study utilized the descriptive method of research using the pretest and post test as the data gathering instrument. The respondents of this study were the nine (9) Second Year High School students taken as sample size from the total population of 45. In the analysis of data, total and frequency counts were used.

iv

AKLAN STATE UNIVERSITY- College of Teacher Education

Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION / BACKGROUND

As we had conducted an interview with the pre-service teacher, we found out that the second year students of ASU Laboratory High School encounter a difficulty in solving operations involving fractions. We had observed that they cannot rapidly recall the rules for fraction operations and aside from that, no representational materials were used to assist and motivate them in learning it. In this action research, we try to answer the questions which among the four fundamental operations involving fractions do students find the most difficult; what are the common errors they usually commit in these particular operations and what are the solutions and remedies in order to overcome the said difficulty.. Based on our own experience, it is not the concept that makes it hard, but rather the operations and rules that are involved. We believe that if students have the background knowledge of the said operations and rules, then they will be able to solve solutions for fraction operations. Statement of the Problem This study was purposely conducted to: a) determine which among the four fundamental operations involving fractions do students find the most difficult;

AKLAN STATE UNIVERSITY- College of Teacher Education

b) find out what are the usual errors that students commit in these particular operations; c) find solutions and remedies in order to overcome the said difficulty.

Review of Related Literature The learning of fractions is an area of mathematics which children find particularly challenging (Moss and Case, 1999; Pearn and Stephens, 2004) and achievement by students in fractions is behind international averages (Thomson and Fleming 2004). Students have considerable difficulties with fraction equivalence, the notion that different fractions can represent the same amount (Bana, Farrell and McIntosh, 1997; Pearn, Stephens and Lewis, 2003). Understanding fraction equivalence is important as it forms the foundation of understanding fraction addition and subtraction, and enables students to compare and enables them to order fractions (Kamii and Clark, 1995). The fraction content includes: (a) four fraction sub-constructs (part/whole, measure, operator and quotient); (b) fraction equivalence; (c) fraction addition and subtraction; (d) comparison of fractions; and (e) mixed numbers (Anderson and Moore, 2006). Taking an information-processing approach (Hecht, 1998) divides knowledge about rational numbers into three strands: procedural knowledge, factual knowledge, and conceptual knowledge. Hecht's study isolated the contribution of these types of

AKLAN STATE UNIVERSITY- College of Teacher Education

knowledge to children's competencies in working with fractions. He made two major conclusions: (a) conceptual knowledge and procedural knowledge uniquely explained variability in fraction computation solving and fraction word problem set up accuracy, and (b) conceptual knowledge uniquely explained individual differences in fraction estimation skills. The latter conclusion supports the general consensus in current research that a holistic approach to teaching of fractions is necessary with recommendations for a move away from attainment of individual tasks and towards a development of global cognitive skills.

AKLAN STATE UNIVERSITY- College of Teacher Education

Chapter 2

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY This chapter covers the method of research, the respondents, the data gathering instruments, the data gathering procedures and the data analysis.

Planning Strategy A twenty-item test was prepared to analyze the students competency with fractions. This test was developed using questions devised by the researchers. The test was a pencil and paper instrument in which calculators and cell phones were not allowed to be used. Students were encouraged to show all of their works. The questions were designed to test concept knowledge and computational fluency and were divided into four categories: addition, subtraction, multiplication and division of fractions. All questions on the test were pre-requisite for developing a concrete rational number concept. The Respondents In this study, the respondents were the 45 second year high school students of the ASU Laboratory High School, S.Y. 2011 - 2012. A total of 9 (nine) students were taken as sample or subject who got low results in the given pre-test.

AKLAN STATE UNIVERSITY- College of Teacher Education

Table 1: The total number of Second Year High School Students of ASU.
Gender Female Male Total Number of Students 34 11 45 Percent % 76 24 100

The Data Gathering Instruments The data-gathering instrument used in this study was the pencil and paper test which contained 20 questions (5 for addition, 5 for subtraction, 5 for multiplication, and 5 for division) devised by the researchers. The respondents were asked to answer the test within an allotted time of 45 minutes. The Data Gathering Procedure The administration of the pencil and paper test was done after the request to conduct the study had been approved by Dr. Edna I. Gonzales and the co-researcher, the Pre-service Teacher Jane N. Nival. The test was given to the respondents. The students were asked to answer the pencil and paper test without using the calculator and cell phones. The researchers observed the respondents while answering the test to prohibit cheating. After answering it, the researchers checked the papers, totalled the scores of the students and determine their level of difficulty for each operation, identified which among the four operations involving fractions do students got low results and after knowing such, the researchers determined the usual error that students commit for every

AKLAN STATE UNIVERSITY- College of Teacher Education

operation. The answer of the students in each item were analyzed to determine if they commit error in (1) identifying the LCD or error in reducing to lowest term, (2) error in the operation used and (3) error in changing mixed numbers to improper fractions. Data Analysis The data were analyzed using the total and frequency counts. In the presentation, analysis and interpretation of the data on errors encountered by Second Year High School students, the descriptive measures were employed. Table 2: Scale for the Level of Difficulty in Each Operation Scale of Scores 5 4 3 2 1 0 Description No Difficulty Very Low Difficulty Low Difficulty Moderate Difficulty High Difficulty Very High Difficulty

Table 3: Scale for the Level of Difficulty in all the Operations Involving Fractions Scale of Scores 20 15 19 10 14 59 14 0 Description No Difficulty Very Low Difficulty Low Difficulty Moderate Difficulty High Difficulty Very High Difficulty

AKLAN STATE UNIVERSITY- College of Teacher Education

Actions and Interventions of the Study

After the interpretation and analysis of the results on the given pre-test to the second year students of ASU Laboratory High School, we conducted tutorial sessions to those students who got the lowest scores. We made sure that the tutorial sessions were convenient to both parties. Each session lasted for only thirty minutes which started at 12:30 and ended at 1:00 oclock in the afternoon. Last February 8, 2012 (Wednesday), first day of the tutorial session, we taught the nine (9) students about the addition of fractions. On the board, we wrote one example on the addition of fractions involving mixed numbers and demonstrated to them how to add them. We taught them how to change mixed numbers to improper fractions because it is the most committed error by students in the addition of fractions. We also taught them on how to find the LCD of dissimilar fractions. We then gave some other examples and let them solve it by themselves. On February 10, 2012 (Friday), second day of tutorial session, we had taught them about the subtraction of fractions. Same with what we did during our tutorial in the addition of fractions, we first gave one example on the subtraction of fractions, demonstrated how to solve it, give some other examples and let students do it by themselves. On February 13, 2012 (Monday), third day of tutorial session, we discussed to them how to multiply fractions by giving one example and demonstrating it first before letting them do it on their own and on February 15, 2012 (Wednesday), the last day of tutorial session, we had taught them about the division of fractions. After the last tutorial session, we had given a post-test to the 45 second year

AKLAN STATE UNIVERSITY- College of Teacher Education

students to evaluate whether the said intervention had helped them to overcome their difficulty in solving operations involving fractions. Thus, it was found out that there was a slight increase on the test scores of students on the post-test compared to the scores they got on the pre-test. But still, majority of students need to re-learn the lesson especially the subtraction of fractions for them to digest completely the concept of the said lesson.

AKLAN STATE UNIVERSITY- College of Teacher Education

Chapter 3

FINDINGS AND RESULTS OF THE STUDY

This chapter deals with the presentation, analysis and interpretation of data in the difficulty of Second Year Laboratory High School Students in solving operations involving fractions.

Table 4 shows the level of difficulty of the nine (9) students in the addition of fractions (pre-test and pos-test). In the pre-test, the students garnered a weighted mean of 2.22 or 2 which manifests a moderate level of difficulty. In the post-test, it increased by 2 and became 4.22 or 4 which manifests a very low level of difficulty. Therefore, after the intervention, the students improved in the addition of fractions. Table 4: Levels of Difficulty of the Nine (9) Students in Addition (Pre-Test &Post-Test) No. of Percentage Students No Difficulty 2 22.22 Very Low Difficulty 0 0 Low Difficulty 2 22.22 Moderate Difficulty 0 0 High Difficulty 4 44.44 Very High Difficulty 1 11.11 9 100% Pre-Test: x = 2.22 or 2 (Moderate Level of Difficulty) Post-Test: x = 4.22 or 4 (Very Low Level of Difficulty) Level of Difficulty Number of Correct Response 5 4 3 2 1 0 Pre-test Post-Test No. of Percentage Students 5 55.55 2 22.22 1 11.11 1 11.11 0 0 0 0 9 100%

AKLAN STATE UNIVERSITY- College of Teacher Education

Table 5 shows the level of difficulty of the nine (9) students in the subtraction of fractions (pre-test and pos-test). In the pre-test, the students garnered a weighted mean of 0.88 or 1 which manifests a high level of difficulty. In the post-test, it increased by 2.23 and became 3.11 or 3 which manifests a low level of difficulty. Therefore, after the intervention, the students improved in the subtraction of fractions.

Table 5: Levels of Difficulty of the Nine (9) Students in Subtraction (Pre-Test &Post-Test) No. of Students No Difficulty 0 Very Low Difficulty 0 Low Difficulty 0 Moderate Difficulty 2 High Difficulty 4 Very High Difficulty 3 9 Pre-Test: x = 0.88 or 1 (High Level of Difficulty) Post-Test: x = 3.11 or 3 (Low Level of Difficulty) Level of Difficulty Number of Correct Response 5 4 3 2 1 0 Pre-test Percentage 0 0 0 22.22 44.44 33.33 100% Post-Test No. of Percentage Students 1 11.11 1 11.11 6 66.66 0 0 1 11.11 0 0 9 100%

Table 6 shows the level of difficulty of the nine (9) students in the multiplication of fractions (pre-test and pos-test). In the pre-test, the students garnered a weighted mean of 1.78 which manifests a moderate level of difficulty. In the post-test, it increased by 1.78 and became 3.56 or 4 which manifests a low level of difficulty. Therefore, after the intervention, the students improved in the multiplication of fractions.

10

AKLAN STATE UNIVERSITY- College of Teacher Education

Table 6: Levels of Difficulty of the Nine (9) Students in Multiplication (Pre-Test &PostTest) No. of Percentage Students No Difficulty 0 0 Very Low Difficulty 1 11.11 Low Difficulty 2 22.22 Moderate Difficulty 1 11.11 High Difficulty 4 44.44 Very High Difficulty 1 11.11 9 100% Pre-Test: x = 1.78 or 2 (Moderate Level of Difficulty) Post-Test: x = 3.56 or 4 (Very Low Level of Difficulty) Level of Difficulty Number of Correct Response 5 4 3 2 1 0 Pre-test Post-Test No. of Percentage Students 3 33.33 2 22.22 1 11.11 3 33.33 0 0 0 0 9 100%

Table 7 shows the level of difficulty of the nine (9) students in the division of fractions (pre-test and pos-test). In the pre-test, the students garnered a weighted mean of 1.67 or 2 which manifests a moderate level of difficulty. In the post-test, it increased by 1.89 and became 3.56 or 4 which manifests a very low level of difficulty. Therefore, after the intervention, the students improved in the division of fractions. Table 7: Levels of Difficulty of Students in Division (Pre-Test &Post-Test) No. of Percentage Students No Difficulty 1 11.11 Very Low Difficulty 0 0 Low Difficulty 1 11.11 Moderate Difficulty 2 22.22 High Difficulty 3 33.33 Very High Difficulty 2 22.22 9 100% Pre-Test: x = 1.67 or 2 (Moderate Level of Difficulty) Post-Test: x = 3.56 or 4 (Very Low Level of Difficulty) Level of Difficulty Number of Correct Response 5 4 3 2 1 0 Pre-test Post-Test No. of Percentage Students 3 33.33 2 22.22 1 11.11 3 33.33 0 0 0 0 9 100%

11

AKLAN STATE UNIVERSITY- College of Teacher Education

Table 8 shows the level of difficulty of the nine (9) students in the four operations involving fractions (pre-test and post-test). In the pre-test, the students garnered a weighted mean of 6.44 or 6 which manifests a moderate level of difficulty. In the posttest, it increased by 8 and became 14.44 or 14 which manifests a low level of difficulty. Therefore, after the intervention, the students improved in the four operations involving fractions. Table 8: Levels of Difficulty of the Nine (9) Students in the Four Operations Involving Fractions (Pre-Test &Post-Test) Pre-test No. of Percentage Students No Difficulty 0 0 0 0 0 0 Very Low Difficulty 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Low Difficulty 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 22.22 1 11.11 Moderate Difficulty 3 33.33 0 0 1 11.11 0 0 2 22.22 High Difficulty 0 0 0 0 Very High Difficulty 0 0 Total 9 100% Pre-Test: x = 6.44 or 6 (Moderate Level of Difficulty) Post-Test: x = 14.44 or 14 (Low Level of Difficulty) Level of Difficulty Number of Correct Response 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Post-Test No. of Percentage Students 0 0 1 11.11 1 11.11 1 11.11 0 0 2 22.22 1 11.11 1 11.11 0 0 0 0 1 11.11 1 11.11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 100%

12

AKLAN STATE UNIVERSITY- College of Teacher Education

Table 9 shows the errors committed by the nine (9) students in addition (pre-test and post-test). During the pre-test, the students committed the most error in changing mixed numbers to improper fractions, followed by the error in the operation used and the least error in identifying the LCD. After the intervention, these errors had been lessened.

Table 9: Errors Committed by the Nine (9) Students in Addition (Pre-test and Post-Test) Sources of Error LCD Number 1 2 3 4 5 Total Pre-Test 1 0 1 0 0 2 Post-Test 0 1 0 0 0 1 Pre-Test 2 0 0 5 0 7 Post-Test 0 1 2 2 1 6 Operation Used
Changing Mixed Numbers to Improper Fractions

Item

Pre-Test 0 5 6 3 7 21

Post-Test 1 1 1 3 1 7

Table 10 shows the errors committed by the nine (9) students in subtraction (pretest and post-test). During the pre-test, the students committed the most error in identifying the LCD, followed by the error in changing mixed numbers to improper fractions and the least error in the operation used. After the intervention, these errors had been lessened except with the error in identifying the LCD which increased by 2.

13

AKLAN STATE UNIVERSITY- College of Teacher Education

Table 10: Errors Committed by the Nine (9) Students in Subtraction (Pre-test and Post-Test) Sources of Error LCD Number 1 2 3 4 5 Total Pre-Test 4 3 2 3 2 14 Post-Test 6 4 1 3 2 16 Pre-Test 1 2 0 1 4 8 Post-Test 1 0 2 0 0 3 Operation Used
Changing Mixed Numbers to Improper Fractions

Item

Pre-Test 0 2 6 3 1 12

Post-Test 0 0 1 0 0 1

Table 11 shows the errors committed by the nine (9) students in multiplication (pre-test and post-test). During the pre-test, the students committed the most error in reducing to lowest term, followed by the error in the operation used and the least error in changing mixed numbers to improper fractions. After the intervention, these errors had been lessened. Table 11: Errors Committed by the Nine (9) Students in Multiplication (Pre-test and Post-Test) Sources of Error
Not Reduced to Lowest Term

Item Number 1 2 3 4 5 Total

Operation Used Pre-Test 0 2 2 0 1 5 Post-Test 0 0 0 0 0 0

Changing Mixed Numbers to Improper Fractions

Pre-Test 6 0 5 3 0 14

Post-Test 3 7 0 0 8 18

Pre-Test 0 3 0 0 1 4

Post-Test 0 0 1 0 0 1

14

AKLAN STATE UNIVERSITY- College of Teacher Education

Table 12 shows the errors committed by the nine (9) students in division (pre-test and post-test). During the pre-test, the students committed the most error in reducing to lowest term, followed by the error in the operation used and the least error in changing mixed numbers to improper fractions. After the intervention, these errors had been lessened except with the error in reducing to lowest term which never increased nor decreased. Table 12: Errors Committed by the Nine (9) Students in Division (Pre-test and Post-Test) Sources of Error
Not Reduced to Lowest Term

Item Number 1 2 3 4 5 Total

Operation Used Pre-Test 0 3 0 2 1 6 Post-Test 1 1 1 0 2 5

Changing Mixed Numbers to Improper Fractions

Pre-Test 4 4 0 0 3 11

Post-Test 4 3 0 4 0 11

Pre-Test 0 0 3 2 0 5

Post-Test 0 0 1 0 0 1

15

AKLAN STATE UNIVERSITY- College of Teacher Education

Chapter 4

EVALUATION OF RESULTS

The study that we have conducted shows that the Second Year Laboratory High School students of ASU have the most difficulty in the subtraction of fractions among the other operations, followed by the division of fractions, then by the multiplication of fractions and the addition of fractions as the least difficult operation. In addition, the most common error that the students usually committed was the error in changing mixed number to improper fraction, followed by the error in the operation used and the least error that they committed was the error in identifying the LCD. In subtraction, the most common error that the students usually committed was the error in identifying the LCD, followed by the error in changing mixed number to improper fraction and the least error that they committed was the error in the operation used. In multiplication, the most common error that the students usually committed was the error in reducing to lowest term, followed by the error in the operation used and the least error that they committed was the error in changing mixed number to improper fraction.

16

AKLAN STATE UNIVERSITY- College of Teacher Education

In division, the most common error that the students usually committed was the error in reducing to lowest term, followed by the error in the operation used and the least error that they committed was the error in changing mixed number to improper fraction. Furthermore, after the intervention, the level of difficulty of students in all the operations was lessened. Generally, the students have improved their skills in solving operations involving fractions after the tutorial session.

17

AKLAN STATE UNIVERSITY- College of Teacher Education

Chapter 5

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND NEXT STEPS

SUMMARY The action research determined the difficulty of second year students in solving operations involving fractions. Specifically, we would like to find the answers to these questions: 1. Which among the four fundamental operations involving fractions do students find the most difficult? 2. What are the usual errors that students commit in these particular operations? 3. What are the possible solutions and remedies in order to overcome the said difficulty? The study was conducted between the months of February to March 2012. Questionnaires (pre-test and post-test) were used for collecting the data. The respondents were the 45 second Year High School students of the Aklan State University Laboratory High School. They were subjected to tutorial sessions.

18

AKLAN STATE UNIVERSITY- College of Teacher Education

CONCLUSION

In the study that we had conducted, we conclude that:

the students have poor foundations about solving operations involving fractions; the errors committed by the students slightly decreases after the intervention was given; the students need additional reinforcement activities such as assignments, drills and exercises to strengthen their skills in solving mathematical problems; the teachers should use varied instructional materials that is suitable to the different learning styles of the students; and the teachers should monitor and evaluate the progress of the students performance to determine whether the students have really learned the lesson or not.

19

AKLAN STATE UNIVERSITY- College of Teacher Education

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the conclusions, the following recommendations are made: Teachers should instill in the minds of students the importance of solving operations involving fractions in their daily living; Providing the students with activities involving fractions with the use of manipulatives for the students to develop a clearer understanding of the concept; Making the lessons more interesting through innovative learning.

NEXT STEPS

Think of an activity/ strategy which will involve those students who got high results in the diagnostic test given so that they will not feel that they are neglected. The next researchers must come up with an intervention which is much better than tutorial in order for the students to improve more in solving operations involving fractions;

20

AKLAN STATE UNIVERSITY- College of Teacher Education

Chapter 6

INSIGHTS, REFLECTION AD IMPLICATION OF THE STUDY

Man can learn nothing except by going from the known to the unknown. This quotation from Claude Bernard (1813 1878) motivated all four of us to conduct this action research. It is really true that if we will not try to go beyond what seems to be deviant, then we will never be able to gain knowledge. As Bachelor in Secondary Education, Major in Mathematics students, the action research we have conducted enable us to determine which among the four operations involving fractions do students find the most difficult, identify the errors that students usually commit, and conduct intervention to solve the problem. One of the most challenging parts of this action research is during the conduct of our intervention which is the tutorial session that is scheduled every 12:30 1:00 oclock in the afternoon. There were times that only few students attend our session because the

21

AKLAN STATE UNIVERSITY- College of Teacher Education

others seldom show up due to some reasons. We also encountered some naughty students yet we still felt their interest in learning our topic not only those chosen students but most of the class as well. Despite these obstacles that we came across, we were happy and satisfied with the results of this study because we were able to help the students in enhancing their knowledge about fraction operations and minimizing the errors they committed. Furthermore, we believe that this action research benefited not only the students but we the researchers as well because through this, if we are going to teach the same lesson to our students in the future, we can formulate new strategies which will best suit the learners interest.

22

AKLAN STATE UNIVERSITY- College of Teacher Education

References

http://www.amle.org/Research/ResearchSummaries/TeachingFractions/tabid/1866 /Default.aspx Date Retrieved: November 14, 2011. 5:25 P.M.

http://www.uwosh.edu/coehs/departments/curriculum-instructiondepartment/graduate-program/electronic-journals1/documents/Sara%20Mattson%20Action%20Research.pdf Date Retrieved: November 14, 2011. 5:30 P.M.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/22621500/Improving-children-s-knowledge-andunderstanding-of-fractions-proportions-and-ratios Date Retrieved: December 4, 2011. 2:54 P.M.

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-164525538.html Date Retrieved: December 4, 2011. 2:57 P.M.

23

AKLAN STATE UNIVERSITY- College of Teacher Education

APPENDIX

AKLAN STATE UNIVERSITY- College of Teacher Education

Appendix A

LETTER OF REQUEST

AKLAN STATE UNIVERSITY- College of Teacher Education

Appendix B

PLAN OF ACTION
(Difficulty of 2 Year Students of the ASU-LHS in Solving Operations Involving Fractions)
nd

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

7. 8.

Task Asking the permission to distribute the questionnaire from the principal. Administration of Pre-test Gathering of Result (Pre-test) Tallying and Tabulation Interpretation and Analysis Intervention a. First Session b. Second Session c. Third Session d. Fourth Session Administration of Post-test Gathering of Results (Post-test)

Date Jan. 31, 2012 Feb. 1, 2012 Feb. 1, 2012 Feb. 2, 2012 Feb. 3-5, 2012 Feb. 8, 2012 Feb. 10, 2012 Feb. 13, 2012 Feb. 15, 2012 Feb. 24, 2012 Feb. 24, 2012 Feb. 24, 2012 Feb. 25-26, 2012 Feb. 27, 2012 Feb. 28-29, 2012 March 1, 2012 March 1, 2012 March 2, 2012 March 3-5, 2012 March 6, 2012

9. Tallying and Tabulation 10. Interpretation and Analysis 10. Generalization/ Conclusion 11. Encoding of Technical Report 12. Printing of Draft 13. Submission of Draft for Editing 14. Revision/ Finalization 15. Preparation of Powerpoint Presentation 16. Presentation

Group 2 Gladys D. Guiller Hanna M. Repaz Lino S. Casumpong Sherelyn T. Parohinog

AKLAN STATE UNIVERSITY- College of Teacher Education

Appendix H

LESSON GUIDE

Subject Matter: Solving Operations Involving Fractions 1st Day Addition of Fractions There are 3 Simple Steps to add fractions: Step 1: Make sure the bottom numbers (the denominators) are the same Step 2: Add the top numbers (the numerators). Put the answer over the denominator. Step 3: Simplify the fraction (if needed). Example 1: 1 1 + 4 4 Step 1. The bottom numbers (the denominators) are already the same. Move to next step. Step 2. Add the top numbers and put the answer over the same denominator: 1 1 1+1 2 + = = 4 4 4 4 Step 3. Simplify the fraction: 2 1 = 4 2 Example 2: 1 1 + 3 6 Step 1: The bottom numbers are different. We need to make them the same before we can continue, because we can't add them like that. The number "6" is twice as big as "3", so to make the bottom numbers the same we can multiply the top and bottom of the first fraction by 2, like this: 2 1 3 2 6

2 Important: you multiply both top and bottom by the same amount, to keep the value of the fraction the same. The bottom numbers are now the same, so we can go to step 2.

AKLAN STATE UNIVERSITY- College of Teacher Education

Step 2: Add the top numbers and put them over the same denominator: 2 1 2+1 3 + = = 6 6 6 6 Step 3: Simplify the fraction: 3 6 2nd Day Subtraction of Fractions There are 3 simple steps to subtract fractions Step 1. Make sure the bottom numbers (the denominators) are the same Step 2. Subtract the top numbers (the numerators). Put the answer over the same denominator. Step 3. Simplify the fraction. Example 1: 3 1 4 4 Step 1. The bottom numbers are already the same. Go straight to step 2. Step 2. Subtract the top numbers and put the answer over the same denominator: 3 1 31 2 = = 4 4 4 4 Step 3. Simplify the fraction: 2 = 4 1 2 = 1 2

Example 2: 1 1 2 6 Step 1. The bottom numbers are different. We need to make them the same before we can continue, because we can't subtract them easily. To make the bottom numbers the same, multiply the top and bottom of the first fraction (1/2) by 3 like this: 3 1 2 3 3 6

AKLAN STATE UNIVERSITY- College of Teacher Education

The bottom numbers (the denominators) are the same, so we can go to step 2. Step 2. Subtract the top numbers and put the answer over the same denominator: 3 1 31 2 = = 6 6 6 6 Step 3. Simplify the fraction: 2 1 = 6 3 3rd Day Multiplication of Fractions There are three steps in multiplying fractions To multiply fractions, first we simplify the fractions if they are not in lowest terms. Then we multiply the numerators of the fractions to get the new numerator, and multiply the denominators of the fractions to get the new denominator. Simplify the resulting fraction if possible. Example 1

AKLAN STATE UNIVERSITY- College of Teacher Education

4th Day Division of Fractions
There are 3 Simple Steps to Divide Fractions: Step 1. Turn the second fraction (the one you want to divide by) upside-down (this is now a reciprocal). Step 2. Multiply the first fraction by that reciprocal. Step 3. Simplify the fraction (if needed). Example 1 1 2 1 6

Step 1. Turn the second fraction upside-down (it becomes a reciprocal): 1 6 becomes 6 1 Step 2. Multiply the first fraction by that reciprocal: 1 6 16 6 = = 2 1 21 2 Step 3. Simplify the fraction: 6 = 3 2 Example 2 1 8 1 4

Step 1. Turn the second fraction upside-down (the reciprocal): 1 4 becomes 4 1 Step 2. Multiply the first fraction by that reciprocal: 1 4 14 = 8 1 81 Step 3. Simplify the fraction: 4 = 8 1 2

4 8

AKLAN STATE UNIVERSITY- College of Teacher Education

Appendix C

Aklan State University College of Teacher Education Banga, Aklan

PRE-TEST IN SOLVING OPERATIONS INVOLVING FRACTIONS

Name ____________________ Year & Section______________Date_____Score______ Direction: Choose the correct answer and place only the corresponding letter of your answer on the space provided before the number. Reduce your answers to lowest term if possible. Calculators and cell phones are not allowed.

Addition of Fractions 1.) + 1 2/5 a. 17/20 b. 33/20 c. 23/20 d. 66/20 2.) 3 + 9/4 a. 5/4 b. 15/4 c. 69/12 d. 23/4 3.) 4 1/3 + 5 a. 118/2 b. -7/6 c. 59/6 d. 23/6 4.) 8 2/9 + 7 5/13 a. 1286/117 b. 523/117 c. 98/117 d. 3652/234 5.) 13/7 + 1 3/5 a. 9/35 b. 86/35 c. 121/35 d. 242/70

AKLAN STATE UNIVERSITY- College of Teacher Education

Subtraction of Fractions 1.) -3/2 - 3 4/6 a. -31/6 b. -62/12 c. 13/6 d. -15/2 2.) 5/2 - 3 5/6 a. 19/3 b. -4/3 c. -16/12 d. -5 3.) 2 1/2 - 4 3/6 a. -3 b. 7 c. -24/12 d. -2 4.) 7 1/4 - 1/6 a. 85/12 b. 7 1/12 c. 7 5/12 d. 2 7/12 5.) 6 3/4 -5

/6

a. 5 11/12 b. 8 1/3 c. 7 7/12 d. 91/12

Multiplication of Fractions 1.) -3/4 x 1/3 a. -3/12 b. -1/4 c. -2 1/4 2.) 2 6/7 x 1 3/4 a. 15 4/5 b. 1 31/49 c. 5 3.) 1 3/8 x 2 2/5 a. 3 3/10 b. 55/96 c. 132/40 4.) 3 3/5 x 2/3 a. 2 2/5 b. 36/15 c. 5 2/5 5.) 5 4/5 x -1/7 a. -40 3/5 b. -29/35 c. -1 1/7

Division of Fractions 1.) 3/5 1/4 a. 3/20 b. 12/5 c. 2 2/5 2.) 7/5 1/7 a. 7/35 b. 9 4/5 c. 49/5 3.) 3 3/4 12 a. 45 b. 21/48 c. 15/48 4.) 2 7/11 5 1/6 a. 174/341 b. 899/66 c. 546/121 5.) 9 2/6 a.
54

/2

b. 27 c. 3

AKLAN STATE UNIVERSITY- College of Teacher Education

Appendix D

Aklan State University College of Teacher Education Banga, Aklan

POST-TEST IN SOLVING OPERATIONS INVOLVING FRACTIONS Name ____________________ Year & Section______________Date_____Score______ Direction: Choose the correct answer and place only the corresponding letter of your answer on the space provided before the number. Reduce your answers to lowest term if possible. Calculators and cell phones are not allowed.

Addition of Fractions 1.) 13/7 + 1 3/5 a. 9/35 b. 86/35 c. 121/35 d. 242/70 2.) 3 + 9/4 a. 5/4 b. 15/4 c. 69/12 d. 23/4 3.) + 1 2/5 a. 17/20 b. 33/20 c. 23/20 d. 66/20 4.) 4 1/3 + 5 a. 118/2 b. -7/6 c. 59/6 d. 23/6 5.) 8 2/9 + 7
1286 a. 5/ /117 13

b. 523/117 c. 98/117 d. 3652/234

AKLAN STATE UNIVERSITY- College of Teacher Education

Subtraction of Fractions 1.) 5/2 - 3 5/6 a. 19/3 b. -4/3 c. -16/12 d. -5 2.) 2 1/2 - 4 3/6 a. -3 b. 7 c. -24/12 d. -2 3.) -3/2 - 3 4/6 a. -31/6 b. -62/12 c. 13/6 d. -15/2 4.) 6 3/4 -5

/6

5.) 7 1/4 - 1/6 a. 85/12 b. 7 1/12 c. 7 5/12 d. 2 7/12

a. 5 11/12 b. 8 1/3 c. 7 7/12 d. 91/12

Multiplication of Fractions 1.) -3/4 x 1/3 a. -3/12 b. -1/4 c. -2 1/4 2.) 1 3/8 x 2 2/5 a. 3 3/10 b. 55/96 c. 132/40 3.) 2 6/7 x 1 3/4 a. 15 4/5 b. 1 31/49 c. 5 4.) 5 4/5 x -1/7 a. -40 3/5 b. -29/35 c. -1 1/7 5.) 3 3/5 x 2/3 a. 2 2/5 b. 36/15 c. 5 2/5

Division of Fractions

1.) 7/5 1/7 a. 7/35 b. 9 4/5 c. 49/5

2.) 3/5 1/4 a. 3/20 b. 12/5 c. 2 2/5

3.) 3 3/4 12 a. 45 b. 21/48 c. 15/48

4.) 9 2/6 a.
54

5.) 2 7/11 5 1/6 a. 174/341 b. 899/66 c. 546/121

/2

b. 27 c. 3

AKLAN STATE UNIVERSITY- College of Teacher Education

Appendix E

STUDENTS SCORES IN EACH OPERATION INVOLVING FRACTIONS (PRE-TEST)

Student No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 Addition 5 5 5 5 5 4 5 5 5 5 5 4 5 5 5 3 5 3 5 4 5 4 3 5 3 3 5 5 5 5 4 0 1 1 1 Subtraction 3 1 3 2 3 4 3 2 2 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 0 2 1 1 0 2 1 4 2 3 2 0 2 1 2 1 0 0 1 Multiplication 4 5 4 5 4 5 3 4 4 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 5 3 4 4 5 3 4 2 2 4 2 4 3 3 2 2 1 4 3 Division 5 4 5 5 4 2 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 5 1 4 2 3 4 1 5 4 2 2 0 1 3 0 1 0 2

AKLAN STATE UNIVERSITY- College of Teacher Education

36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 3 1 3 5 4 2 3 1 5 4 174 0 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 75 1 3 0 1 1 4 3 4 1 4 159 5 1 3 2 1 2 2 4 2 0 130

Appendix F

STUDENTS SCORES IN EACH OPERATION INVOLVING FRACTIONS (POST-TEST)

Student No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Addition 3 5 2 3 5 5 4 5 3 3 4 3 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Subtraction 1 5 1 2 4 3 2 2 2 2 2 3 5 3 3 5 3 2 4 2 3 Multiplication 3 5 4 3 5 5 4 4 2 1 1 1 5 4 4 5 5 3 5 5 5 Division 2 5 2 2 3 3 5 4 1 3 3 3 3 4 4 3 4 5 2 5 5

AKLAN STATE UNIVERSITY- College of Teacher Education

22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 5 2 3 5 4 5 4 4 3 4 4 2 5 5 3 4 5 5 5 5 3 5 3 5 188 1 2 2 4 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 5 3 4 3 1 2 0 3 3 113 4 4 1 4 5 2 2 3 3 2 2 4 3 4 2 2 5 5 5 4 2 2 4 2 155 4 1 4 5 5 0 3 2 2 2 2 4 4 5 2 3 5 5 2 1 1 3 4 2 142

AKLAN STATE UNIVERSITY- College of Teacher Education

Appendix G (During the Pre- Test)

AKLAN STATE UNIVERSITY- College of Teacher Education

(During the Pre- Test)

AKLAN STATE UNIVERSITY- College of Teacher Education

(During Tutorial)

AKLAN STATE UNIVERSITY- College of Teacher Education

(During Post-test)