Abstract
This study aims to examine the effect of an intervention with line array representation on student’s understanding of whole number multiplication. This was done by comparing the scores of pre- and post-tests in multiplication. The tests were administered to 32 Year 5 students; aged 10–11 years old, in an intact classroom of an urban primary school in the district of Kota Kinabalu, Sabah, Malaysia. A test of multiplication was developed and used in this study as a pre-test and a post-test. This test, which was aligned with Year 5 Standards in the Malaysia Primary Mathematics Curriculum, was developed by one of the researchers. Aimed at examining student’s computational knowledge in manipulating numerical symbols, the test contained 33 multiple-choice items of 18 single digit and 15 multi-digit multiplication in whole numbers that were divided into nine categories. Students’ responses for both pre- and post-test were obtained and analysed using Bond and Fox Steps using pre-test item difficulties as anchors. The analyses were focused on person measures and Wright maps. The increase in mean person ability from +0.82 logit in the pre-test to +1.15 logits in the post-test showed that students’ understanding in multiplication had improved after the intervention. Results showed that students of high ability were likely to have gained more in this intervention than were the children of average or low ability. This study has shown that the Wright map is helpful for determining which ability group of students has acquired the competencies in each category. High ability students who were likely to answer correctly in all categories, especially in the distributive strategy that involved higher order thinking skills items and have shown higher relational understanding in multiplication. Average and low ability students were likely answer correctly most of the lower order thinking skills items demonstrating only instrumental understanding. This study suggests other possible areas for developing tests of multiplication should include different visual representations and multiplicative situations or tasks.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Anghileri, J. (2000). Teaching number sense. London: Continuum.
Barmby, P., Bolden, D., Raine, S., & Thompson, L. (2011). Assessing young children’s understanding of multiplication. Presented at the British Society for Research into Learning Mathematics Conference, Oxford, 19 November 2011.
Bond, T. G., & Fox, C. M. (2007). Applying the Rasch model: Fundamental measurement in the human sciences (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bruner, J. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Chai, C. P. (2015). Using the line array representation as an alternative method for understanding whole number multiplication among primary students (Unpublished doctoral thesis, Universiti Malaysia Sabah, Malaysia).
Chamberlin, S. A. (2010). Mathematical problems that optimise learning for academically advanced students in grades K-6. Journal of Advanced Academics, 22(1), 52–76.
Coe, R. (2002). It’s the effect size, stupid. What effect size is and why it is important? Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the British Educational Research Association, University of Exeter, England, 12–14 September 2002.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Crawford, D. B. (2003). The third stage of learning math facts: Developing automaticity. Altoona, WI: Otter Creek Institute. Retrieved on 20 August 2011: http://www.oci-sems.com/ContentHTML/pdfs/MMFsupport.pdf.
Haylock, D. (2010). Mathematics explained for primary teachers (4th ed.). London: Sage Publications Ltd.
International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA). (1997). TIMSS 1995 Assessment. Boston College, Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Lynch School of Education.
Keith, D. (2011). What exactly is multiplication? Retrieved March 2, 2015, from http://www.maa.org/devlin/devlin_01_11.html.
McIntosh, A., Reys, B., Reys, R., Bana, J., & Farrell, B. (1997). Number sense in school mathematics. Student performance in four countries. Perth: MASTE.
Ministry of Education Malaysia. (2006). Integrated curriculum for primary schools: Curriculum specification mathematics year 5. Kuala Lumpur: Curriculum Development Centre.
Mulligan, J, Mitchelmore, M., & Prescott, A. (2005). Case studies of children’s development of structure in early mathematics: A two-year longitudinal study. In H. L. Chick & J. L. Vincent (Eds.), Proceedings of the 29th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 4, pp 1–8). Australia: University of Melbourne.
Nunes, T., & Bryant, P. (1996). Students doing mathematics. Oxford: Blackwell.
Osman, S. A., Badaruzzaman, W. H. W., Hamid, R., Taib, K., Khalim, A. R., Hamzah, N., & Jaafar, O. (2011). Assessment on students’ performance using Rasch model in reinforced concrete design course examination. Recent Researches in Education, 193–198.
Pitta-Pantazi, D., Gray, E., & Christou, C. (2004). Elementary school students’ mental representations of fractions. In M. Hoines & A. Fuglestad (Eds.), Proceedings of the 28th Annual Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 4, pp. 41–48). Bergen, Norway: Bergen University College.
Reys, R., Lindquist, M. M., Lambdin, D. V., & Smith, N. L. (2009). Helping students learn mathematics (9th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Skemp, R. R. (1971). The psychology of learning mathematics. Hammondworth, England: Penguin Books.
Skemp, R. R. (1976). Relational understanding and instrumental understanding. Mathematics Teaching, 77, 20–26.
Smith, R. M. (2004). Fit analysis in latent trait measurement models. In E. V. Smith Jr. & R. M. Smith (Eds.), Introduction to Rasch measurement (pp. 73–92). US: JAM Press.
Smith, S. Z., & Smith, M. E. (2006). Assessing elementary understanding of multiplication concepts. School Science and Mathematics, 106(3), 140–149.
Stacey, K., & Steinle, V. (2006). A Case of the Inapplicability of the Rasch model: Mapping conceptual learning. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 18(2), 77–92.
Tzur, R., Xin, Y. P., Si, L., & Guebert, A. (2010). Students with learning disability in math are left behind in multiplicative reasoning? Number as abstract composite unit is a likely ‘culprit’. Online Submission, Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (p. 15), Denver, CO, April 30–May 4, 2010 (ED510991).
Wong, M., & Evans, D. (2007). Improving basic multiplication fact recall for primary school students. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 19(1), 89–106.
Wu, M., & Adams, R. (2007). Applying the Rasch model to psycho-social measurement: A practical approach. Melbourne, Australia: Educational Measurement Solutions.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this paper
Cite this paper
Chai, C.P., Pang, V., Chin, K.E. (2018). Using Rasch Analysis to Examine the Effects of Year 5 Students’ Understanding of Whole Numbers Multiplication. In: Zhang, Q. (eds) Pacific Rim Objective Measurement Symposium (PROMS) 2016 Conference Proceedings. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-8138-5_18
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-8138-5_18
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-10-8137-8
Online ISBN: 978-981-10-8138-5
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)