FLAT-BTOT : a method to improve Mathematic communication skills in solving Mathematic word problems

Che Md Ghazali Nor Hasnida, Abdullah Norazilawati, Hamzah Mahizer, Mohamed Arif Nur Rafizah,

Full Text

Mathematic word problems can be very challenging to many students as it uses symbols and require a conceptual understanding to distinguish the symbols and operations. Moreover the use of long sentences to formulate the mathematical problem is sometimes confusing. The aim of this study is to identify the students’ mathematic communication skills in solving mathematics word problem via the Flat-BTOT method. The study was conducted in a primary school in the district of Batang Padang in Perak. The participants consist of two boys and three girls in Year Four selected through purposive sampling. Kurt Lewin’s action research model was used as the research design in this study. Data was collected through pre and post-tests, observation and interviews. The findings show that there is improvement in the students’ mathematics communication skills in the post-test. Observations on students' work and feedback received from the interviews also support the finding. It is hoped that the use of Flat-BTOT method be extended to secondary schools to ensure that mathematics teaching becomes more enjoyable and effective.

References

1. Chronaki, A.& Christiansen, I. M. (2004). Challenging Perspectives on Mathematics Classroom Communication. Connecticut: Information Age Publishing. 2. Commonwealth of Australia (2009). A Guide to Action Research (Digital Education Revolution NSW). Australia: Commonwealth of Australia. 3. Cooke, B. D., & Buchholz, D. (2005). Mathematical communication in the classroom: A Teacher makes a difference. Early Childhood Education Journal, 32(6), 365–369. 4. Creswell, J. W. (2005). Educational Research: planning, conducting and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (2nded). New Jersey: Merrill Prentice Hall. 5. Denzin, N. K., & Yvonna S. L. (2000). Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc. 6. Glenda, A. & Margaret, W. (2009). Characteristics of Effective Teaching of Mathematics: A View from the West, Journal of Mathematics Education, 2(2), 147-164. 7. Hancewicz, H. M. & Tuttle, L. (2005). Literacy Strategies Improving Mathematics Instruction, Virginia USA: ASCD Publications. 8. Hiebert, J. & Carpenter, T. P. (2000). Learning and teaching with understanding. Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning. D. A. Grows. Now York: MacMillan 65-97. 9. Kadiec, A., & Friedman, W. (2007). Important, but not for me: Kansas and Missouri students and parents talk about Math, Science and Technology Education. Public Agenda. Retrieved 20th April 2016 from http://www.publicagenda.org/ImportantButNotforMe/. 10. KementerianPelajaran Malaysia. (2013). Pelan Pembangunan Pendidikan Malaysia. Retrieved 20th April 2016 from http://www.moe.gov.my/index.php/my/pemberitahuan/2013/2468-pelan-pembangunan-pendidikan-malaysia-2013-2025-muat-turun 11. Neuman, M. D. (2014). Mathematics Teaching: Listening, Probing, Interpreting and Responding to Children's Thinking, Investigations in Mathematics Learning, 6(3), 1-28. 12. NorainiIdris (2005). PedagogidalamPendidikanMatematik. Kuala Lumpur: Utusan Publications & Distributors Sdn. Bhd. 13. Norman. K. D. & Yvonna, S. L. (2000). Handbook of Qualitative Research. 2nd. ed. Carlifornia: Sage Publication, Inc. 14. Rozana Aminorlah (2002). Faktor-faktor halangan komunikasi dalam kelas matematik KBSM: Satu Kajian Tinjauan di Sekolah Menengah di Zon Bangsar, KL. Unpublished PhD thesis doctoral thesis, UUM: Kedah. 15. Sharon, E. S., Deborah, L. L. & James, D. R. (2012). Instructional Technology and Media for Learning. Boston. Pearson Education. 16. Skemp, R. R. (1979). Intelligence, learning and action. John Wiley & Sons: New York. 17. Thompson, D. R. & Chappel, M. F. (2007). Communication and Representations elements in Mathematical Literacy. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 23: 179-196. Routledge Taylor & Fran. 18. Watson, A. (2002). Instances of mathematical thinking among low attaining students in an ordinary secondary classroom. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 20, 461–475. 19. Watson, A., & De Geest, E. (2005). Principled teaching for deep progress: Improving mathematical learning beyond methods and material. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 58, 209–234. 20. Watson, A., & Mason, J. (2006). Seeing an exercise as a single mathematical object: Using variation to structure sense-making. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 8, 91–111. 21. Wiliam, D. (2007). Keeping learning on track. In F. K. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 1053-1098). Charlotte, NC: Information Age. 22. Zevenbergen, R., & Lerman, S. (2008). Learning environments using interactive whiteboards: New learn ing, spaces or reproduction of old technologies. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 20 (1), 107–125.