Chapter IV

PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA

This chapter presents the findings of the study, their analysis and interpretation and the

results of the statistical treatment used.

Figure2. Distribution of the Respondents by Age

Figure 1 shows the distribution of respondents in terms of age.70% or forty –two (42) out

of sixty (60) respondents belongs age 10. 23% or fourteen (14) out sixty (60) belongs age 11.5%

or three(3) out sixty (60) belongs age 12 . Then 2% or one (1) out sixty (60) belongs age

13.Furthermore majority of the respondents was age 10.

Figure 3. Distribution of the Respondents by Sex

Figure 2. shows the distribution of respondents in terms of sex. 52% or thirty –one (31) out

sixty (60) belongs sex of male . 42 % or twenty-nine(29) out sixty (60) belongs to sex of

female.Furthermore majority of the repondents was male.

Table 1. Mean Pre- test Score of the Respondents Using Traditional Technique and
Manipulative Technique in Teaching Fraction

Respondents Traditional Technique Manipulative Technique

1 23 23

2 19 20

3 18 20

4 17 11

5 17 12

6 13 22

7 13 18
8 15 21

9 22 20

10 11 20

11 9 15

12 11 15

13 11 13

14 10 14

15 8 12

16 10 15

17 10 13

18 9 10

19 22 13

20 13 14

21 12 14

22 10 13

23 8 15

24 10 16

25 9 12

26 14 13

27 16 14

28 17 10

29 21 11
 30 23 9

Mean 14.03 14.93

Standard Deviatiom 4.10 3.27

This table 1 shows the Mean Pre- test High and lowest Score of the Respondents Using

Traditional Technique and Manipulative Technique in Teaching Fraction that using manipulative

22 is the highest score and 9 is the lowest and has a mean of 14.93 and using traditional 23 is the

highest score and 8 is the lowest score and has of mean of 14.03 that’s results using manipulatives

has a greater mean .Furthermore in pre-test both manipulative and traditional have same highest

score of 23 but difference in lowest score and both was almost the same of the result of the pre-

test score.

Table 2. Mean Post - test Score of the Respondents Using Traditional Technique and
Manipulative Technique in Teaching Fraction

Respondents Traditional Technique Manipulative Technique

1 24 25

2 25 25

3 24 25

4 23 23

5 23 25

6 23 24

7 23 24

8 24 24
 9 14 24

10 22 25

11 22 24

12 22 22

13 22 24

14 20 24

15 14 24

16 23 24

17 22 23

18 24 23

19 24 25

20 23 24

21 24 23

22 15 25

23 22 25

24 22 23

25 24 25

26 19 24

27 20 24

28 21 25

29 23 24

30 24 20

Mean 21.83 24
 Standard Deviation 2.46 1.22

This table 2 shows the Mean Post- test Score of the Respondents Using Traditional

Technique and Manipulative Technique in Teaching Fraction that base on the table using

manipulative 25 is the highest score and 22 is the lowest score and has a mean of 24 and using

traditional 25 is the highest score and 14 is the lowest score and has of mean of 21.83 .

.Furthermore in post-test manipulative and traditional have same highest score of 25 but

difference in lowest score that manipulative has 22 and traditional has 14 is the lowest

score.Based on the table show that the mean of using manipulatives is greater than traditional . .

Table 3. Test of Significant Difference between The Mean Pre- Test Scores of the Group
Using Traditional Technique and Manipulative Technique

t computed Critical Value Decision Interpretation

1.085029922 2 Accept Ho Not Significant

Table 3 shows Test of Significant Difference between The Mean Pre- Test Scores of the

Group Using Traditional Technique and Manipulative Technique.Based on the table ,the

computed t-value is less than the critical value of 2.0.This implies that the hypothesis is

accepted.This means that there is no significant difference between the mean pretest score of the

Group Using Traditional Technique and Manipulative Technique .It also means that the two

groups have equal knowledge on fraction before using manipulative .

Table 4. Test of Significant Difference between The Mean Post- Test Scores of the Group
Using Traditional Technique and Manipulative Technique

t computed Critical Value Decision Interpretation

4.985730696 2 Reject Ho Significant

Table 4 shows . the Test of Significant Difference between The Mean Pre- Test Scores of

the Group Using Traditional Technique and Manipulative Technique.Based on the table ,the

computed t-value is greaterthan the critical value of 2.0.This implies that the hypothesis is

rejected.This means that there is no significant difference between the mean post- test score of

the Group Using Traditional Technique and Manipulative Technique .It also means that the two

groups have unequal results of the mean therefore that using manipulative is effect tool to use in

solving fraction .

Table 5. Test of Significant Effect of Using Manipulative in teaching fraction

. t computed Critical Value Decision Interpretation

8.346526136 1.699 Reject Ho Significant

Table 5 shows . the Test of Significant Effect of Using Manipulative in teaching

fraction.Based on the table ,the computed t-value is greater than the critical value of 2.0.This

implies that the hypothesis is rejected.This means that there is no significant Significant Effect

of Using Manipulative in teaching fraction.It also means that the using manipulative is effect

tool to use in solving fraction

 Chapter V

SUMMARY, FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This chapter has the summary of findings after the presentation analysis and interpretation

of the gathered. Subsequently the conclusions can be drawn and recommendation can be made

from the study.

Summary

The purpose of this study was to know the Effectiveness of Manipulative technique in

teaching fraction in Grade 5 students .Researcher conducted this study to know the capacity and

ability of students in calculating fraction by using traditional and manipulative. This research will

conduct during the 4th Quarter. There have 60 respondents comes from two section of Grade

students the section of Tulips and Camia .Researchers use survey questionnaire as instrument to

gather information and data .Questionnaire composed of 25 given fraction. Researchers gave

questionnaire to the 60 respondents and respondents answered the questionnaire based on honestly.

All data were gathered, tabulated, analyzed and interpreted.

Specifically, this study answered the following questions: What is the profile of the

respondents in terms of: Age and Sex? What is the mean pre-test score of the group using

traditional and manipulative technique? What is the mean post-test score of the group using

traditional and manipulative technique? Is there a significant difference between the mean pre-test

score of the group using traditional and manipulative technique? Is there a significant difference

between the mean post -test score of the group using traditional and manipulative technique? The

use of manipulatives are effectively in teaching fraction?

 The hypothesis listed in this study: There is no significant difference between the

challenges encountered by students mean pre-test score of the group using traditional and

manipulative technique? There is no significant difference between the challenges encountered by

students mean post-test score of the group using traditional and manipulative technique? The use

of manipulatives not effective in teaching fraction?

Findings

The following are the salient findings of the study:Descriptive statistics using the answer

of the respondents to the questions about Effectiveness of Manipulative technique in teaching

fraction in Grade 5 students were presented in the table showing the respondents answers in the

25 question in the given fraction. The total mean of the questionnaire is 18.95 .All the means were

presented in the table

Based on the computed mean, the Effectiveness of Manipulative technique in teaching

fraction in Grade 5 students Conclusions

Conclusion

The following are the conclusion drawn from this study

1. The hypothesis stating that there is no significant difference between the mean pre-

test score of the group using traditional and manipulative technique in teaching

fraction was supported with the evidence and therefore accepted?

2. The hypothesis stating that there is no significant difference between the mean

post -test score of the group using traditional and manipulative technique in

teaching fraction was supported with the evidence and therefore rejected?
 3. The hypothesis stating that there is no significant difference between Significant

Effect of Using Manipulative in teaching fraction was supported with the

evidence and therefore rejected?

Recommendations

Based on the findings of the study, the following recommendations can be offered by the

researchers:

1. Teachers will teach students using manipulative.

2. Teachers will improve their teaching skills therefore students understand the

lessons.

3. School will develop the students learning in the future.

4. School will provide manipulative for the students to know more how to use it.

5. Students learn how to compute a traditional by what we teach from them to be easy

to compute fraction.

6. Students will learn how to improve the latest manipulative technique by using in

the discussions.