Home⇛DAVAO RESEARCH JOURNAL⇛vol. 15 no. 4 (2024)

Integrating Japanese Line Method: A Tool For Multiplication In Third Grade In The Context Of Philippine Curriculum

Cecille R Dumagat | Nidalyn C Dones | Bryan L. Susada

Discipline: Education

 

Abstract:

This study introduced a novel multiplication method which integrates the Japanese Line Method (JLM) within the framework of the Philippine curriculum to help students who are struggling with the traditional approach particularly when multiplying multi-digit numbers. It examined the effectiveness of Japanese Line method as an innovative approach to teaching multiplication to third-grade students at San Rafael Integrated School at San Rafael, Cateel, Davao Oriental, during the 2023-2024 academic year. Using a quasiexperimental design, the research compared two pre-existing groups: a control group of 30 students who received traditional multiplication instruction and an experimental group of 30 students who were taught using the Japanese Line Method. Pre-test results indicated that baseline proficiency levels were comparable across both groups, with each group falling below the “Satisfactory” threshold established by the K-12 grading system. Statistical analysis confirmed that there were no significant differences between the groups at the pretest stage. However, post-test results showed a substantial improvement in the experimental group’s performance, with 91.18% achieving an “Outstanding” grade, compared to 79.08% in the control group. This difference was statistically significant, as indicated by a t-value of -8.252 and a p-value of 0.000. These findings suggest that the Japanese Line Method is a significantly more effective approach than traditional methods in enhancing multiplication proficiency among third-grade students within the Philippine educational context.



References:

  1.    Abari, M.T., Tyovenda, T.M.    (2022). The    effect of japanese multiplicationon students achievement and retention in mathematics.
  2. Acharya, B. R. (2017). Factors affecting difficulties in learning mathematics by mathematics learners. International Journal of Elementary Education, 6(2), 8-15.
  3. Ahdika, A. (2017). Improvement of quality, interest, critical, and analytical thinking ability of students through the application of research-based learning (RBL) in introduction to stochastic processes subject. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 12(2), 167-191.
  4. Aguhayon, H., Tingson, R., and Pentang, J. (2023). Addressing students learning gaps in mathematics through differentiated instruction. International Journal of Educational Management and Development Studies, 4(1), 69-87.
  5. Baccaglini-Frank, A. E., Funghi, S., Maracci, M., and Ramploud, A. (2023). Learning about multiplication by comparing algorithms: “One times one, but actually they are ten times ten”. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 70, 101024.
  6. Bada, S. O., and Olusegun, S. (2015). Constructivism learning theory: A paradigm for teaching and learning. Journal of Research and Method in Education, 5(6), 66-70.
  7. Bakos, S. (2023). An ensemble approach to studying the teaching of multiplication using touchtimes. In The Mathematics Teacher in the Digital Era: International Research on Professional Learning and Practice (pp. 65-94). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
  8. Bang, H. J., Li, L., and Flynn, K. (2023). Efficacy of an adaptive game-based math learning app to support personalized learning and improve early elementary school students’ learning. Early Childhood Education Journal, 51(4), 717-732.
  9. Baral, S., Botelho, A. F., Erickson, J. A., Benachamardi, P., and Heffernan, N. T. (2021). Improving automated scoring of student open responses in mathematics. International Educational Data Mining Society.
  10. Baroody, A. J., Purpura, D. J., Eiland, M. D., Reid, E. E., and Paliwal, V. (2016). Does fostering reasoning strategies for relatively difficult basic combinations promote transfer by K-3 students? Journal of Educational Psychology, 108(4), 576.
  11. Battista, M. T. (1999). The mathematical miseducation of America’s youth: Ignoring research and scientific study in education. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(6), 425-433. https://ogsmathteam.weebly.com/uploads/2/7/9/1/27910667/battistamathematicalmiseducation.pdf
  12. Boaler, J. (2015). Mathematical mindsets: Unleashing students’ potential through creative math, inspiring messages and innovative teaching. John Wiley & Sons. https://www.amazon.com/Mathematical-Mindsets-Unleashing-Potential-Innovative/dp/0470894520
  13. Böck, F., Landes, D., and Sedelmaier, Y. (2023). Improving learning motivation for out-of-favour subjects. In CSEDU (1) (pp. 190-200). https://www.scitepress.org/Papers/2023/118414/118414.pdf
  14. Bruce, C. D., Flynn, T., Yearley, S., and Hawes, Z. (2023). Leveraging number lines and unit fractions to build student understanding: Insights from a mixed methods study. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 23(2), 322-339. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s42330-023-00278-x
  15. Chinn, S. (2020). The trouble with maths: A practical guide to helping learners with numeracy difficulties. Routledge. https://www.routledge.com/The-Trouble-with-Maths-A-Practical-Guide-to-Helping-Learners-with-Numeracy-Difficulties/Chinn/p/book/9780367862145?srsltid=AfmBOoqDZVIjum8sQpZWiT-54HPz2x4_eNTseP8hNn_1msawXOxPTUho
  16. Clements, D. H., and Sarama, J. (2007). Early childhood mathematics learning. In F. K. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 461-555). Information Age Publishing. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258933144_Early_childhood_mathematics_learning
  17. Davis, E. (2024). Mathematics, word problems, common sense, and artificial intelligence. Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society, 61(2), 287-303. https://www.ams.org/journals/bull/2024-61-02/S0273-0979-2024-01828-X/S0273-0979-2024-01828-X.pdf
  18. Engvall, M., Samuelsson, J., and Östergren, R. (2020). The effect on student’s arithmetic skills of teaching two differently structured calculation methods. Problems of Education in the 21st Century, 78(2), 167-195.
  19. Flores, M. M., and Hinton, V. M. (2019). Improvement in elementary students’ multiplication skills and understanding after learning through the combination of the concrete-representational-abstract sequence and strategic instruction. Education and Treatment of Children, 42(1), 73-100.
  20.  Foster, C. (2023). Problem solving in the mathematics curriculum: From domain-general strategies to domain-specific tactics. The Curriculum Journal.
  21. Garain, D. N., and Kumar, S. (2018). Japanese vs Vedic method for multiplication. International Journal of Mathematics Trends and Technology.
  22. Inayat, K., Muslim, F. B., Iqbal, J., Hassnain Mohsan, S. A., Alkahtani, H. K., and Mostafa, S. M. (2023). Power-intent systolic array using modified parallel multiplier for machine learning acceleration. Sensors, 23(9), 4297.
  23. Irvine, J. (2020). Positively influencing student engagement and attitude in mathematics through an instructional intervention using reform mathematics principles. Journal of Education and Learning, 9(2), 48-75.
  24. Jay, T., Rose, J., and Simmons, B. (2018). Why is parental involvement in children’s mathematics learning hard? Parental perspectives on their role supporting children’s learning. Sage Open, 8(2), 2158244018775466.
  25. Kaup, C. F., Pedersen, P. L., and Tvedebrink, T. (2023). Integrating computational thinking to enhance students’ mathematical understanding. Journal of Pedagogical Research, 7(2), 127-142.
  26. Kshetree, M. P., Belbase, S., Panthi, R. K., Khanal, B., and Acharya, B. R. (2021). Epistemic errors in students’ four fundamental operations of whole numbers: A radical constructivist grounded theory (RCGT) approach. SN Social Sciences, 2(3), 23.
  27. Kumar, B., and Deák, C. (2023). Evolving minds: A literature-driven and empirical exploration of STEAM skill development and learning approaches. Journal of Innovation Management, 11(4), 71-96.
  28. Langner, P. M. (2023). Instructional modality efficacy and multiplication fact fluency for third-grade students (Doctoral dissertation, Grand Canyon University).
  29. Mahmud, M. A. A., and Rahim, A. A. (2023). Strategies for mastering the concept of multiplication operations among primary school: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Advanced Research in Education and Society, 5(1), 178-191.
  30. Mills, J. P. (2019). Making multiplication meaningful: Teaching for conceptual understanding. Teachers and Curriculum, 19(1), 17-25.
  31. Mohyuddin, R. G., and Khalil, U. (2016). Misconceptions of students in learning mathematics at primary level. Bulletin of Education and Research, 38(1), 133-162.
  32. Nesher, P. (2020). Solving multiplication word problems. In Analysis of Arithmetic for Mathematics Teaching (pp. 189-219). Routledge.
  33. Nguyen, N. T. L. (2023, April). How to develop four competencies for teacher educators. In Frontiers in Education (Vol. 8, p. 1147143). Frontiers Media SA.  https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.1147143
  34. Niringiyimana, E., and Maniraho, J. F. (2023). The impact of algebra background on upper secondary students’ performance in mathematics: A case of study of Ruhango district. Journal of Research Innovation and Implications in Education, 7(3), 270-286.
  35. OECD. (2019). Trends in international mathematics and science study. https://www.oecd.org/
  36. Paul, C., Rajiv, J., and Chiang, I. (2015). Quasi-experimental research. Research Methods in Psychology - 2nd Canadian Edition. https://opentextbc.ca/researchmethods/
  37. PISA, P. (2018). Obtenido de https://www.oecd.org/pisa/publications/PISA2018_CNCOL_ESP.pdf
  38. Powell, S. R., and Nelson, G. (2017). An investigation of the mathematics-vocabulary knowledge of first-grade students. The Elementary School Journal, 117(4), 664-686.
  39. Rabillas, A., Kilag, O. K., Cañete, N., Trazona, M., Calope, M. L., and Kilag, J. (2023). Elementary math learning through Piaget’s cognitive development stages. Excellencia: International Multi-disciplinary Journal of Education, 1(4), 128-142.
  40. Riccomini, P. J., Smith, G. W., Hughes, E. M., and Fries, K. M. (2015). The language of mathematics: The importance of teaching and learning mathematical vocabulary. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 31(3), 235-252.
  41. Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Basic Books.
  42. Serici, S., and Bond, M. (2014). Validity evidence based on test content. Psicothema. https://www.psicothema.com/
  43. Sherin, B., and Fuson, K. (2015). Multiplication strategies and the appropriation of computational resources. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 36(4), 347-395.
  44. Shinno, Y., and Mizoguchi, T. (2021). Theoretical approaches to teachers’ lesson designs involving the adaptation of mathematics textbooks: Two cases from kyouzai kenkyuu in Japan. ZDM–Mathematics Education, 53(6), 1387-1402.
  45. Sianturi, M., and Hurit, A. A. (2024). ‘I want to read this book again!’ Decolonizing children’s literature to support indigenous children in reading and mathematics learning. Journal of Intercultural Studies, 45(2), 338-362.
  46. Suárez-Pellicioni, M., Demir-Lira, Ö. E., and Booth, J. R. (2024). Positive math attitudes are associated with greater frontal activation among children from higher socio-economic status families. Neuropsychologia, 194, 108788.
  47. Sunzuma, G., and Luneta, K. (2023). Zimbabwean mathematics pre-service teachers’ implementation of the learner-centered curriculum during teaching practice. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 19(5), em2258.
  48. Thevenot, C., Tazouti, Y., Billard, C., Dewi, J., and Fayol, M. (2023). Acquisition of new arithmetic skills based on prior arithmetic skills: A cross-sectional study in primary school from grade 2 to grade 5. British Journal of Educational Psychology.
  49. Thinwiangthong, S., Ya-Amphan, D., Sythong, P., and Ishizaka, H. (2024). The investigation of best practices on symbolic mathematical communication: A comparative study in Japan, Lao PDR, and Thailand. Malaysian Journal of Learning and Instruction, 21(1), 67-101.
  50. Vreken, D. (2017). Japanese multiplication method. https://lostmathlessons.blogspot.com/2017/11/japanese-multiplication-method.html
  51. Wankhade, M., Rao, A. C. S., and Kulkarni, C. (2022). A survey on sentiment analysis methods, applications, and challenges. Artificial Intelligence Review, 55(7), 5731-5780. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10462-022-10144-1
  52. Xin, Y. P., Kim, S. J., Lei, Q., Liu, B. Y., Wei, S., Kastberg, S. E., and Chen, Y. V. (2023). The effect of model-based problem solving on the performance of students who are struggling in mathematics. The Journal of Special Education, 57(3), 181-192. https://scispace.com/papers/the-effect-of-model-based-problem-solving-on-the-performance-3rlbbjq7
  53. Yu, J., Kreijkes, P., and Salmela-Aro, K. (2022). Students’ growth mindset: Relation to teacher beliefs, teaching practices, and school climate. Learning and Instruction, 80, 101616. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2022.101616
  54. Zaid, S. M., and Ismail, N. (2023). Systematic review: Student skills and psychology in multiplication operations. Journal for Reattach Therapy and Developmental Diversities, 6(10s), 01-12.

Tools


Copyright © 2025  KITE Digital Educational Solutions |  Exclusively distributed by CE-Logic