Solving Fractions by Applying the Bar Model Concept with the Butterfly Method

Abstract

This study aims to investigate an intervention in the application of the Butterfly Method Algorithm with the Bar Model Concept on the addition and subtractions of Fractions to Year 9 students in one of the Government secondary schools in Brunei Darussalam. The Butterfly Method is an alternative visual method for teaching fractions where the diagonal and horizontal multiplication of the denominators and numerators are employed by drawing the Butterfly. A mixed-method approach was used to explore the impact of the intervention with data gathered from the students’ written pre- and post-tests and interview transcripts. The tests conducted before and after the intervention were used to analyze students’ errors and misconceptions. The students’ written analyses of the post-test results revealed that not all of the students applied the Butterfly Method. A few students were selected for interviews in order to gain deeper insights into how they developed the errors and misconceptions from both tests. Findings from the students’ interview transcripts revealed they were not confident with the Butterfly Method, and they needed more time to be familiar with the concept. Another factor for not applying the Butterfly Method is due to students’ confusion on subtracting fractions that has the same denominators as well as subtracting a proper fraction from a whole number. This study concluded that students who applied the Butterfly Method helped them to remember the new method from the intervention satisfactorily in comparison to those who lack the confidence in applying it.

Ordinary-level learners errors in solving simultaneous linear equations at a Zimbabwean secondary school

“…Our study has shown that when the subject is made into a complicated fraction format, there are risks of making mistakes. We concur with Low et al (2020) who reported that fractions left uncleared (not simplified) could lead to errors, when using matrices to solve simultaneous linear equations.…”

“…Such unnecessary complications usually increase the risk of participants being careless as shown in Figure 4, where the learner did not substitute correctly. Typically, a lot of errors are usually made when the subject is made into a complicated fraction form (Johari & Shahrill, 2020;Low et al, 2020).…”

“…Research has been carried out to explore errors and misconceptions in Math topics such as Algebra (Mulungye, 2016;Welder, 2012); fractions (Alghazo & Alghazo, 2017;Low et al, 2020); differentiation (Chikwanha et al, 2022); linear ordinary differential equations (Msomi & Bansilal, 2022); and derivatives of trigonometric (Siyepu, 2015). Others have studied learners repeating Grade 11 (Roselizawati et al, 2014); and the errors and misconceptions in solving Simultaneous Equations (Johari & Shahrill, 2020;Ugboduma, 2012).…”

The Common Errors in the Learning of the Simultaneous Equations

“…While this is actually not a form of error in any ways, making as the subject in this case will give a fractional subject of = +1 3 which usually will result in an error due to complication that it will produce. Typically, a lot of errors were usually made when the subject is made into a complicated fraction form (Low et al, 2020). Figure 1 exhibits a sample of a Student 1's work dealing with said fractional subject.…”

Social Media and Primary School Science: Examining the Impact of Tiktok on Year 5 Students' Performance in Light Energy

“…Therefore, this study extends the effectiveness of using social media (TikTok) in teaching and learning scientific concepts such as light energy from the Bruneian context. Student conceptions of learning science and mathematics-related disciplines have been described as memorization of facts, which affect student learning and performance (Tsai, 2004;Abbas et al, 2020;Low et al, 2020;Rosli et al, 2020;Shahrill et al, 2021a;Shahrill et al, 2021b). This has been attributed to the lack of student motivation and the overemphasis on exam-oriented teaching and learning (Roslan et al, 2018;Abdul Latif, 2021;Chong et al, 2022), and the inconsistencies in the content of primary science (Semali & Mehta, 2012).…”