Available online at [Link].
com
ScienceDirect
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 90 (2013) 187 195
6th International Conference on University Learning and Teaching (InCULT 2012)
Exploring grade levels and gender differences in Numeracy
Thinking among secondary school students.
Ilda Salwani Ameera, Parmjit Singhb*
a, b
Faculty of Education, Universiti Teknologi MARA, , 40200 Shah Alam, Selangor, Malaysia
Abstract
Numeracy becomes important in the Malaysian context, when the Prime Minister lit the switch on Numeracy and emphasized
its salience in the10th Malaysia Plan as the foundation to build the first world talent base and the realization of Vision 2020.
Taking this as the cue, this study was initiated to explore the grade levels (Form 1, Form 2 and Form 4) and gender
differences in Numeracy thinking among secondary school students. This is a descriptive correlation design using stratified
purposive random sampling where a total of 414 students, aged 12-16 years old, from six schools participated in this study.
All these students had obtained an A grade in their Mathematics examination. The instrument used was the Numeracy Test to
assess their Numeracy thinking. The finding revealed that there was a significant difference in the Numeracy performance
between the grade levels. Nevertheless, there was no significant difference in the results between students in Form 2 and Form
4. This seems to suggest that very little Numeracy development occurred among the Form 4 students as they went through
Mathematics learning from Form 2 to Form 4. The overall students performance was low (mean=36.99 (max =66), SD=7.56)
taking into consideration that these students had obtained an A grade in their examination. This finding is a damning
indictment of the examination orientated education and raises questions about the validity of National examination results of
Mathematics grades. The finding on gender analysis indicated that female students were outperformed by their male
counterparts in the Numeracy assessment across all levels and these differences were statistically significant. Considering
these differences, one must ask oneself the salient question: Is our education system catering the need of both gender and are
we giving the right emphasis? This is a seminal point that should be pondered upon. It is recommended that further research
about gender-specific education should be undertaken to analyse these situations.
2013 The
The Authors.
Published byby
Elsevier
[Link].
2012
[Link]
Elsevier
Selection and/or
under
responsibility
of theofFaculty
of Education,
University
Technology
MARA, MARA,
[Link].
Selection
and/orpeer-review
peer-review
under
responsibility
the Faculty
of Education,
Universiti
Teknologi
Keywords: Numeracy; Numeracy thinking; grade levels; gender differences:
1. Background
In the current Malaysian classroom setting, written computation and the use of the calculator that produce
________________
* Corresponding author. Tel.:+603-55227396; fax:603-55227396.
E-mail address: parmj378@[Link], aisyahsalwani08@[Link]
1877-0428 2013 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Selection and/or peer-review under responsibility of the Faculty of Education, University Technology MARA, Malaysia.
doi:10.1016/[Link].2013.07.081
188
Ilda Salwani Ameer and Parmjit Singh / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 90 (2013) 187 195
literal answers are becoming more and more dominant than [Link] asked to answer questions like how many
numbers are there from 1-100, students tend to count one by one slowly; save for those who had been taught
using drilling solutions. This signifies that teachers are more set to use memorization of facts and procedures as
the main method of instructions to increase students learning outcomes in the never-ending quest of excelling in
the ever-mechanical tests and examinations. Even more interesting to note is that despite the fact that it has long
been introduced in Malaysian Education, what has been truly lacking in Mathematics education is the
development of Numeracy thinking.
According to ODonoghue (2002), Numeracy should not be equated with less of school mathematics and it
is not only about basic computation skills. Rather, Numeracy is more about sense making, application and
decision making with numbers. He added that Numeracy has a big impact on every individual across age groups
in their education in schools as well as in life beyond formal education. What he found out further is even more
interesting, because according to his observations, there seems to be no positive correlation between the
improvement of Numeracy skills and the number of years spent in formally learning Mathematics in school. In
other words, a child that goes through years of formal Mathematics education may not necessarily improve their
Numeracy skills.
Often mistaken as Numeracy itself, number sense in its true definition is only a subset of Numeracy. Number
sense is the ability to think with and about numbers (Kennedy & Tipps, 2000). Van de Walle, Karp and BayWilliams (2010) said that students whom have good intuition about numbers does not think about numbers only,
instead, they are also able to device their own unique mental computational strategies through their understanding
of Numeracy skills like understanding the place value and making estimations across large numbers, fractions and
decimals. In other words, it is about knowing that, 2 + 4 is also 4 + 2, with both producing a sum of six or
knowing that RM1000 is not enough to buy a Proton Persona car because it costs more. Unfortunately, the
development of Numeracy can be interrupted or inhibited if students learn Mathematics through memorization of
facts and procedures. Currently, Malaysian students are assessed with many public examinations such as UPSR,
PMR and Malaysia Certificate of Education or Sijil Pelajaran Malaysia (SPM) as well as other school tests and
examinations. These situations may encourage paper-and-pencil algorithm and procedural methods that
deteriorate students thinking skills which will slowly affect the students' sense of numbers across a long period
of time.
Numeracy is not taught but caught, but yet not being caught, sadly, in Malaysian schools (Parmjit, Nor Aziah,
Teoh & Rosaizan, 2011). There have been various researches in Malaysia that assessed the students level of
number sense and the findings showed that students are weak in number sense (Parmjit et al., 2011; Charngeet,
2000). Nevertheless, even though a vast number of skills can be attributed to the number sense, the skill that are
considered as vital in this research are estimation and mental computation, as both can be deemed as tenable
elements of the foundation in Mathematics education.
Definition of estimation, according to Reys (1986) is the process of producing an answer that is sufficiently
close to the intended goal to allow decisions to be made. Furthermore, it is highly claimed that the best way for
students to think about numbers is to associate numbers with real measurements through estimation such as
estimating the length of a Mathematics exercise book or any measurement that involves length, weight and time
(Van De Walle et al., 2010). Although it is a very difficult task to produce an estimate, the estimation skill can be
introduced by the concept of about which does not require students to give a specific number rather an answer
in a reasonable range. Because it is such a seminal component of number sense and Mathematics education, there
have been numerous researches done on estimation, Bana and Dolma (2004) for example, studied the
computation and estimation skills of Year 7 students in Perth Australia. They found that students are much better
at computations than at estimating due to students tendency to do their computation by following rules and
formulas rather than performing it in a meaningful and more relatable way. Findings from their study are also
consistent with the findings by many other researchers from Malaysia like Parmjit, Nor Aziah, Teoh and Rosaizan
(2011) and Charngeet (2000). Similarly, Tsao and Pan (2011) investigated the level of computational estimation
performance in whole number, decimals and fraction numbers by the fifth grader and explore their computational
estimation attitude. They found that the students performed moderately in overall computation estimation and
performed relatively low in decimals and fractions compared to whole number. They confirmed that the students
attitude towards estimation as negative and passive indicating that the studentsexperience in computational
Ilda Salwani Ameer and Parmjit Singh / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 90 (2013) 187 195
estimation is not adequate to answer the test given. They added that most students thought that they are better
when they are able to produce a correct answer rather than getting a rough answer.
Subsequently, it is also interesting to look into gender differences in Numeracy thinking among secondary
school students. Previous studies on gender and Mathematics achievement had shown either no significant
difference or results that tended to favour male samples. Researchers also claimed that no significant gender
differences in their investigation in Mathematics achievement in kindergarten (Klein, Adi-Japha & HakakBenizri, 2010; Matthew, Morrison & Ponitz, 2009), first grade (Ponitz, Rimm-Kaufman, Brock & Nathanson,
2009), year five (Siti Rafiah, 2008) and throughout the school years respectively (Levi, 2000). However, Levi
(2000) added that gender equity in Mathematics education is always a very complex issue. In addition, Matthew,
Morrison and Ponitz (2009) found that a group of kindergarten male students that were poor in self-regulation
were probably at risk of having schooling difficulties in life beyond kindergarten as compared to female students.
This is contradictory to the finding of Lau (2008) in a mixed methodology research among students aged 16,
in Sri Aman, Sarawak that showed that gender differences on a mathematical problem solving test with four
levels of difficulties and metacognition tend to favour female students more than male students which showed
significant gender differences. He also concluded that as the levels of difficulty increase, the achievement of the
students decrease. Finally he confirmed that, students with good PMR results were better in sustaining their
performance as the level of difficulties increase. This is similar to the finding of Zalizan, Saemah, Roselan and
Jamil (2005) who studied gender differences in Malaysian education in 1996 until 2000 and extrapolated that
female students scored better in the National examination results at all levels (UPSR, PMR & SPM) in almost all
school subject compared to the male students. They claimed that the gender gap across levels in school will
prolonged in life beyond school.
On another note, the male students mathematical achievement is hypothesized to be significantly related to
their spatial reasoning, whereas the female student mathematical achievement is related to their verbal skills
(Ponitz, Rimm-Kaufman, Brock & Nathanson, 2009; Sousa, 2006). Furthermore, male students are known to be
more creative than female students or vice versa at certain grade level (Lau & Cheung, 2010). On the other hand,
the Numeracy Test largely involved thinking visually. Therefore the hypothesis is that if male students are good
in spatial reasoning, perhaps they would be good in thinking visually and female students will have a
disadvantage due to their lacking in spatial skill. This perhaps explains why male students performed better in the
Number Sense Test and Mental Computation Test across all four levels (Parmjit, Rosmawati & Rusyah, 2005).
This study was undertaken to explore the differences in performance in Numeracy thinking between grade
levels and genders. Firstly, we investigated students performance across grade levels (Form 1, Form 2 and Form
4) in Numeracy Test and determine if there is any significant difference between these levels. Secondly we
investigated if there is a significant difference in the Numeracy Test performance between genders. Another
point that is related to this study was, do the top achievers with an A grade in Mathematics have good Numeracy
skills? Since the secondary students are exposed to calculators in class and examination, will this anyway hinder
the students Numeracy development skill?
2. Methodology
2.1 The Research Design
This is a descriptive correlation study which encompassed the quantitative method. The target population of this
study was secondary school students in Seremban, Negeri Sembilan. Schools in Seremban district are categorized
into two zones by the Seremban District Education Department. The two zones are Seremban 1 (17 schools) and
Seremban 2 (17 schools). The stratified purposive random sampling approach was utilized in selecting the
schools from the two zones to ensure which three schools were randomly selected from each zone. Agarwal
(1992) used the same sampling method to investigate the development of creativity in Indian schools.
The six schools in the study have comparable standards obtained from the Seremban District Education
Department. Once the schools had been selected, the homogenous sampling approach was utilized as the next
sampling process, in selecting the class from every level in each school (Form 1, Form 2 and Form 4). The
189
190
Ilda Salwani Ameer and Parmjit Singh / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 90 (2013) 187 195
students were selected from the top classes with an A grades in Mathematics because the Mathematics content
knowledge was not the main issue in this study.
2.2 Subjects
The total samples size in the study was 414 students of Form 1, Form 2 and Form 4, with ages ranging from 12 to
16 years old. In terms of gender distribution 254 were female students while 160 were male students. Table 1
shows the samples of study:
Table 1. Samples of Study
Level
Male
Female
Total
Form 1
87
93
180
Form 2
47
96
143
Form 4
26
65
91
Total
160(38.6%)
254(61.4%)
414(100%)
Note. Percentages appear in parentheses besides total
All the students in this study were selected based on their good result (an A grade) in Mathematics in their
Primary School National Examination (UPSR) and Lower Secondary National Examination (PMR) for the Form
1 and Form 4 students respectively. The Form 2 students obtained an A grade in Mathematics in the school
examination the year prior to this research.
2.3 Instrument and Administration of the Instrument.
The Numeracy Test that was utilized in this research was based on Numeracy Test that was constructed by
Parmjit et al. (2011) in their research. The test items were adapted with the permission from the authors, with the
aim to assess the students Numeracy thinking. The framework was based on Numeracy application in students
daily lives which was divided into two categories of: price (18 questions) and basic measurement (37 questions).
The items on price sheathe the sub-categories price estimation, calculation of new price, calculation of price and
the item on basic measurement that includes weight, height, length, time, distance, thickness and volume. In total,
there are 55 items. The validity and reliability process was undertaken for the instrument of study.
Estimation in the Numeracy Test means that students need to use their estimation skill in order to estimate
object or stimuli that are familiar and unfamiliar to their experience in real life to determine the items on basic
measurement. The answer for this section was not written in an exact answer. Instead, the answer was written in
estimation of range that would be considered correct if they were closed enough to the real answer. In other
words, there are many answers for each item that were accepted as correct, as long as it is within the range of
answers specified in the answer scheme. The mental computation skill on the other hand was used to determine
the items on price.
The data collection was carried out in early January until February 2011. At the time of data collection, Form
1, Form 2 and Form 4 had completed their UPSR, Final Examination and PMR respectively, with their results
available for disclosure. The Numeracy test was administered visually to the students using MS Power Point with
an LCD projector as its source of visual output. By using this methodology, the variability of written computation
is minimized. Students were given 15 seconds to solve each of the estimations questions, item 1 until item 6 and
item 19 until item 55. While 25 seconds are required to solves each items on price (item 7 until item 18). More
time are given to solve price calculation question because students need to do one step or two steps calculation
mentally or comparing the best price of goods before making a tenable decision.
Respondents are required to think and write the estimation of price of each slide showed visually for only 15
seconds before the slide automatically move to the next item and so forth. The intention here is to encourage each
Ilda Salwani Ameer and Parmjit Singh / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 90 (2013) 187 195
respondent to think and estimate the price using their previous knowledge, be it in the class or outside of the
classroom without relying on written computations. Another effort to avoid reliance of written computation is by
making sure that each student will only be given a sheet of paper to write the answers in. The questions can only
be seen on the screen. Parmjit et al. (2005) however allowed the students 30 seconds for each question and to
complete the answer sheet without written computation in the Number Sense Test that was adapted from
McIntosh, Reys, Reys, Bana and Farrell (1997). While McIntosh et al. (1997) in their studies gave 45 seconds for
each question to complete the Number Sense Test which can be considered as a relatively long period of time that
would allow the students to engage the paper and pencil method. After conducting the test using the limited time
frame in the pilot test, the total time allocation for the Numeracy Test that was utilized for this research was
determined to be appropriate at approximately 30 minutes.
The scoring of the Numeracy Test was done based on the Directions Manual and Scoring Guides constructed
by the researcher based upon the study by Parmjit et al. (2011). Based on the scoring guide constructed, each
respondent would obtain one score for the estimation of price (item 1 to item 6 and item 19 to item 55); 1.5
scores for calculation of prices (item 7 to item 8 and item 13 to item 14); two scores for calculation of prices
(item 9 to item 12 and item 15 to item 16); and 2.5 scores for calculation of prices (item 17 to item 18). If there
were any blank response or wrong answer (answers that are not within the range), they would be considered as
zero marks.
3. Findings
3.1. Numeracy Test Mean Score According to Grade Levels
Table 2 shows the Numeracy mean scores obtained by Form 1, Form 2 and Form 4 students. From the table, it
can be seen that the Form 4 students had the highest mean (M=38.41, SD=6.57) followed by Form 2 students
(M=37.67, SD=7.88) and Form 1 students (M=35.72, SD=7.60). There was a difference in the mean score
between grade levels in the Numeracy Test.
Table 2. Numeracy Test Mean Score According to Grade Levels
Level
Mean
SD
Form 1
180
35.72
7.60
Form 2
143
37.67
7.88
Form 4
91
38.41
6.57
414
36.99
7.56
Total
Note. Maximum score =66
In Table 3, The F-test was used to compare mean score in the Numeracy Test between grade levels and results
indicated a significant difference with the F-value [F(2,411) = 4.82, p=.01] at the .05 level. It shows that there
was a significant difference in the mean score of the Numeracy Test among Form 1, Form 2 and Form 4 students.
Table 3. One-Way Analysis of Variance for Numeracy Test Mean Scores between Grade Levels
Source
Between Groups
Sum of Square
Df
Mean square
540.40
270.20
Within Groups
23054.53
411
56.09
Total
23594.94
413
Sig.
4.82
.01
191
192
Ilda Salwani Ameer and Parmjit Singh / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 90 (2013) 187 195
In Table 4, it is shown that there was a significant difference between the mean score obtained by Form 1 and
Form 2 students and between the mean score obtained by Form 1 and Form 4 students at .05 level. However,
there was no significant difference between the Form 2 and Form 4 students in the Numeracy Test.
Table 4. Multiple Comparison of Means between Grade Levels on Numeracy Test
Mean Difference
Test
Form (I)
Form (J)
1
Numeracy Test
2
4
(I J)
Std. Error
Sig.
.84
.02
-1.95*
-2.69*
.96
.01
1.95*
.84
.02
-.74
1.00
.46
2.69*
.96
.01
.74
1.00
.46
Note. * The mean difference is significant at the .05 level
3.2. Overall Numeracy Test Mean Scores According to Gender
The results from this study designate that there was a difference in the Numeracy Test mean score between
genders. It was determined that, at the .05 level, the mean scores for the male student (M=39.07) was
significantly higher than the mean scores for the female students (M=35.68) [t(412) = 4.55,p=.00]. This seems to
suggest that, there might be a seminal difference between the way male and female students learn, adopt concepts
and acquire information and knowledge.
Table 5. T-test of Overall Numeracy Test Mean Scores According to Gender (n=414)
Gender
Mean
SD
Df
Sig.
Male
160
39.07
7.72
4.55
412
.00
Female
254
35.68
7.17
Note. Maximum score =66
3.3. Difference in Mean Score for Numeracy Test between Gender across level
From Table 6, it can be said that there was a difference in the Numeracy Test (NT) mean score between
genders and [Link] terms of achievement between genders with respect to levels, it was found that, at the .05
level, the mean score for male students (M=38.17) was significantly higher from the mean score for the female
students (M=33.43)[t(178)=4.39, p=.00] among the Form 1 students. Similar kind of result was also found
between genders among the Form 2 students, in which at the .05 level, the mean score for male students
(M=40.35) [t (141)=2.92, p=.00] was significantly higher from the mean score for the female students
(M=36.36). Among the Form 4 students, it was also indicated that mean score for the males (M=39.75) was
Ilda Salwani Ameer and Parmjit Singh / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 90 (2013) 187 195
higher than the mean scores for female students (M=37.88). However, the scores were not significantly different
at the .05 level. This generally indicated that male students tend to have a higher attainment in Numeracy as
compared to female students.
Table 6. Summary Statistics for Numeracy Test by Gender and Grade Levels
Gender
Gender
Mean
SD
df
Sig
Form 1
Male
87
38.17
7.72
4.39*
178
.00
Female
93
33.43
6.77
Male
47
40.35
7.14
2.92*
141
.00
Female
96
36.36
7.93
Male
26
39.75
8.57
1.23
89
.22
Female
65
37.88
5.56
Form 2
Form 4
Note. * The mean difference is significant at the .05 level
4. Conclusion and Discussion
This study, which employed the quantitative approach, sought to determine grade levels and gender
differences in Numeracy thinking among secondary school students. The Majority of students in this study
obtained an A grade in Mathematics UPSR and PMR or an A grade in the final examination. This grade
showed that students were good in Mathematics. Unfortunately, the result in this study does not favour them. The
finding revealed that the performance in the Numeracy Test among secondary school students was low and there
was a significant difference in the Numeracy Test scores between students from Form 1 and Form 2 and between
students from Form 1 and Form 4. This is supported by a research conducted by Parmjit, Rosmawati and Rusyah
(2005) who found that students at the higher grade perform better than students at the lower grade in number
sense and mental computation scores. Nevertheless, surprisingly, in the current research, there was no significant
difference in the results between students from Form 2 and Form 4. Although the Form 4 students did perform
slightly better than the Form 2 students, this is not significant as it could be explained by the differences of
maturity, knowledge and grade level rather than Numeracy abilities. The data pattern seems to indicate that as the
age increase, the ability to solve algorithm and the mathematical knowledge also increase but insignificantly.
Another possible explanation for the close disparity between Form 2 and Form 4 students performance could be
due to the introduction of calculator in Mathematics classroom or during examination that probably reduce their
mental activity.
Based on the findings of gender and Numeracy thinking, it was determined that male students obtained
significantly higher scores in the Numeracy Test than the female students across all levels. It was also found that
there was a significant difference of Numeracy performance between genders, especially among Form 1 and
Form 2 students. Nevertheless, no significant gender differences were found among the Form 4 students. This
seems to suggest that Numeracy thinking among lower secondary students is dependent of gender. Even more
significantly, the finding from this study is found to be consistent with the findings by Parmjit et al. (2005) in
their study on Assessment of number sense among secondary school students in Selangor. The study extrapolated
that, there was a significant difference in the Number Sense Test between genders among the lower secondary
students and no significant difference among the upper secondary students. Similarly, Vengopal and Mridula
(2007) found statistically significant differences in the manner of information processing between male and
female in regards to male students outperforming their female counterparts. In terms of spatial thinking and
ability, male students were known to perform better than female students (Ponitz et al., 2009). In particular,
studies also revealed that an achievement gap between the male students and the female students do appear in
elementary and middle school grades (Matthew et al., 2009) and it also appears in secondary school, or in high
school and among university students (Klein et al., 2010). This difference however disappeared between the
193
194
Ilda Salwani Ameer and Parmjit Singh / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 90 (2013) 187 195
Form 2 and the Form 4 students due to their mathematical knowledge and concepts that was similar among them
especially in basic measurement. They have just sat for their PMR (public examination) last year and they got an
A grade for their Mathematics and this would perhaps become one of the factors that contributed to the similar
performance in the Numeracy Test among genders. The other factors that could contribute to the similar
performance among genders were the same amount of usage of calculators during examination especially when
calculating larger number. Another explanation is that there might be a manifestation of negative attitudes
towards estimation as the students grew older. The Form 4 students were more concerned in getting an exact
answer rather than a rough answer that is considered as trivial. This has a very seminal implication. It must be
pondered whether the usage of calculator without any monitoring is causing this destructive inhibition in their
estimation skills.
The male students obtained a higher performance in the Numeracy Test as compared to the female students.
This might be due to how the male students view estimation as a whole (Sousa, 2006) especially considering the
fact that male students use more of spatial thinking to solve the Numeracy Test visually as compared to the
female students (Ponitz et al., 2009). This differs from the female students who analyse the questions differently
from the male students as they both differ in the information processing (Vengopal & Mridula, 2007). Therefore,
since the present research was conducted visually the female students were unable to use their verbal abilities in
solving the Numeracy Test.
As a conclusion the secondary school students performed weakly in the Numeracy Test, taking into
consideration that these students had obtained an A grade in their Mathematics examination results, and perhaps
the inability to make sense of number, give reason and make comparison are the several symptoms of basic
deficiencies in Numeracy skills. Therefore, teachers might want to balance their method of teaching and learning
since both genders have different learning preferences in spite of similar capabilities both gender possess (Sousa,
2006). Lesson should be presented in meaningful forms such as presenting it visually and not verbally. Students
should be encouraged to solve tasks using imagination and their inner voice and hopefully later develop good
Numeracy thinking. Another meaningful presentation is by using authentic real-life contexts and teacher might as
well relate lessons with real life experiences that will stimulate students interest and later become meaningful to
[Link] method that teachers may want to work on is utilizing more illustration using pictorials,
diagrams and also listing methods, arranging lessons in sequence order perhaps will satisfy both learning
preferences. Teacher also might use visual representations and imaginations as teaching methods because
students are fond of technologies and are full with imaginations and perhaps this will attract the male students to
focus more in class rather than being lazy and disruptive.
References
Agarwal, K.P. (1992). Development of creativity in Indian schools: Some Related Issues. New Delhi: Concept Publishing Company.
Bana, J., & Dolma, P. (2004, June 27-30). The Relationship between the Estimation and Computation Abilities of Year 7 Students. Paper
presented at 27th Annual Conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia (MERGA-27), Townsville.
Retrieved August 3rd, 2010, from [Link]
Charngeet, K. (2000). Understanding of percentage in relation to number sense among form 1 students. Unpublished master thesis,
Universiti Malaya, LembahPantai.
Kennedy, L.M., & Tipps, S. (2000). Guiding Childrens Learning of Mathematics (9thed.). United States of America: Wadsworth Thomson
Learning.
Klein, P.S., Adi-Japha, E., Hakak-Benizri, S. (2010). Mathematical thinking of kindergarten boys and girls: similar achievement, different
contributing processes. Education Studies in Mathematics, 73, 233-246
Lau, N. K. (2008). Mathematical Problem Solving: Interdependence of Problems, Problem Solving and Metacognition. In S.
Parmjit, & C. [Link] (Eds). Improving Teaching And Learning Of Mathematics: From Research To Practice (pp.109-128). Shah Alam:
UniversityPublication Centre (UPENA). (Original work published 2005)
Lau, S., & Cheung, P. C. (2010). Developmental Trends of Creativity: What Twists of Turn Do Boys and Girls Take at Different Grades?
Creativity Research Journal, 22(3), 329-336.
Levi. L. (2000). Gender Equity in Mathematics Education. Teaching Children Mathematics, 7 (2), 101-105.
Matthews, J.S., Morrison, F.J., & Ponitz, C.C. (2009). Early Gender Differences in Self Regulation and Academic Achievement. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 101(3), 689-704.
McIntosh, A., Reys, B.J., Reys, R. E., Bana, J., & Farrell, B. (1997). Number Sense in school mathematics: Student performance in four
countries. Mathematics, Science and Technology Centre, Monograph Series No. 5, Edith Cowan University.
ODonoghue, J. (2002). Numeracy and Mathematics. Irish Math. Soc. Bulletin. 48, 47-55. Retrieved August 3rd, 2010, from
Ilda Salwani Ameer and Parmjit Singh / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 90 (2013) 187 195
[Link]
Parmjit, S., Rosmawati Abdul Halim, & Rusyah Abdul Ghani. (2005). An assessment of number sense among secondary school students in
Selangor. Unpublished research for IRDC, University Technology Mara, Shah Alam.
Parmjit, S., Nor Aziah Alias, Teoh S.H., & Rosaizan Yahaya. (2011). Developing A Numeracy Gaming Software in improving students
Mathematics Learning. Unpublished research for RMI, University Technology Mara, Shah Alam.
Ponitz, C.C., Rimm-Kaufman, S.E., Brock, L.L., & Nathanson, L. (2009). Early Adjustment, Gender Differences, and Classroom
Organizational Climate in First Grade. The Elementary School Journal, 110(2), 143-159.
Reys, B. J. (1986). Estimation and Mental Computation: Its About Time. Arithmetic Teacher,34 (1), 22-23.
Siti Rafiah Abdul Hamid. (2008). Dimension of creativity of year five pupils in a Malaysia primary school. Unpublished Phd thesis,
Universiti Malaya, Lembah Pantai.
Tsao, Y.L., & Pan, T.R. (2011). Study on the Computational Estimation Performance and Computational Estimation Attitude of Elementary
School Fifth Graders in Taiwan. US-China Education Review, 8(3), 264-275. Retrieved September 12th, 2010, from
[Link]
Van De Walle, J.A., Karp, K.S. & Bay-Williams, J.M. (2010). Elementary and Middle School Mathematics: Teaching Developmentally
(7thed.). Unites States of America: Pearson Education Inc.
Vengopal, K., & Mridula, K. (2007). Styles of Learning and Thinking. Journal of the Indian Academy of Applied Psychology, 33(1), 111-118.
Retrieved September 12th, 2010, from [Link]
Sousa, D.A. (2006). How the Brain Learns (3rd ed.). California:Corwin Press.
Zalizan Mohd Jelas, Saemah Rahman, Roselan Baki & Jamil Ahmad. (2005).Prestasi Akademik Mengikut Gender. Jurnal Pendidikan, 30,
93-111. Retrieved August1st, 2012, from [Link] 20article%2030%
202005/artikel%2030_6.pdf
195