Magic Finger Teaching Method in Learning Multiplication Facts among Deaf Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Deaf students face problems in mastering multiplication facts. This study aims to identify the effectiveness of Magic Finger Teaching Method (MFTM) and students’ perception towards MFTM. The research employs a quasi experimental with non-equivalent pre-test and post-test control group design. Pre-test, post-test and questionnaires were used. As many as 70 deaf students from three special education primary schools in Selangor and Federal Territory were gathered as research respondent. Data were analyzed by using descriptive and inferential statistics of t-test. Findings from the t-test analysis showed that MFTM has a significant effect on multiplication facts achievement among deaf students whereas conventional teaching method does not given a significant effect on multiplication facts achievement among them. The findings from questionnaires found that the deaf students have high level of perception towards MFTM in the dimensions of interest, self-confidence, persistence and motivation in learning multiplication facts. The findings serves as an implication towards students, parents, teachers, Special Education Division and Malaysia Education Ministry in terms of awareness, involvement, planning and implementation in the context of diversifying of multiplication facts teaching method, and the suitability of supporting materials in teaching and learning multiplication facts.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".