Arith-O-Matic: An Arithmetic Interactive Machine
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.65339/ijsair.V2.I2.355Keywords:
Acceptability, Arithmetic, Educational Technology, Instructional Materials, Mathematics Instruction, Numeracy, Reward Mechanism, Virtual ManipulativesAbstract
This study focused on the design, development, and acceptability evaluation of Arith-O-Matic: An Arithmetic Interactive Machine, an instructional device intended to support Grade 2 pupils in learning basic arithmetic operations through virtual manipulatives, immediate feedback, and a reward-dispensing mechanism. The study was anchored on learning principles and theories such as experiential learning, situated learning, reflective learning, constructivism, inquiry-based and discovery learning, and task-technology fit. It employed a descriptive-developmental research design involving the planning, fabrication, testing, revision, and evaluation of the device. The respondents were thirty elementary teachers teaching Mathematics in key stage one from President Roxas Central District, selected through simple random sampling. A survey questionnaire was used to evaluate the acceptability of the device, and the data were analyzed using frequency count and mode. Findings showed that Arith-O-Matic was rated Highly Acceptable across all indicators, including question generation, display clarity, user-friendliness, calculation accuracy, feedback indicators, reward dispensing, mobility, safety features, and overall operation. The device was found useful as an instructional material for demonstrating addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division; however, overheating after prolonged use was identified as a technical limitation. The study recommends improving the monitor size, virtual manipulative features, feedback display, speaker volume, and ventilation system. The study supports SDG 4 – Quality Education and SDG 9 – Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure by promoting technology-enhanced Mathematics instruction. Its sustainability impact lies in strengthening educational, technological, and institutional support for early-grade numeracy development.
References
Ball, L., & Barzel, B. (2018). Communication when learning and teaching mathematics with technology. In L. Ball, P. Drijvers, S. Ladel, H.-S. Siller, M. Tabach, & C. Vale (Eds.), Uses of technology in primary and secondary mathematics education: Tools, topics and trends (pp. 227–243). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-76575-4_12
Butler, A., Lee, C., Boeckle, T., Heimowitz, D., & McCandliss, V. B. (2021). Symbol manipulation educational system and method (Patent No. CN112384961A). Espacenet. https://worldwide.espacenet.com/patent/search/family/068984355/publication/CN112384961A
Cherry, K. (2026, March 16). The experiential learning theory of David Kolb: Understanding the four stages of learning. Verywell Mind. https://www.verywellmind.com/experiential-learning-2795154
Durmuş, S., & Karakırık, E. (2006). Virtual manipulatives in mathematics education: A theoretical framework. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 5(1), 117–123. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1102492
Egbert, J., & Roe, M. F. (2020). Situated learning theory. In J. Egbert & M. F. Roe (Eds.), Theoretical models for teaching and research. Washington State University. https://opentext.wsu.edu/theoreticalmodelsforteachingandresearch/chapter/situated-learning-theory/
El Hajj, M., & Harb, H. (2023). Rethinking education: An in-depth examination of modern technologies and pedagogic recommendations. IAFOR Journal of Education, 11(2), 97–113. https://doi.org/10.22492/ije.11.2.05
Encyclopaedia Britannica. (2023, December 15). Interactive media. https://www.britannica.com/technology/interactive-media
Fedosejev, A. (2015). React.js essentials: A fast-paced guide to designing and building scalable and maintainable web apps with React.js. Packt Publishing.
Flores, R. G. (2023). Urgent call for the compliance on the administration of Rapid Math Assessment (RMA) [Facebook post]. Facebook. https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=359499749770708&set=pcb.359499849770698
Herrera, D. (2023). Students’ literacy and math academic achievement after the implementation of one-to-one devices. ERIC. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED636403
Khalsa, A., & Murphy, E. (2014). Apparatus and method for tools for mathematics instruction (Patent No. US20140322681A1). Google Patents. https://patents.google.com/patent/US20140322681A1/en
Kissane, B. (2017). Learning with calculators: Doing more with less. Australian Mathematics Teacher, 73(1), 3–11. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1137817
Marikyan, D., & Papagiannidis, S. (2023). Task-technology fit: A review. In S. Papagiannidis (Ed.), TheoryHub book. https://open.ncl.ac.uk
McLeod, S. (2025, November 5). Jerome Bruner theory of cognitive development. Simply Psychology. https://www.simplypsychology.org/bruner.html
Miller, C. L., & Manderfeld, M. (2024). Learning theories: Constructivism. Minnesota State University, Mankato. https://cornerstone.lib.mnsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1138&context=all
Navabi, Z. (2005). Digital design and implementation with field programmable devices. Springer.
Nguyen, N. D., & Nguyen, H. V. (2023). The use of calculators in teaching mathematics: A survey in Vietnam. Mathematics Teaching Research Journal, 15(4), 5–25. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1409268
Oliva, I. (2013). K to 12 curriculum guide mathematics. https://mathinphilippineart.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/math-curriculum-guide-grades-1-10-december-2013.pdf
Özel, S., Yetkiner, Z. E., & Capraro, R. M. (2008). Technology in K–12 mathematics classrooms. School Science and Mathematics, 108(2), 80–85. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2008.tb17807.x
Palupi, A. N. (2020). Use of manipulative media as a stimulation of ability to understand the concept of early children’s age. Early Childhood Research Journal, 3(2), 41–57. https://journals.ums.ac.id/ecrj/article/view/11414
Rachmawati, W., Fitri, D. A., Saputri, R., & Fransiska, A. (2023). Tantangan dalam pembelajaran berhitung di kelas awal dan cara mengatasinya [Challenges in learning to count in early grades and how to overcome them]. Tsaqofah: Jurnal Penelitian Guru Indonesia, 3(6), 1104–1118. https://doi.org/10.58578/tsaqofah.v3i6.1716
Rivera-Ortega, U. (2021). Interactive projectile motion STEM simulation and game, based on Scratch (S4A) and Arduino. Physics Education, 56(6), Article 065029. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6552/ac24ea
Sri Padmi, R. (2020). Challenging primary school students’ attitude toward calculators. JRAMathEdu: Journal of Research and Advances in Mathematics Education, 5(3), 289–303. https://doi.org/10.23917/jramathedu.v5i3.10061
Takamasa, I. (1988). Teaching machine (Patent No. CA1243198A). Espacenet. https://worldwide.espacenet.com/patent/search/family/016311912/publication/CA1243198A
Tan, C. W., & Huang, Z. (2024). System and method for an arcade game machine (Patent No. US20240339014A1). Google Patents. https://patents.google.com/patent/US20240339014A1/en
Thakur, M. R. (2016). Zero to hero ESP8266. Independently published.
Third, S. (2022). Reflective practice in early years education. eCampusOntario Pressbooks. https://ecampusontario.pressbooks.pub/reflectivepracticeinearlyyears/chapter/3-3-donald-schon/
Yeatts, K. (2012). Manipulatives: Motivating mathematics. ERIC. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED355097.pdf
