**6. Results**

*Metacognition in Learning*

**88**

**Figure 3.**

**Figure 2.**

*Pattern demonstration.*

**Figure 1.**

*Counting manipulatives.*

*Shapes and pattern frames.*

**5.4 Data collection and analysis**

This data was collected towards the end of January; this indicates that these students were not yet involved with their formal schooling some were from preschools and some from home, as January is the beginning of a new year in South Africa. Video cameras were used to observe students' actions and field notes were also taken to triangulate the two data sources. The collected data was then captured on an excel spreadsheet following the interview procedure and making notes of all the data captured. The field notes were neatly typed and annotated separately using [22] iterative process. The codes that came from the field notes and the spreadsheet were then triangulated. In engaging with these codes analytical memos were written. The analytical memos together with the codes were triangulated and revisited using raw data as evidence and themes started emerging. The biographic data was analysed using frequencies. A thematic report is used to present the findings.

Some background data indicate that only 11 out of the 67 students reported that they did not attend pre-school or day-care before reception class. All these students come from the low socio economic background attending no fee schools.

The thematic report responds to the following questions of the study: (1) How do young children demonstrate their mathematical intuitions? (2) How are these intuitions aligned with curriculum specifically South African Curriculum for reception class? (3) How do these intuitions mediate self-regulated learning?

The two themes that emerged from the analysis give integrative response to the three questions of this chapter.

#### **6.1 Free play stimulating mathematical concepts**

#### *6.1.1 Counting*

Most students first reaction on manipulatives was to count them, whether they know how to count or not. All 67 learners were able to do **rote counting sequentially** to 50. This is observed as they count sometimes re-counting bottle tops they were able to proceed to 50 without accurately counting the objects. About 42 out of 67 were able **to count objects** accurately until 27. However, some of them could not respond to "how many" about 23 of the 42 learners, instead they used their fingers that became their immediate tools to respond to the question of "how many" when asked by the researcher, each finger representing a bottle top. Only 19 of these learners were able to respond to the **"how many"** question. An interesting observation from the group that could respond to "how many" is that their bottle tops are organised in **a particular structure** which makes it easy for them to do object counting and keeping track of their counting as shown in **Figure 4**.

On the other hand, those who only do object counting lack the structure although they are able to count the objects accurately in **Figure 5**.

Meaning their **eye co-ordination** is good and assists them in keeping track of the counted and uncounted bottle tops. All this counting **is learner directed** except the "how many" question that comes from the researcher. When the researcher demonstrated the pattern to the learners, learners could not follow. They all struggled and moved on with their own activities after trying.

**Figure 4.** *Students structured counting strategies.*

**Figure 5.** *Students unstructured counting strategies.*
