Research Article

Constructive instructional teaching and learning approaches and their mathematical classroom teaching practices: A junior high school perspective

Emmanuel Oppong-Gyebi 1 * , Ebenezer Bonyah 1, Lauren Jeneva Clark 2
More Detail
1 Department of Mathematics Education, Akenten Appiah Menka University of Skills Training and Entrepreneurial Development, Kumasi, GHANA2 Department of Mathematics, The University of Tennessee, Knoxville, USA* Corresponding Author
Contemporary Mathematics and Science Education, 4(1), 2023, ep23002, https://doi.org/10.30935/conmaths/12541
Published Online: 15 October 2022, Published: 01 January 2023
OPEN ACCESS   450 Views   267 Downloads
Download Full Text (PDF)

ABSTRACT

Mathematics classrooms are becoming increasingly diverse as a result of modernity, with different people, cultures, and perspectives on how to grasp and apply practical mathematics problems. These pose challenges to teachers on the need to outline the best constructive instructional teaching approaches amid inspired mathematical classroom teaching practices. As a result, conducting this study to gain insight into the perceived intentions surrounding the use of cultural diversity, teaching with technological devices, experiencing mathematics, problem-based learning, and contextual teaching, and learning approaches in the teaching of junior high school students is extremely important. A quantitative study was conducted with 78 mathematics teachers purposively sampled from three conveniently sampled districts in Ghana’s Ashanti Region. The data were checked for accuracy and factored into four components. The data was then analyzed using the IBM SPSS-26 software, which included one sample Wilcoxon signed ranked test, an independent sample Kruskal-Wallis test, and Spearman’s bivariate rank correlations. In addition to its originality and kind in Ghana, important results about the factored components were obtained, showing how well teachers have embraced constructive approaches in the teaching and learning of mathematics at the junior high level, except for diversity in teaching with technology. It was also revealed that diversity in contextual problem-based learning recorded the lowest correlation coefficients with all the associated factor components, especially with technological experiencing mathematics teaching, and diversity and technological teaching. Because the selected districts are highly cosmopolitan and the world has become extremely diversified at the heart of this technological generation, mathematics teachers in junior high schools are more cautious when integrating cultural diversity with any other constructive instructional approach, especially with technology, for fear of losing students’ interest in the subject.

CITATION (APA)

Oppong-Gyebi, E., Bonyah, E., & Clark, L. J. (2023). Constructive instructional teaching and learning approaches and their mathematical classroom teaching practices: A junior high school perspective. Contemporary Mathematics and Science Education, 4(1), ep23002. https://doi.org/10.30935/conmaths/12541

REFERENCES

  1. Afni, N., & Hartono. (2020). Contextual leaching and learning (CTL) as a strategy to improve students’ mathematical literacy. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1581(1), 12-43. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1581/1/012043
  2. Akhigbe, T. (2019). Cognitive-behaviourism, constructivism and humanism in paediatrics specialty training: From theory to practice. International Journal of Medical Reviews and Case Reports, 30(10), 628-631. https://doi.org/10.5455/IJMRCR.Cognitive-Behaviourism-Constructivism
  3. Albeshree, F., Al-Manasia, M., Lemckert, C., Liu, S., & Tran, D. (2022). Mathematics teaching pedagogies to tertiary engineering and information technology students: A literature review. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 53(6), 1609-1628. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2020.1837399
  4. Aliakbari, F., Parvin, N., Heidari, M., & Haghani, F. (2015). Learning theories application in nursing education. Journal of Education and Health Promotion, 4(2), 2.
  5. Alicia, J., & Dusing, S. (2020). Encyclopedia of infant and early childhood development. Elsevier.
  6. Allen, D. E., Donham, R. S., & Bernhardt, S. A. (2011). Problem-based learning. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2011(128), 21-29. https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.465
  7. Al-Rahmi, W., Aldraiweesh, A., Yahaya, N., Bin Kamin, Y., & Zeki, A. M. (2019). Massive open online courses (MOOCs): Data on higher education. Data in Brief, 22(1), 118-125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dib.2018.11.139
  8. Arends, R. (2013). Learning to teach. McGraw-Hill Companies.
  9. Bergen, P., & Parsell, M. (2019). Comparing radical, social, and psychological constructivism in Australian higher education: A psycho-philosophical perspective. Australia Educational Research, 46(1), 41-58. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-018-0285-8
  10. Bernard, H. R. (2006). Research methods in anthropology: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Altamira Press.
  11. Berns, R. G., & Erickson, P. M. (2001). Contextual teaching and learning: Preparing students for the new economy. The highlight zone: Research @ Work No. 5. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED452376
  12. Borba, M. C., Askar, P., Engelbrecht, J., Gadanidis, G., Llinares, S., & Aguilar, M. S. (2016). Blended learning, e-learning and mobile learning in mathematics education. ZDM, 48(5), 589-610. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-016-0798-4
  13. ChoiKoh, S.-S. (2009). A research synthesis on mathematics education for students with diversity including multicultural education, language minority, and social economic status. Journal of the Korean School Mathematics Society, 12(4), 389-409.
  14. Cobb, P. (1994). Where is the mind? Constructivist and Sociocultural Perspectives on Mathematical Development. Educational Researcher, 23, 13-20. https://doi.org/10.2307/1176934
  15. Cooney, T. J., & Wiegel, H. G. (2003). Examining the mathematics in mathematics teacher education. In A. J. Bishop, M. A. Clements, C. Keitel, J. Kilpatrick, & F. K. S. Leung (Eds.), Second international handbook of mathematics education (pp. 795-828). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-0273-8_26
  16. De Houwer, J., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Moors, A. (2013). What is learning? On the nature and merits of a functional definition of learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 20(4), 631-642. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-013-0386-3
  17. Demirel, M., & Dagyar, M. (2016). Effects of problem-based learning on attitude: A meta-analysis study. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 12(8), 2115-2137. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2016.1293a
  18. Doolittle, P. E., & Camp, W. G. (1999). Constructivism: The career and technical education perspective. Journal of Vocational and Technical Education, 16(1), 23-46. https://doi.org/10.21061/jcte.v16i1.706
  19. Drew, J. (2015). Using technology to expand the classroom in time, space, and diversity. Integrative and Comparative Biology, 55(5), 926-932. https://doi.org/10.1093/icb/icv044
  20. Eisenberg, T. A. (1975). Behaviourism: The bane of school mathematics. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 6(2), 163-171. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739750060204
  21. Ekanayake, K., Khatibi, A., & Azam, F. (2020). The impact of teacher education and English language education in fostering global citizenship education: A review of literature. International Journal of Advances in Scientific Research and Engineering, 06(07), 30-40. https://doi.org/10.31695/IJASRE.2020.33847
  22. Fabian, K., Topping, K. J., & Barron, I. G. (2016). Mobile technology and mathematics: Effects on students’ attitudes, engagement, and achievement. Journal of Computers in Education, 3(1), 77-104. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-015-0048-8
  23. Flavin, E., & Hwang, S. (2022). Examining multicultural research in Korean mathematics education. Research in Mathematics Education, 25(1), 45-63. https://doi.org/10.7468/JKSMED.2022.25.1.45
  24. Fox, E. A., Gonçalves, M. A., & Kipp, N. A. (2002). Digital libraries. In H. H. Adelsberger, B. Collis, & J. M. Pawlowski (Eds.), Handbook on information technologies for education and training (pp. 623-641). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-07682-8_39
  25. Gagne, R. M. (1977). The consition of learning. Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
  26. Govindaraju, F. V. (2021). A review of social cognitive theory from the perspective of interpersonal communication. Multicultural Education, 7(12), 488-492. https://doi.org/10.5281/ZENODO.5802235
  27. Hair, J. F., Gabriel, M., & Patel, V. (2014). AMOS covariance-based structural equation modeling (CB-SEM): Guidelines on its application as a marketing research tool. Revista Brasileira de Marketing [Brazilian Marketing Magazine], 13(2), 44-55. https://doi.org/10.5585/remark.v13i2.2718
  28. Harris, K. R., & Alexander, P. A. (1998). Integrated, constructivist education: Challenge and reality. Educational Psychology Review, 10(2), 115-127. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022169018926
  29. Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16(3), 235-266. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:EDPR.0000034022.16470.f3
  30. Hurtado, S., Dey, E. L., Gurin, P. Y., & Gurin, G. (2003). College environments, diversity, and student learning. In J. C. Smart (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (pp. 145-189). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-0137-3_3
  31. Hwang, G.-J., & Wu, P.-H. (2014). Applications, impacts and trends of mobile technology-enhanced learning: A review of 2008-2012 publications in selected SSCI journals. International Journal of Mobile Learning and Organisation, 8(2), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJMLO.2014.062346
  32. Johnson, E. B. (2012). Contextual teaching and learning. Crown Press.
  33. Johnson, R. T., & Johnson, D. W. (2018). Cooperative learning: The foundation for active learning. In S. M. Brito (Ed.), Active learning–Beyond the future (pp. 12-23). Intechopen. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.73460
  34. Johnston, M. (2016). What more can we learn from early learning theory? The contemporary relevance for behaviour changes interventions. British Journal of Health Psychology, 21(1), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjhp.12165
  35. Kamphorst, J. C. (2018). Multidisciplinary cooperation by students in a European university of applied sciences. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice, 15(1), 5. https://doi.org/10.53761/1.15.1.5
  36. Kaplan, D. E. (2018). Behaviorism in online teacher training. Psychology, 9(4), 570-577. https://doi.org/10.4236/psych.2018.94035
  37. Kara, M. (2018). A systematic literature review: Constructivism in multidisciplinary learning environments. International Journal of Academic Research in Education, 4(1), 19-26. https://doi.org/10.17985/ijare.520666
  38. Katwibun, D. (2013). The need for preparing mathematics teachers for diverse classrooms in Thailand. Procedia-Social and Behavioural Sciences, 93(2), 756-761. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.09.276
  39. Kay, D., & Kibble, J. (2016). Learning theories 101: Application to everyday teaching and scholarship. Advances in Physiology Education, 40(1), 17-25. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00132.2015
  40. Krishnamoorthy, R. R., Prelatha, R., David, T. K., & Manikam, M. K. (2021). The implementation of behaviourism, constructivism, and information processing theory in instructional design practice activities–A review. International Journal of Education and Pedagogy, 3(2), 37-44.
  41. Lachman, S. J. (1997). Learning is a process: Toward an improved definition of learning. The Journal of Psychology, 131(5), 477-480. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223989709603535
  42. Lavicza, Z. (2010). Integrating technology into mathematics teaching at the university level. ZDM-Mathematics Education, 42(1), 105-119. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-009-0225-1
  43. Masethe, M. A., Masethe, H. D., & Odunaike, S. A. (2017). Scoping review of learning theories in the 21st century. In Proceedings of the World Congress on Engineering and Computer Science.
  44. Mohammed, K. K., & Elkhider, I. A. (2016). Applying learning theories and instructional design models for effective instruction. Advances in Physiology Education, 40, 147-156. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00138.2015
  45. Mukhalalati, B. A., & Taylor, A. (2019). Adult learning theories in context: A quick guide for healthcare professional educators. Journal of Medical Education and Curricular Development, 6(1), 2382120519840332. https://doi.org/10.1177/2382120519840332
  46. Orak, S. D., & Al-khresheh, M. H. (2021). In between 21st century skills and constructivism in ELT: Designing a model derived from a narrative literature review. World Journal of English Language, 11(2), 166. https://doi.org/10.5430/wjel.v11n2p166
  47. Paris, S. G., & Winograd, P. (2003). The role of self-regulated learning in contextual teaching: Principles and practices for teacher preparation. CIERA Archive. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED479905.pdf
  48. Radford, L. (2008). Theories in mathematics education: A brief inquiry into their conceptual differences. International Mathematics Union, 1(1), 1-17.
  49. Rashid, A. H. A., Shukor, N. A., & Tasir, Z. (2015). Enhancing collaborative reasoning skills in online learning. In Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE Conference on e-Learning, e-Management and e-Services (pp. 103-109). https://doi.org/10.1109/IC3e.2015.7403495
  50. Reigeluth, C. M. (1983). Instructional design theories and models: An overview of their current status. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203824283
  51. Rocca, K. A. (2010). Student participation in the college classroom: An extended multidisciplinary literature review. Communication Education, 59(2), 185-213. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634520903505936
  52. Sajedeh, S. H., Tajvidi, G.-R., & Kerremans, K. (2019). Social constructivism in translator education: The stakeholders’ needs assessment. Translation Studies, 17(67), 39-57.
  53. Schoenfeld, A. H. (1987). Cognitive science and mathematics education. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
  54. Schoenfeld, A. H. (2006). Mathematics teaching and learning. In P. A. Alexander, & P. H. Winne (Eds.), The handbook of educational psychology. Routledge.
  55. Smagorinsky, P. (2018). DE conflating the ZPD and instructional scaffolding: Retranslating and reconceiving the zone of proximal development as the zone of next development. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 16(1), 70-75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2017.10.009
  56. Stoilescu, D. (2016). Aspects of theories, frameworks and paradigms in mathematics education research. European Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 4(2), 140-154. https://doi.org/10.30935/scimath/9460
  57. Sukma, Y., & Priatna, N. (2021). The effectiveness of blended learning on students’ critical thinking skills in mathematics education: A literature review. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1806(1), 012071. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1806/1/012071
  58. Syamsuddin, S., & Istiyono, E. (2018). The effectiveness of mathematics learning through contextual teaching and learning approach in junior high school. AIP Conference Proceedings, 2014(1), 020085. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5054489
  59. Tucker, L. R. (1955). The objective definition of simple structure in linear factor analysis. Psychometrika, 20(3), 209-225. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02289018
  60. van Es, E. A., & Sherin, M. G. (2021). Expanding on prior conceptualizations of teacher noticing. ZDM-Mathematics Education, 53(1), 17-27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-020-01211-4
  61. Wiest, L. R. (2001). Teaching mathematics from a multicultural perspective. Equity and Excellence in Education, 34(1), 16-25. https://doi.org/10.1080/1066568010340103
  62. Williams, C. (2007). Research methods. Journal of Bus. Economics Research, 5(1), 65-72.
  63. Wood, D. F. (2003). Problem based learning. British Medical Journal, 326(7384), 328-330. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.326.7384.328
  64. Xie, C., Wang, M., & Hu, H. (2018). Effects of constructivist and transmission instructional models on mathematics achievement in mainland China: A meta-analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 9(1), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01923