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,
Published Online: 15 October 2022, Published: 01 January 2023
OPEN ACCESS   1962 Views   1453 Downloads
Download Full Text (PDF)


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.


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.


  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.
  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.
  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.
  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.
  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.
  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.
  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.
  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.
  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.
  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.
  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.
  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.
  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.
  19. Drew, J. (2015). Using technology to expand the classroom in time, space, and diversity. Integrative and Comparative Biology, 55(5), 926-932.
  20. Eisenberg, T. A. (1975). Behaviourism: The bane of school mathematics. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 6(2), 163-171.
  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.
  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.
  23. Flavin, E., & Hwang, S. (2022). Examining multicultural research in Korean mathematics education. Research in Mathematics Education, 25(1), 45-63.
  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.
  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.
  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.
  28. Harris, K. R., & Alexander, P. A. (1998). Integrated, constructivist education: Challenge and reality. Educational Psychology Review, 10(2), 115-127.
  29. Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16(3), 235-266.
  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.
  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.
  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.
  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.
  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.
  36. Kaplan, D. E. (2018). Behaviorism in online teacher training. Psychology, 9(4), 570-577.
  37. Kara, M. (2018). A systematic literature review: Constructivism in multidisciplinary learning environments. International Journal of Academic Research in Education, 4(1), 19-26.
  38. Katwibun, D. (2013). The need for preparing mathematics teachers for diverse classrooms in Thailand. Procedia-Social and Behavioural Sciences, 93(2), 756-761.
  39. Kay, D., & Kibble, J. (2016). Learning theories 101: Application to everyday teaching and scholarship. Advances in Physiology Education, 40(1), 17-25.
  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.
  42. Lavicza, Z. (2010). Integrating technology into mathematics teaching at the university level. ZDM-Mathematics Education, 42(1), 105-119.
  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.
  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.
  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.
  47. Paris, S. G., & Winograd, P. (2003). The role of self-regulated learning in contextual teaching: Principles and practices for teacher preparation. CIERA Archive.
  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).
  50. Reigeluth, C. M. (1983). Instructional design theories and models: An overview of their current status. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
  51. Rocca, K. A. (2010). Student participation in the college classroom: An extended multidisciplinary literature review. Communication Education, 59(2), 185-213.
  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.
  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.
  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.
  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.
  59. Tucker, L. R. (1955). The objective definition of simple structure in linear factor analysis. Psychometrika, 20(3), 209-225.
  60. van Es, E. A., & Sherin, M. G. (2021). Expanding on prior conceptualizations of teacher noticing. ZDM-Mathematics Education, 53(1), 17-27.
  61. Wiest, L. R. (2001). Teaching mathematics from a multicultural perspective. Equity and Excellence in Education, 34(1), 16-25.
  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.
  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.