COMPARISON OF NEW MATHEMATICS TEACHING METHODS WITH TRADITIONAL METHOD
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.20319/pijss.2017.32.12851297Keywords:
Teaching Methods, Discovery Learning, Problem Solving, Traditional MethodsAbstract
The aim of this paper is to compare the mathematics teaching methods, and study their consequences on mathematics learning. Numerous studies have shown that students experience mathematics anxiety which is a feeling of tension and fear that interfere with math learning. This may be attributed to the applied teaching methods in the classrooms. The three major teaching methods are: traditional, problem-solving, and discovery learning. Traditional teaching method is a teacher-centered instruction, while problem-solving method is a as teacher and student-centered which is based upon how teacher uses the four steps of problem-solving methods in teaching Mathematics. In discovery learning method, teacher plays the role of facilitator through involving students in varied activities associated with the discovery and construction of the knowledge. The qualitative case study method was considered more feasible and appropriate to meet the aim of this study. Data were collected using observation and semi-structured interviews with teachers in the secondary schools in Malaysia. It was observed that traditional, problem solving and discovery learning methods were practiced by the teachers. The findings reveal that students are more successful when systematic problem solving method based on Polya’s approach is incorporated into discovery learning. Consequently, there should be more emphasis on teaching methods which include less lecture, more student-centered classes and more discussion. The findings suggest that problem solving and discovery methods not only contribute to better mathematics learning but also enhance students’ creativity to cope with life challenges
References
Cruickshank, D. R., Bainer, D. & Metcalf, K. (1995). The Art of Teaching. New York, NY: McGraw Hill, Inc.
Eby, J. W., Herrell, A. L., & Jordan, M. L. (2005). Teaching K-12 Schools: A Reflective Action Approach. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Gagnon, G. W., & Collay, M. (2001). Designing for learning: Six Elements in Constructivist Classrooms. Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin Press Inc.
Hackman, D. G. (2004). Constructivism and block scheduling: Making the connection. Phi Delta Kappan, 85(9): 697-702. https://doi.org/10.1177/003172170408500911
Hanley, S. (1994). On Constructivism. Retrieved from http://www.inform.umd.edu/UMS%2BState/UMDProjects/MCTP/Essays/Constructivism.txt
Hmelo, C. E., Guzdial, M., & Turns, J. (1998). Computer-support for collaborative learning: Learning to support student engagement. Journal of Interactive Learning Research.
Maasz, J., & Schloeglmann, W. (2006). New Mathematics Education Research and Practice. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) (1980). An Agenda for Action: Recommendations for School Mathematics of the 1980s. Reston, VA: NCTM.
Ormord, J. E. (1995). Human Learning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc.
Piaget, J. (1936). Origins of Intelligence in the Child. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Polya, G. (1957). How to Solve It (2nd ed). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Sawada, D., Piburn, M. D., Judson, E., Turley, J., Falconer, K., Benford, R., & Bloom, I. (2002). Measuring reform practices in science and mathematics classrooms: The reformed teaching observation protocol. School Science and Mathematics, 102(6): 245-253. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2002.tb17883.x
Stonewater, J. K. (2005). Inquiry teaching and learning: The best math class study. School Science and Mathematics, 105(1): 36 - 47. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2005.tb18034.x
Taplin, M. (2011). Mathematics through Problem Solving. Math Goodies. Retrieved from http://www.mathgoodies.com/articles/problem_solving.html
Tarmizi, R. A., & Bayat, S. (2012). Collaborative problem-based learning in mathematics: A cognitive load perspective. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 32: 344-350. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.01.051
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2017 Authors
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.