Active Learning in Secondary School Mathematics

Abstract

In recent years there has been widespread advocacy for a greater variety of learning activities to be used in the teaching of mathematics in secondary schools, and in particular calls for greater use of active learning. In essence, active learning may be described as the use of learning activities where pupils are given a marked degree of ownership and control over the learning activities used, where the learning experience is open-ended rather than tightly pre-determined, and where the pupil is able to actively participate in and shape the learning experience. The term 'active learning' has commonly been applied to a diverse range of learning activities, such as practical work, computer-assisted learning, role play exercises, work experience, individualised work schemes, small group discussion, collaborative problem-solving and extended project work. In the first phase of the study, seven categories of learning activities used in mathematics lessons were identified. One activity was considered to describe traditional teaching, and the other six activities to describe types of active learning. In the second phase of the study, heads of mathematics departments completed a questionnaire in which they estimated the frequency of occurrence of these seven activities. The findings indicate that active learning is fairly commonplace now, but in most schools, only for a minority of lessons. In addition, the replies indicate a marked shift towards greater use of active learning in recent years, particularly in the use of investigational tasks, small group discussion, computerassisted learning and extended project work.

Development of the self-regulated learning teacher belief scale

“…These characteristics were converted into positive and negative arguments regarding SRL on primary education level. Table 1 presents an overview of such arguments based on literature examining educational practices, specific innovation projects and implementation processes of self-regulated learning (Butler, 1998(Butler, , 2002Paris & Newman, 1990;Perry, 1998;Randi & Corno, 2000) and related constructs such as active learning (Kyriacou, 1992;Simons, 1997;Stern, 1997), independent learning (Van Tooren & Beckers, 1999), learner-centred learning (Frisby, 1998;Lambert & McCombs, 1998;McCombs & Whisler, 1997;Weimer, 2002), student-directed learning (Platz, 1994) and authentic instruction (Newmann & Wehlage, 1993;Newmann, Marks, & Gamoran, 1996). Although substantial theoretical differences between self-regulated learning and these other concepts were recognized, strong similarities were assumed in perceived opportunities and resistances towards the introduction and implementation of these related concepts.…”

The Role of Everyday Contexts in Learner‐centred Teaching: The practice in Namibian secondary schools

“…This strand, referring to point (b), is exemplified by teaching strategies involving learners in question-and-answer sequences. It also coincides with the tradition of active learning (for instance, see Kyriacou, Manowe, & Newson, 1999) with an emphasis on various forms of group work as desirable learning activities. The third interpretation of learner-centred teaching (referring to points (c) and (d)) focuses on allowing learners to share responsibility for their own learning.…”

Active Learning via Problem-Based Collaborative Games in a Large Mathematics University Course in Hong Kong

“…Research has shown that active learning increases student performance in the fields of science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) [19][20][21]33]. Though numerous studies have been conducted on active learning and student performance in large STEM tertiary classes in non-mathematics subjects, there have only been a few studies on creating sustainable teaching and learning strategies for large mathematics classes [34][35][36][37]. One study examined student performance in small tertiary math classes (< 30) but did not observe any statistically significant improvement in the group with more student engagement [38].…”