PREFERENCE LEARNING STYLE IN MATHEMATICS: STUDENTS PERCEPTION

Yıl 2015, Cilt: 2 , 74 - 80, 01.09.2015

Sadri Alija Halil Snopçe

Öz

Teaching
is an ability of complex recognition which is not inborn, but it is a process
which can be learned and improved during time. This is the reason why we always
try to improve and develop our ability in offering the best qualitative
teaching methods to students in our universities.

 

The
aim of this research is to analyze some different aspects of student’s
preferences in learning mathematics, especially to analyze the preferences
concerning the teaching style used by the teacher in the classroom.

In
this paper we show the results obtained from a survey realized during the fall
semester of 2014 - 2015 with students of two different faculties of the
SEE-University, students from the Faculty of Contemporary Sciences and
Technologies and Faculty of Business Economics.

 

The
results obtained by this survey show that the method favored by the students is
the non-traditional one with preference of 60.5%. In order to analyze student’s
preferences over different teaching methods versus some other factors, we have
used cross tabulation. The results obtained in this paper show that the
preferences of the female students, students with the GPA now between 7 and 8,
students with MATH score in last semester with 6 (Satisfactory)  tend in preference towards non-traditional
methods.

 

Taking
into consideration the nature of the subject of mathematics, the obtained
results suggest that the teacher should increase his engagement in the subject
using different practices and methods in the classroom in order to enhance the
interest of the students for the subject.

Anahtar Kelimeler

mathematics, learning preferences, traditional, nontraditional

Kaynakça

• Desoete, A., Roeyers, H., & Buysse, A. (2001). Metacognition and mathematical problem solving in Grade 3. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34 (5), 435-449. Goe, L. (2007). The link between teacher quality and student outcomes: A research synthesis. Washington, DC:National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality. Retrieved February 27, 2008, from http://www.ncctq.org/publications/LinkBetweenTQandStudentOutcomes.pdf Hansson, Å. (2010). Instructional responsibility in mathematics education: modeling classroom teaching using Swedish data. Educational Studies In Mathematics, 75(2), 171-189. Hinde, R. J. and Kovac, J. (2001), “Student Active Learning Methods in Physical Chemistry,” Journal of Chemical Education, 78(1), 93-99. Iljazi, T. and Alija, S. (2010). Teaching in small groups motivates learning. In Volume Six, Number Two, pp. 153-170. SEEU REVIEW, Tetovo, Mcedonia. Johnson, H.D. and N. Dasgupta (2005), “Traditional versus Non-Traditional Teaching: Perspectives of Students in Introductory Statistics Classes,” Journal of Statistics Education, 13 (2) Johnson, R. T., and Johnson, D. W. (1986), “Action Research: Cooperative Learning in the Science Classroom,” Science and Children, 24(2), 31-32. Kerman, S. (1979). “Teacher Expectations and Student Achievement.” Phi Delta Kappan McCarthy, J. P. and Anderson, L. (2000), “Active Learning Techniques versus Traditional Teaching Styles: Two Experiments from History and Political Science,” Innovative Higher Education, 24(4), 279-94. Powell, K., & Kalina, C. (2009). Cognitive and social constructivism: Developing tools for an effective classroom. Education, 130(2), 241-250. Woo, M. A., and Kimmick, J. V. (2000), “Comparison of Internet versus Lecture Instructional Methods for Teaching Nursing Research,” Journal of Professional Nursing, 16(3), 132-39.