Research Article

Technology integrated guided inquiry-based learning approach and pre-service mathematics teachers’ attitude towards learning geometry

Dereje Eshetu 1 * , Mulugeta Atnafu 1 , Mulugeta Woldemichael 1
More Detail
1 Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa, ETHIOPIA* Corresponding Author
Mediterranean Journal of Social & Behavioral Research, 7(1), February 2023, 3-13, https://doi.org/10.30935/mjosbr/12560
Submitted: 10 May 2022, Published Online: 20 October 2022, Published: 01 January 2023
OPEN ACCESS   1713 Views   1036 Downloads
Download Full Text (PDF)

ABSTRACT

The study investigated the effects of technology-integrated guided inquiry (TGIBL), guided inquiry (GIBL), and traditional (TRAD) strategies on pre-service mathematics teachers’ attitudes towards geometry in college of teacher educations. The study employed nonequivalent quasi-experimental design with two experimental groups and control group. A three-stage sampling method was used. The experimental groups were exposed to TGIBL (n=48) and GIBL (n=38), while comparison group (n=30) with TRAD approach. The geometry attitude scale (GAS) questionnaire was the instrument employed to collect data from 116 PSMT. A one-way analysis of covariance, multiple comparison test and paired sample t-test were used to analyze data. The results of the study revealed that pre-service mathematics teachers who were exposed to the TGIBL had gained positive attitudes towards learning geometry than their counterparts exposed to the GIBL and TRAD, respectively. Moreover, the group taught with GIBL also shown to have a statistically significant difference with TRAD on attitude. Similarly, paired sample t-test also favored post-test score. Based on the results, TGIBL and GIBL approach should be embraced in the college of teacher educations to reinforce favorable attitudes towards learning geometry among pre-service mathematics teachers.
Keywords: technology-integrated guided inquiry, guided inquiry, attitude, geometry

CITATION (APA)

Eshetu, D., Atnafu, M., & Woldemichael, M. (2023). Technology integrated guided inquiry-based learning approach and pre-service mathematics teachers’ attitude towards learning geometry. Mediterranean Journal of Social & Behavioral Research, 7(1), 3-13. https://doi.org/10.30935/mjosbr/12560

REFERENCES

  1. Abaniel, A. (2021). Enhanced conceptual understanding, 21st century skills and learning attitudes through an open inquiry learning model in Physics. JOTSE, 11(1), 30-43. https://doi.org/10.3926/jotse.1004
  2. Abdi, A. (2014). The effect of inquiry-based learning method on students’ academic achievement in science course. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 2, 37-41. https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2014.020104
  3. Abdullah, A. H., & Zakaria, E. (2013). The effects of van Hiele’s phase-based instruction using the geometer’s sketchpad (GSP) on students’ level of geometric thinking. Research Journal of Applied Sciences, Engineering and Technology, 5(5), 1652-1660. https://doi.org/10.19026/rjaset.5.4919
  4. Adelson, J. L., & McCoach, D. B. (2011). Development and psychometric properties of the math and me survey: Measuring third through sixth graders’ attitudes toward mathematics. Measurement and Evaluation in Counselling and Development, 44(4), 225-247. https://doi.org/10.1177/0748175611418522
  5. Albay, E. M. (2020). Towards a 21st century mathematics classroom: Investigating the effects of the problem-solving approach among tertiary education students. Asia-Pacific Social Science Review, 20(2), 69-86.
  6. Atanasova-Pachemska, T., Lazarova, L., Arsov, J., Pacemska, S., & Trifunov, Z. (2015). Determination of the factors that form the students’ attitude towards mathematics. Mathematics Education Research, 8(12), 1-8.
  7. Atebe, H. U., & Schäfer, M. (2008). “As soon as the four sides are all equal, then the angles must be 90° each”. Children’s misconceptions in geometry. African Journal of Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 12(2), 47-65. https://doi.org/10.1080/10288457.2008.10740634
  8. Atebe, H. U., & Schäfer, M. (2011). The nature of geometry instruction and observed learning-outcomes opportunities in Nigerian and South African high schools. African Journal of Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 15(2), 191-204. https://doi.org/10.1080/10288457.2011.10740712
  9. Audu, C., Ajayi, V. O., & Ajayi, E. (2017). Influence of class size on students’ classroom discipline, engagement and communication: a case study of senior secondary schools in Ekiti state, Nigeria. Sky Journal of Educational Research, 5(5), 034-041.
  10. Bekele, T. A. (2018). Context in comparative and international education studies. Annual Review of Comparative and International Education, 34. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1479-367920180000034022
  11. Birgin, O., & Topuz, F. (2021). Effect of the GeoGebra software-supported collaborative learning environment on seventh grade students’ geometry achievement, retention and attitudes. The Journal of Educational Research, 114(5), 474-494. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2021.1983505
  12. Bodner, G., & Elmas, R. (2020). The impact of inquiry-based, group-work approaches to instruction on both students and their peer leaders. European Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 8(1), 51-66. https://doi.org/10.30935/scimath/9546
  13. Cavus, H., & Deniz, S. (2021). The effect of technology assisted teaching on success in mathematics and geometry: A meta-analysis study. Participatory Educational Research, 9(2), 358-397. https://doi.org/10.17275/per.22.45.9.2
  14. Clements, D. H., & Sarama, J. (2011). Early childhood teacher education: the case of geometry. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 14(2), 133-148. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-011-9173-0
  15. Clements, D. H., Sarama, J., Swaminathan, S., Weber, D., & Trawick-Smith, J. (2018). Teaching and learning geometry: Early foundations. Quadrante, 27(2), 7-31.
  16. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Erlbaum.
  17. Cooke, A. (2015). Considering pre-service teacher disposition towards mathematics. Mathematics Teacher Education and Development, 17(1), 1-11.
  18. Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Sage Publications.
  19. Davadas, S. D., & Lay, Y. F. (2017). Factors affecting students’ attitude toward mathematics: A structural equation modeling approach. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 14(1), 517-529. https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/80356
  20. Demir, C. G., & Onal, N. (2021). The effect of technology-assisted and project-based learning approaches on students’ attitudes towards mathematics and their academic achievement. Education and Information Technologies, 26(3), 3375-3397. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10398-8
  21. Deringol, Y., Zengin, A. N., & Ozturk, S. (2021). The effect of jigsaw II technique on mathematic attitudes and constructive learning. International Online Journal of Primary Education, 10(2), 344-360.
  22. Edmonds, W. A., & Kennedy, T. D. (2016). An applied guide to research designs: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods. SAGE. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781071802779
  23. Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS. SAGE.
  24. Fraenkel, J.R., & Wallen, N. E. (2006). How to design and evaluate research in education. McGraw Hill.
  25. Fyfe, E. R., McNeil, N. M., & Borjas, S. (2015). Benefits of concreteness fading for children's mathematics understanding. Learning and Instruction, 35, 104-120.
  26. Gambari, I. A. (2010). Effect of computer-supported cooperative learning strategies on the performance of senior secondary students in physics, in Minna, Nigeria [Unpublished PhD thesis]. University of Ilorin.
  27. George, D. M., & Mallery, E. P. (2010). SPSS for Windows step by step. A simple study guide and reference. https://wps.ablongman.com/wps/media/objects/385/394732/george4answers.pdf
  28. Getenet, S. T. (2020). Designing a professional development program for mathematics teachers for effective use of technology in teaching. Education and Information Technologies, 25(3), 1855-1873. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019-10056-8
  29. Gresham, G. (2017). Preservice to inservice: Does mathematics anxiety change with teaching experience? Journal of Teacher Education, 69(1), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487117702580
  30. Guner, N. (2012). Using metaphor analysis to explore high school students’ attitudes towards learning mathematics. Education, 133(1), 39-48.
  31. Guy, G. M., Cornick, J., & Beckford, I. (2015). More than math: On the affective domain in developmental mathematics. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 9(2), 7. https://doi.org/10.20429/ijsotl.2015.090207
  32. Hannafin, R. D., Truxaw, M. P., Vermillion, J. R., & Liu, Y. (2008). Effects of spatial ability and instructional program on geometry achievement. The Journal of Educational Research, 101(3), 148-157. https://doi.org/10.3200/JOER.101.3.148-157
  33. Hathaway, D., & Norton, P. (2018). Evaluating learning outcomes. In Understanding problems of practice (pp. 51-61). Springer, Cham.
  34. Juandi, D., Kusumah, Y., Tamur, M., Perbowo, K., Siagian, M., Sulastri, R., & Negara, H. (2021). The effectiveness of dynamic geometry software applications in learning mathematics: A meta-analysis study. International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies, 15(02), 18-37. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijim.v15i02.18853
  35. Kasa, M. W. Y. (2015). Mathematics teachers’ education and teachers’ professional competence in Ethiopia [Unpublished PhD thesis]. Addis Ababa University.
  36. Kilpatrick, J., Swafford, J., & Findell, B. (2001). The strands of mathematical proficiency. Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics, 115-118.
  37. Kupari, P., & Nissinen, K. (2013). Background factors behind mathematics achievement in Finnish education context: Explanatory models based on TIMSS 1999 and TIMSS 2011 data. In Proceedings of the IEA CONFERENCE 2013.
  38. Kutluca, T. (2013). The effect of geometry instruction with dynamic geometry software; GeoGebra on van Hiele geometry understanding levels of students. Educational Research and Reviews, 8(17), 1509-1518.
  39. Lazonder, A. W., & Harmsen, R. (2016). Meta-analysis of inquiry-based learning: Effects of guidance. Review of Educational Research, 86(3), 681-718. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315627366
  40. Maaß, K., & Artigue, M. (2013). Implementation of inquiry-based learning in day-to-day teaching: A synthesis. ZDM Mathematics Education, 45, 779-795. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-013-0528-0
  41. Mazana, Y. M., Suero Montero, C., & Olifage, C. R. (2019). Investigating students' attitude towards learning mathematics.
  42. McMillan, J. H. (2012). Educational research: Fundamentals for the consumer (6th Edn.). Pearson Education.
  43. Meng, C. C., & Idris, N. (2012). Enhancing students’ geometric thinking and achievement in solid geometry. Journal of Mathematics Education, 5(1), 15-33.
  44. Mensah, J. K., Okyere, M., & Kuranchie, A. (2013). Student attitude towards mathematics and performance: Does the teacher attitude matter? Journal of Education and Practice, 4(3), 132-139.
  45. MOE. (2012). Content and pedagogical standards for mathematics teachers. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: Ministry of Education.
  46. MOE. (2013). The national professional standards for teachers. A blueprint material.
  47. MOE. (2015). Education sector development program V (ESDP V). Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia.
  48. MOE. (2017). Ethiopian third national learning assessment of grade 10 and 12 students achievement. National Educational Assessment and Examinations Agency.
  49. MOE. (2018). Ethiopian education development roadmap draft. An integrated executive summary.
  50. Mohamed, L., & Waheed, H. (2011). Secondary students’ attitude towards mathematics in a selected school of Maldives. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 1(15), 277-281.
  51. Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Foy, P., Kelly, D. L., & Fishbein, B. (2020). TIMSS 2019 international results in mathematics and science [Paper presentation]. The TIMSS & PIRLS International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement.
  52. Ngussa, B. M., & Mbuti, E. E. (2017). The influence of humour on learners’ attitude and mathematics achievement: A case of secondary schools in Arusha City, Tanzania. Journal of Educational Research, 2(3), 170-181.
  53. Pfeiffer, C. (2017). A study of the development of mathematical knowledge in a geogebra-focused learning environment [Doctoral dissertation, Stellenbosch University].
  54. Russo, J. A., & Russo, T. (2019). Teacher interest-led inquiry: Unlocking teacher passion to enhance student learning experiences in primary mathematics. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 14(3), 701e717. https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/5843
  55. Saha, R. A., Ayub, A. F. M., & Tarmizi, R. A. (2010). The effects of GeoGebra on mathematics achievement: Enlightening coordinate geometry learning. International Conference on Mathematics Education Research, 8, 686-693. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.12.095
  56. Semela, T. (2014). Teacher preparation in Ethiopia: A critical analysis of reforms. Cambridge Journal of Education, 44(1), 113-145. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764X.2013.860080
  57. Siew, N. M., & Abdullah, S. (2013). Learning geometry in a large-enrollment class: Do tangrams help in developing students’ geometric thinking? British Journal of Education, Society & Behavioural Science, 2(3), 239-259. https://doi.org/10.9734/BJESBS/2012/1612
  58. Siew, N. M., Chang, C. L., & Abdullah, M. R. (2013). Facilitating students’ geometric thinking through van Hiele’s phase-based learning using tangram. Journal of Social Science, 9(3), 101-111. https://doi.org/10.3844/jssp.2013.101.111
  59. Simegn, E. M., & Asfaw, Z. G. (2018). Assessing the influence of attitude towards mathematics on achievement of grade 10 and 12 female students in comparison with their male counterparts: Wolkite, Ethiopia. International Journal of Secondary Education, 5(5), 56. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijsedu.20170505.11
  60. Syyeda, F. (2016). Understanding attitudes towards mathematics (ATM) using a multimodal model: An exploratory case study with secondary school children in England. Cambridge Open-Review Educational Research e-Journal, 3, 32-62.
  61. Tapia, M. (1996). The attitudes toward mathematics instrument [Paper presentation]. The Annual Meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association.
  62. Tapia, M., & Marsh, G. E. (2004). An instrument to measure mathematics attitudes. Academic Exchange Quarterly, 8(2), 16-22.
  63. Tavakol, M., & Dennick, R. (2011). Making sense of Cronbach's alpha. International journal of medical education, 2, 53.
  64. Tsao, Y. L. (2018). The effect of constructivist instructional-based mathematics course on the attitude toward geometry of pre-service elementary school teachers. US-China Education Review A, 8(1), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.17265/2161-623X/2018.1.001
  65. Tutal, O., & Yazar, T. (2022). Active learning promotes more positive attitudes towards the course: A meta-analysis. Review of Education, 10(1), e3346. https://doi.org/10.1002/rev3.3346
  66. Usman, H., Yew, W. T., & Saleh, S. (2019). Effects of van Hiele’s phase-based teaching strategy and gender on pre-service mathematics teachers’ attitude towards geometry in Niger State, Nigeria. African Journal of Educational Studies in Mathematics and Sciences, 15, 61-75. https://doi.org/10.4314/ajesms.v15i1.6
  67. Utley, J. (2007). Construction and validity of geometry attitude scales. School Science and Mathematics, 107(3), 89-93. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2007.tb17774.x
  68. Yudt, K. E. (2019). The effect of blended learning in preservice elementary mathematics teachers’ performance and attitude [Doctoral dissertation, Lehigh University].
  69. Yunus, A. S., & Ali, W. Z. (2009). Motivation in the learning of mathematics. European Journal of Social Sciences, 7(4), 93-101.
  70. Zuiker, S. J., & Whitaker, J. R. (2014). Refining inquiry with multi-form assessment: Formative and summative assessment functions for flexible inquiry. International Journal of Science Education, 36(6), 1037-1059. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2013.834489