Advertisement

Learning Environments Research

, Volume 18, Issue 1, pp 1–13 | Cite as

Effectiveness of teaching strategies for engaging adults who experienced childhood difficulties in learning mathematics

  • Abeer Hasan
  • Barry J. FraserEmail author
Original Paper

Abstract

We investigated whether the introduction of a variety of activity-based teaching strategies into college-level mathematics classes in the United Arab Emirates was effective in terms of the nature of the classroom learning environment and students’ satisfaction. In addition, we investigated how the use of personally-relevant and concrete activities changed the learning environment in ways that were perceived to be beneficial by adults who had experienced failure. For a sample of 84 students from eight classes in the Higher Colleges of Technology, the learning environment was assessed with a modified Arabic version of four scales (Involvement, Task Orientation, Personalisation and Individualisation) from the College and University Classroom Environment Inventory (CUCEI) and Satisfaction was also measured with a scale from the same instrument. As well, five case-study students were involved in assessing the learning environment through observations, semi-structured interviews and focus-group interviews in order to link qualitative information with the constructs assessed by the CUCEI.

Keywords

Activity-based teaching Adult learners College and University Classroom Environment Inventory (CUCEI) Learning environment Satisfaction United Arab Emirates 

References

  1. Aldridge, J. M., Fraser, B. J., & Huang, I. T. C. (1999). Investigating classroom environments in Taiwan and Australia with multiple research methods. Journal of Educational Research, 93, 48–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aldridge, J. M., Laugksch, R. C., & Fraser, B. J. (2006). School-level environment and outcomes-based education in South Africa. Learning Environments Research, 9, 123–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baxter, P., & Jack, S. (2008). Qualitative case study methodology: Study design and implementation for novice researchers. The Qualitative Report, 13, 544–559.Google Scholar
  4. Bragg, L. A. (2007). Students’ conflicting attitudes towards games as a vehicle for learning mathematics: A methodological dilemma. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 19, 29–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chionh, Y. H., & Fraser, B. J. (2009). Classroom environment, achievement, attitudes and self-esteem in geography and mathematics in Singapore. International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 18, 29–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Coakes, S., & Steed, L. (2005). SPSS: Analysis without anguish: Version 12.0 for Windows. Milton: Wiley.Google Scholar
  7. Cockcroft, W. (1982). Mathematics counts: Report of the committee of inquiry into the teaching of mathematics in school. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
  8. Cohen, J. (1977). Statistical power analysis for the behaviorial sciences. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  9. Cooper, B. (2001). Social class and ‘real-life’ mathematics assessments. In P. Gates (Ed.), Issues in mathematics teaching (pp. 245–258). London: Routledge-Falmer.Google Scholar
  10. Cooper, B., & Dunne, M. (2000). Assessing children’s mathematical knowledge: Social class, sex and problem solving. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Dorman, J. P. (2001). Associations between classroom environment and academic efficacy. Learning Environments Research, 4, 243–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dorman, J. P., & Fraser, B. J. (2009). Psychological environment and affective outcomes in technology-rich classrooms: Testing a causal model. Social Psychology of Education, 12, 77–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ercikan, K. (1998). Translation effects in international assessments. International Journal of Educational Research, 29, 543–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fisher, D. L., & Fraser, B. J. (1981). Validity and use of my class inventory. Science Education, 65, 145–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Forman, S. L., & Steen, L. (1999). Beyond eighth grade: Functional mathematics for life and work. Berkeley, CA: National Center for Research in Vocational Education.Google Scholar
  16. Fraser, B. J. (1998). Classroom environment instruments: Development, validity and applications. Learning Environments Research, 1, 7–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fraser, B. J. (2007). Classroom learning environments. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 103–124). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  18. Fraser, B. J. (2012). Classroom learning environments: Retrospect, context and prospect. In B. J. Fraser, K. G. Tobin, & C. J. McRobbie (Eds.), Second international handbook of science education (pp. 1191–1239). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fraser, B. J., & Treagust, D. F. (1986). Validity and use of an instrument for assessing classroom psychosocial environment in higher education. Higher Education, 15, 37–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fraser, B. J., Treagust, D. F., & Dennis, (1986). Development of an instrument for assessing classroom psychosocial environment in universities and colleges. Studies in Higher Education, 11, 43–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fraser, B. J., Williamson, J. C., & Tobin, K. (1987). Use of classroom and school climate scales in evaluating alternative high schools. Teaching and Teacher Education, 3, 219–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gaad, E., Arif, M., & Scott, F. (2006). Systems analysis of the UAE education system. International Journal of Educational Management, 20, 291–303.Google Scholar
  23. Gosen, J., & Washbush, J. (2004). A review of scholarship on assessing experiential learning effectiveness. Simulation and Gaming, 35, 270–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gough, J. (1999). Playing (mathematics) games: When is a game not a game? Australian Primary Mathematics Classroom, 4(2), 12–17.Google Scholar
  25. Hartshorne, H., & May, M. (1928). Deceit measures. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  26. Hayman, M. (1975). To each according to his needs. Mathematical Gazette, 59, 17–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hendricks, J. (1997). First step towards teaching. Columbus, OH: Merrill.Google Scholar
  28. Her Majesty’s Inspectorate. (1985). Mathematics 5–16: Curriculum matters. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
  29. Khine, M. S., & Saleh, I. H. (2009). Gameplay habits among middle school students: A descriptive study. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 34, 431–440.Google Scholar
  30. Kilgour, P. W. (2006). Student, teacher and parent perceptions of classroom environment in streamed and unstreamed mathematics classrooms. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Curtin University of Technology, Perth.Google Scholar
  31. Kirriemuir, J., & McFarlane, A. (2004). Literature review in games and learning. Bristol, UK: Futurelab.Google Scholar
  32. Knowles, M. S. (1984). Andragogy in action. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  33. Lewin, K. (1936). Principles of topological psychology. New York: McGraw.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Logan, K. A., Crump, B. J., & Rennie, L. J. (2006). Measuring the computer classroom environment: Lessons learned from using a new instrument. Learning Environments Research, 9, 67–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. MacLeod, C., & Fraser, B. J. (2010). Development, validation and application of a modified Arabic translation of the What Is Happening In This Class? (WIHIC) questionnaire. Learning Environments Research, 13, 105–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Majeed, A., Fraser, B. J., & Aldridge, J. M. (2002). Learning environment and its association with student satisfaction among mathematics students in Brunei Darussalam. Learning Environments Research, 5, 203–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Maor, D., & Fraser, B. J. (1996). Use of classroom environment perceptions in evaluating inquiry based computer assisted learning. International Journal of Science Education, 18, 401–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Martin-Dunlop, C., & Fraser, B. J. (2008). Learning environment and attitudes associated with an innovative course designed for prospective elementary teachers. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 6, 163–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Massey, A. P., Brown, S. A., & Johnston, J. D. (2005). It’s all fun and games…Until students learn. Journal of Information Systems Education, 16, 9–14.Google Scholar
  40. McCannon, M., & Crews, T. B. (2000). Assessing the technology needs of elementary school teachers. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 8, 111–121.Google Scholar
  41. McGrath, V. (2009). Reviewing the evidence on how adult students learn: An examination of Knowles’ model of andragogy. The Irish Journal of Adult and Community Education, 99–110. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED860562).Google Scholar
  42. Mink, D. V., & Fraser, B. J. (2005). Evaluation of a K–5 mathematics program which integrates children’s literature: Classroom environment and attitudes. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 3, 59–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Moldavan, C. C. (2007). Attitudes towards mathematics of precalculus and calculus students. Focus on learning problems in mathematics. Retrieved October 08, 2012, from http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Attitudes+towards+mathematics+.
  44. Nayak, A. K., & Rao, V. K. (2002). Classroom teaching methods and practices. New Delhi: Nangia & A.P.H. Publishers.Google Scholar
  45. Nix, R. K., Fraser, B. J., & Ledbetter, C. E. (2005). Evaluating an integrated science learning environment using the Constructivist Learning Environment Survey. Learning Environments Research, 8, 109–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Ogbuehi, P. I., & Fraser, B. J. (2007). Learning environment, attitudes and conceptual development associated with innovative strategies in middle-school mathematics. Learning Environments Research, 10, 101–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Owens, K. (2005). Substantive communication of space mathematics in upper primary school. In H. L. Chick & J. I. Vincent (Eds.), Proceedings of the 29th annual conference of the international group for the psychology of mathematics education (Vol. 4, pp. 33–40). Melbourne: PME.Google Scholar
  48. Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  49. Proserpio, L., & Gioia, D. (2007). Teaching the virtual generation. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 6, 69–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Rowland, V., & Birkett, K. (1992). Personal effectiveness for teacher. Hempstead: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
  51. Shaw, K. E., Badri, A. A., & Hukul, A. (1995). Management concerns in the United Arab Emirates state school. International Journal of Educational Management, 9, 8–13.Google Scholar
  52. Spinner, H., & Fraser, B. J. (2005). Evaluation of an innovative mathematics program in terms of classroom environment, student attitudes, and conceptual development. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 3, 267–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Taylor, P. C., Fraser, B. J., & Fisher, D. L. (1997). Monitoring constructivist classroom learning environments. International Journal of Educational Research, 27, 293–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Thompson, B. (1998). Review of ‘what if there were no significance tests?’. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 58, 334–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Tolman, M. N. (1999). Hands-on science activities. New York: Parker Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  56. Warwick, D. P., & Osherson, S. (1973). Comparative analysis in the social sciences. In D. P. Warwick & S. Osherson (Eds.), Comparative research methods: An overview (pp. 3–41). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  57. Wolf, S. J., & Fraser, B. J. (2008). Learning environment, attitudes and achievement among middle-school science students using inquiry-based laboratory activities. Research in Science Education, 38, 321–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Zantow, K., Knowlton, D. S., & Sharp, D. C. (2005). More than fun and games: Reconsidering the virtues of strategic management simulations. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4, 451–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Emirates College of Advanced EducationAbu DhabiUnited Arab Emirates
  2. 2.Science and Mathematics Education CentreCurtin UniversityPerthAustralia

Personalised recommendations