• Svjetllana KërënxhiEmail author
  • Pranvera Gjoci


In this paper, we recommend mathematical teaching through dual treatments. The dual treatments notion, classified in dual interpretations, dual analyses, dual solutions, and dual formulations, is explained through concrete examples taken from mathematical textbooks of elementary education. Dual treatments provide opportunities for creating different points of view on a mathematical situation and thus developing the integrative perceptions of the students. Teaching through dual treatments for integrative perceptions formation was evaluated during the 2010–2011 and 2011–2012 academic school year periods. Data were evaluated using ANOVA and t test analyses. The study, involving 205 students in the first grade of the elementary education, demonstrated that mathematical teaching through dual treatments (1) influences the integrative perceptions formation; (2) there is no significant difference between girls and boys after the implementation of teaching through dual treatments in integrative perceptions formation.


dual treatment elementary education integrative perception teaching mathematics 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Anderson, R. C., Hiebert, E. H., Scott, J. A. & Wilkinson, I. A. G. (1985). Becoming a nation of readers: The report of the commission on reading. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois.Google Scholar
  2. Artstein-Avidan, S. & Milman, V. (2007). A characterization of the concept of duality. Electronic Research Announcements in Mathematical Sciences, 14, 42–59.Google Scholar
  3. Bailin, S., Case, R., Coombs, J. R. & Daniels, L. B. (1999). Conceptualizing critical thinking. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 31(3), 285–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Banks, J. A. (1988). Education, citizenship, and cultural options. Education and Society, 1(1), 19–22.Google Scholar
  5. Boriçi, A. (2004). Teste dhe më tej në matematikën 1. Shkodër: Camaj-Pipaj.Google Scholar
  6. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  7. Dedej, K., Spahiu, E. & Konçi, Z. (2010). Matematika 1: për klasën e parë të shkollës 9-vjeçare. Tiranë: SHBLSH e Re.Google Scholar
  8. Egan, K. (1998). The Educated Mind: How Cognitive Tools Shape Our Understanding. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  9. Fisher, R. (1995). Teaching children to Learn. Cheltenham, United Kingdom: Stanley Thornes.Google Scholar
  10. Gao, D. Y. (2000). Duality principles in nonconvex systems: Theory, methods and applications. Boston/Dordrecht/London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gjoci, P. & Kërënxhi, S. (2010). Dual interpretations in primary education mathematics as aspect of critical thinking of students. Odgojne znanosti – Educational Sciences, 2(20), 413–426.Google Scholar
  12. Gjoci, P. & Kërënxhi, S. (2013). Duality and the importance of dual treatments’ inclusion in teaching. Journal of Education & Social Research, 3(7), 631–638.Google Scholar
  13. Gjoci, P. & Kërënxhi, S. (2014). Teaching through dual treatments and its influence on students’ successful mathematical thinking. Journal of Education & Social Research, 4(6), 186–193.Google Scholar
  14. Hallpike, C. R. (1979). The foundations of primitive thought. Oxford, United Kingdom: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  15. Hastie, R. (1980). Memory for behavioral information that confirms or contradicts a personality impression. In R. Hastie, T. M. Ostrom, E. B. Ebbesen, R. S. Wyer, D. L. Hamilton & D. E. Carlston (Eds.), Person memory: The cognitive basis of social perception (pp. 155–178). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  16. IKS. (2010). Programi mësimor matematik, klasa I–V. Tiranë: MASH.Google Scholar
  17. IKS. (2011). Programi mësimor matematik, klasa I–V. Tiranë: MASH.Google Scholar
  18. Kërënxhi, S. & Gjoci, P. (2013). A new methodical treatment for math teaching and its effect on math learning. Journal of Education & Social Research, 3(7), 662–670.Google Scholar
  19. Kërënxhi, S. & Gjoci, P. (2014). Formation of dual perceptions through dual treatments. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 5(20), 1385–1393.Google Scholar
  20. Korneyeva, Y. N. & Yastrebov, A. V. (2004). Invariant properties of psychology and their reflection in the process of teaching. Yaroslavl Psychological Gazette, 12, 124–134. in Russian.Google Scholar
  21. Kuhn, D. (1999). A developmental model of critical thinking. Educational Researcher, 28(2), 16–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kuhn, D. & Dean, D. (2004). A bridge between cognitive psychology and educational practice. Theory Into Practice, 43(4), 268–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kuhn, D. & Pearsall, S. (1998). Relations between metastrategic knowledge and strategic performance. Cognitive Development, 13(2), 227–247.Google Scholar
  24. Martin, R. L. (2007). The opposable mind: How successful leaders win through integrative thinking. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School.Google Scholar
  25. Palincsar, A. S. & Brown, A. L. (1989). Instruction for self-regulated reading. In L. B. Resnick & L. B. Klopfer (Eds.), Towards the thinking curriculum: Current cognitive research (pp. 19–39). Arlington, Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
  26. Pettijohn, T. F. (1996). Psychology (2nd ed.). Tiranë: Lilo. in Albanian.Google Scholar
  27. Pithers, R. T. & Soden, R. (2000). Critical thinking in education: A review. Educational Research, 42(3), 237–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Resnick, L. B. (1987). Education and learning to think. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  29. Schön, D. A. (1993). Generative metaphor: A perspective on problem-setting in social policy. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (2nd ed., pp. 137–163). Cambirdge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Silva, E. (2008). Measuring Skills for the 21st Century [Report]. Washington, DC: Education Sector.
  31. Tato, A., Mukli, L., Musai, B., Cenollari, M. & Prifti, S. (2011). Matematika 1. Tiranë: Edualba.Google Scholar
  32. Temple, C., Crawford, A., Saul, W., Mathews, S. & Makinster, J. (2006). Strategji të mësimdhënies dhe të të nxënit për klasat mendimtare, udhëzime për trajnuesit. Tiranë: QAD.Google Scholar
  33. Trochim, W. M. K. (2001). The research methods knowledge base (2nd ed.). Cincinnati, OH: Atomic Dog Publishing.Google Scholar
  34. Turuntayev, S. V. & Yastrebov, A. V. (2005). Manifestations dualistic physics properties in teaching specific topics. Yaroslavl Pedagogical Gazette, 2, 114–120. in Russian.Google Scholar
  35. Valeeva, N. A. & Yastrebov, A. V. (2009). Dualistic properties of history and their reflection in the process of teaching in high school. Ярославский педагогический вестник [Yaroslavl Pedagogical Gazette] 1, 24–31.Google Scholar
  36. Willingham, D.T. (2007). Critical thinking: Why is it so hard to teach? American Educator, 31(2), 8–19.Google Scholar
  37. Yastrebov, A. V. (2001). Dualistic properties of mathematics and their reflection in the process of teaching. Ярославский педагогический вестник [Yaroslavl Pedagogical Gazette] 1, 48–53.Google Scholar
  38. Yastrebov, A. V., Menshikova, N. A. & Yepifanova, N. M. (2006). Identifying dualistic properties of science in the process of teaching in elementary mathematics. Ярославский педагогический вестник [Yaroslavl Pedagogical Gazette] 4, 87–93.Google Scholar
  39. Yastrebov, А. V. & Yastrebov, М. V. (2009). Dualistic properties of biology and their reflection in its teaching. Ярославский педагогический вестник [Yaroslavl Pedagogical Gazette], 60(3), 33–41.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of ElbasanElbasanAlbania

Personalised recommendations