Home⇛International Journal of Multidisciplinary: Applied Business and Education Research⇛vol. 5 no. 2 (2024)

Promoting Students’ Conceptual Understanding through Directive Teacher Guidance and Non-directive Teaching Model in a Collaborative Problem Solving

Ilene D.S Bunag

Discipline: Teacher Training

 

Abstract:

This study examined and aimed to promote students’ level of conceptual understanding in problem-solving through Directive Teacher Guidance (DTG) and the Non-directive Teaching Model (NDTM). The study employed sequential-explanatory mixed research using quasi-experimental switching replication treatment involving quantitative and qualitative data. Two groups of Grade 8 high school students were used as participants in the study. One group had 36 students, and the other had 38 students exposed to DTG and NDTM approaches. Quantitative data were obtained from the scores of students from the pretest, first posttest, and second posttest about the topics in Mathematics subject. Qualitative data were from the analysis of participants’ responses in problem-solving, focus group discussion, and classroom observation. The t-test for the dependent sample was utilized to determine the significant change in students’ level of conceptual understanding after the first and second implementation phases, while the t-test for the independent sample was used to find out the significant difference between the pretest and posttests between the two groups. Results showed that students’ conceptual understanding and problem-solving skills significantly improved after exposure to the two approaches. The two groups’ levels of conceptual understanding in switching replication treatment are found to have no significant difference. Moreover, participants preferred guided questions and guided directions and believed in the importance of attaining a conceptual understanding of the lesson. It is suggested to integrate DTG and NDTM as teaching strategies and conduct a study considering a longer span of implementation to determine the effectiveness of the two approaches.



References:

  1. Abbot, S. (2013). Instructional Strategy: Direct Instruction. The Glossary of Education Re-form. https://www.edglossary.org/direct-instruction/
  2. Andamon, J., & Tan, D. (2018). Conceptual un-derstanding, attitude and performance in Mathematics of Grade 7 students. Inter-national Journal of Scientific and Tech-nology Research, 7, 96-105. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/327135996_Conceptual_Understanding_Attitude_And_Performance_In_Mathematics_Of_Grade_7_Students
  3. Andrew, R. (2016). Conceptual Understanding – What is it. http://www.learnimplementshare.com/procedural-vsconceptual-math-comparison.html
  4. Bakaç, M. & Taşoǧlu, A. (2014). The effect of problem-based learning approach on conceptual understanding in teaching of magnetism topics. Eurasian Journal of Physics & Chemistry Education, 6(2), 110-122. www.ijpce.org/pdf-78498-14515?filename=The%20Effect%20of%20Problem.pdf
  5. Bergqvist, T., Remilland, J. & Van Steenbrugge, H. (2015). Balancing Educative and Di-rective Guidance in Teacher Guides in Three Teaching Cultures. Hoobart, Aus-tralia PME, 1, 149. urn:nbn:se:umu:diva-107216
  6. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Re-search in Psychology, 3, 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
  7. Brhane, H. & Abebe, G. (2014). Comparison of teaching methods in terms of conceptual understanding of newtonian mechanics: The case of freshman students at Jigjiga University, Ethiopia. Middle Eastern and African Journal of Educational Research, 10, 44- 56. http://www.majersite.org/issue10/199.pdf
  8. Budé, L., Van de Wiel, M., Imbos, T., & Berger, M. (2011). The effect of directive tutor guidance on students’ conceptual under-standing of statistics in problem-based learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 309-324. www.wileyonlinelibrary.com/doi:10.1348/00070910X513933
  9. Dean, D. & Kuhn, D. (2006). Direct instruction vs. discovery: The long view. Science Ed-ucation, 91, 384-397. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20194
  10. Dicdiquin, J. B., Mobo, F. D., & Cutillas, A. L. (2023). Evaluating the Effectiveness of Professional Development Programs for Junior High School Mathematics Teachers in Improving Mathematics Instruction in the K to 12 Curriculum in the Philippines. International Journal of Multidisciplinary: Applied Business and Education Research. 4(4), 1143 – 1153. Doi: 10.11594/ijmaber.04.04.12
  11. Firdaus, F. M., Wahyudin, & Herman, T. (2017). Improving primary students’ mathemati-cal literacy through problem-based learn-ing and direct instruction. Educational Research & Reviews, 12, 212-219. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1132197.pdf
  12. Fisher, J. (2013). Non-directive Teaching. https://jfisher14.wordpress.com/2013/02/23/non-directive-teaching/
  13. Gonzales, S. (2017). The Non-directive Model: Teaching in the Student’s Direction. Aca-demia Edu, 1-13. academ-ia.edu/35564019/
  14. Heick, T. (2016). 4 Teaching Tips for more Ef-fective Direct Instruction. http://www.teachtought.com/learning/4-teaching-tips-for-more-effective-direct-instruction/
  15. Kirschner, P., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. (2010). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: an analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experimental and inquiry based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41:2, 75-86. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15326985ep4102
  16. Mahawan, A. M. & Celedonio, M. A. (2023). Ef-fectiveness of Computer-Aided Instruc-tion on Students’ Conceptual Understand-ing in Life Science. International Journal of Multidisciplinary: Applied Business and Education Research, 4(2), 388 – 401, doi:10.11594/ijmaber.04.02.06
  17. Mangilit, R. (2013) Probing Students’ Concep-tual Understanding in Plane Trigonome-try through Computer-Enriched Differen-tial Instructional Strategies (Unpublished Master’s Thesis). Bulacan State Universi-ty, City of Malolos, Bulacan.
  18. Montero, J. C. & Geducos, D. T. (2022). Im-proved Conceptual Understanding in Learning Biology through Localized and Contextualized Learning Activities. Inter-national Journal of Multidisciplinary: Ap-plied Business and Education Research. 3(7), 1231 – 1238. Doi: 10.11594/ijmaber.03.07.01
  19. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2010). Research Brief: Why is teaching with problem solving important to stu-dent learning? https://education.wsu.edu/documents/2018/12/center-public-education-rural-schools-report.pdf/
  20. National Research Council. (2001). Adding it up: Helping children Learn Mathematics. Washington DC: National Academy Press. https://www.maa.org/external_archive/devlin/devlin_09_07.html
  21. Omari, T. & Chen, V. (2016). What is Conceptu-al Understanding? http://www.gettingsmart.com/2016/08/what-is-conceptual-understanding/
  22. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2013). PISA 2015 collaborative problem solving frame-works. http://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/pisa2015draftframeworks.htm
  23. Patalinghug, J, S. & Arnado, A. A. (2021). Mathematics Teachers’ Technological Pedagogical and Content Knowledge and their Capacity for Differentiated Instruc-tion. International Journal of Multidisci-plinary: Applied Business and Education Research. 2&7), 574 – 586 doi: 101.11594/ijmaber.02.07.05
  24. Pedrosa, H. (2014). Different approaches in Teaching and Learning Mathematics: Tools for Developing Problem Solving Ac-tivities (Unpublished Master’s Thesis). Bu-lacan State University, City of Malolos, Bulacan.
  25. Petersen, M. (2015). Understanding and Apply-ing Instructional Strategies. https://mollympetersen.wordpress.com/2015/03/15/understanding-and-applying-instructional-strategies/
  26. PISA 2018 National Report. https://www.deped.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/PISA-2018-Philippine-National-Report.pdf
  27. Science Education Institute & Mathematics Teacher Education (2011). Framework for Philippine Mathematics Teacher Edu-cation. Manila: SEI-DOST & MATHED. https://sei.dost.gov.ph/images/downloads/publ/sei_mathteach.pdf,
  28. Thornton, P. B. (2013). Three Teaching Styles. https://www.facultyfocus.com
  29. Tumilty, M. (2016). Direct Instruction vs. Guid-ed Instruction. Center for teaching and Learning. www.teachingtoolbox.us
  30. Villanueva, M. (2017). Improving Students Conceptual Understanding and Problem Solving Skills through the use of Model-Eliciting Activities (Unpublished Mas-ters’s Thesis). Bulacan State University, City of Malolos, Bulacan.
  31. Wang, C. (2019). Comparison between non-directive teaching model and other teach-ing models. International Conference on Economics, Management, Engineering and Education Technology, 3, 1502-1506. http://doi:10.25236/icemeet.2019.206

Tools


Copyright © 2024  KITE Digital Educational Solutions |  Exclusively distributed by CE-Logic