Vanuatu's Typical Approach of Mathematics vs the TUAM Approach of Mathematics

Kency Obed SAWAH

Abstract


There are multiple factors contributing to the low level of mathematics in basic education in the Republic of Vanuatu. Results through the Vanuatu Standard Test of Achievement (VANSTA) in 2017 and 2019 unveiled that there were gaps in the performance of mathematics which cause the overall achievement to stagnant which were below the expected minimum standard (Curriculum Development Unit, 2020). This study investigated the current situation of the teaching mathematics approach in the country recognised as the ‘I Do-We Do-You Do’ teaching model. In comparison, the study also examined the influence of the ‘Try-Understand-Apply-Master’ (TUAM) discovery learning process on students in Vanuatu. The study compared these two teaching approaches through pre and post-test interventions among the control and experimental group of two grade five classes. The findings of the study discovered a possibility that the TUAM discovery learning process could be effective in improving the mathematics level in the basic education in the Republic of Vanuatu.


Keywords


I do–We do–You do; Try-Understand-Apply-Master (TUAM)

Full Text:

PDF

References


Bakker, A. (2018). Discovery learning: zombie, phoenix, or elephant? Instructional Science, 46(1), 169–183. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-018-9450-8

Byun, H., Lee, J., & Cerreto, F. A. (2014). Relative effects of three questioning strategies in ill-structured, small group problem solving. Instructional Science, 42(2), 229–250. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-013-9278-1

Cai, J., & Howson, G. (2013). Toward an international mathematics curriculum. Third International Handbook of Mathematics Education (pp. 949-974). New York: Springer.

Curriculum Development Unit. (2020). CDU Givhan Buletin - Issue 1. Port Vila: CDU.

Jaleniauskienė, E., & Jucevičienė2, P. (2018). Educational system for the development of collaborative III-structured problem-solving skills. Pedagogika 132(4), 5–22. https://doi.org/10.15823/p.2018.132.1

Mayer, R. E. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? American Psychologist, 59(1), 14–19. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.59.1.14

Ojose, B. (2008). Applying Piaget's theory of cognitive development to mathematics instruction. The Mathematics Educator, 18(1), 26–30.

Sanga, K., Niroa, J., Matai, K., & Crowel, L. (2004). Re-Thinking Vanuatu education together. Fiji: Institute of Pacific Studies, University of the South Pacific.

Sinha, T., Kapur, M., West, R., Catasta, M., Hauswirth, M., & Trninic, D. (2020). Differential benefits of explicit failure-driven and success-driven scaffolding in problem solving prior to instruction. Journal of Education Phycology, 113(3), 530–555. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000483

Takahashi, A. (2006). Characteristics of Japanese mathematics lesson. Tsukuba Journal of Education Study in Mathematics, 25(1), 37–44.

Trninic, D. (2018). Instruction, repetition, discovery: restoring the historical educational role of practice. Instructional Science, 46(1), 133–153. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-017-9443-z

Vanuatu Ministry of Education and Training. (2018). Mathematics teacher's guide, Year 4. Port Vila: Ministry of Education.




DOI: https://doi.org/10.46517/seamej.v12i1.177

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Indexed by:

      

Southeast Asian Mathematics Education Journal
SEAMEO Regional Centre for QITEP in Mathematics
Jl. Kaliurang Km 6, Sambisari, Condongcatur, Depok, Sleman
Yogyakarta, Indonesia
Telp. +62 274 889955
Email: seamej@qitepinmath.org

p-ISSN: 2089-4716 | e-ISSN: 2721-8546

Southeast Asian Mathematics Education Journal is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
View My Stats

 Supported by: