International Journal of

ADVANCED AND APPLIED SCIENCES

EISSN: 2313-3724, Print ISSN: 2313-626X

Frequency: 12
line decor
  
line decor

 Volume 11, Issue 6 (June 2024), Pages: 139-146

----------------------------------------------

 Original Research Paper

Impact of activity-based learning on understanding linear and quadratic functions: An evaluation of student performance and satisfaction in a Thai high school

 Author(s): 

 Pissinee Thonhongsa 1, Suphawadi Srithammasatn 2, Apantee Poonputta 1, *

 Affiliation(s):

 1Faculty of Education, Mahasarakham University, Mahasarakham 44000, Thailand
 2Mathematics learning group, Kosum Wittayasan School, Mahasarakham 44140 Thailand

 Full text

  Full Text - PDF

 * Corresponding Author. 

  Corresponding author's ORCID profile: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6182-7333

 Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

 https://doi.org/10.21833/ijaas.2024.06.015

 Abstract

Linear and quadratic functions are crucial topics in math education, and there is a significant focus on using activity-based learning (ABL) to teach these subjects. However, previous research has shown gaps, especially in how this approach affects high school students' learning outcomes. Most studies focus only on test scores and do not consider students' satisfaction or apply these methods to other math topics. This study aimed to assess the impact of ABL on the academic performance and satisfaction of 11th-grade students with linear and quadratic functions. The research was conducted in a Thai public school with 38 participants, using various tools like an ABL curriculum, skills assessments, achievement tests, and a satisfaction survey. The findings clearly showed that ABL improves students' understanding and problem-solving skills in complex math topics like linear and quadratic functions. This study provides solid evidence that ABL is effective in high school math, suggesting it could improve students' overall learning experiences and outcomes.

 © 2024 The Authors. Published by IASE.

 This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

 Keywords

 Activity-based learning, Linear and quadratic functions, Mathematical education, Student satisfaction, High school mathematics

 Article history

 Received 26 January 2024, Received in revised form 26 May 2024, Accepted 2 June 2024

 Acknowledgment 

This research project was financially supported by Mahasarakham University.

 Compliance with ethical standards

 Ethical considerations

Informed consent was obtained from all participants, ensuring confidentiality and adherence to ethical guidelines set by Mahasarakham University and Kosum Wittayasan School. The study was approved by the university's ethics committee.

 Conflict of interest: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

 Citation:

 Thonhongsa P, Srithammasatn S, and Poonputta A (2024). Impact of activity-based learning on understanding linear and quadratic functions: An evaluation of student performance and satisfaction in a Thai high school. International Journal of Advanced and Applied Sciences, 11(6): 139-146

 Permanent Link to this page

 Figures

 No Figure

 Tables

 Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 Table 4 Table 5 Table 6 

----------------------------------------------   

 References (26)

  1. Abramowitz M (2014). Handbook of mathematical functions with formulas, graphs, and mathematical tables. Martino Publishing, Mansfield Centre, UK.   [Google Scholar]
  2. Anwer F (2019). Activity-based teaching, student motivation and academic achievement. Journal of Education and Educational Development, 6(1): 154-170. https://doi.org/10.22555/joeed.v6i1.1782   [Google Scholar]
  3. Apfler S (2023). The importance of activity-based learning for mastering mathematical tasks during distance learning in Austria. In: Ashraf MA and Tsegay SM (Eds.), STEM education—Recent trends and new advances, Intech Open. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.113303   [Google Scholar]
  4. Baserer D (2020). Activity based teaching of concept types. World Journal of Education, 10(5): 122-130. https://doi.org/10.5430/wje.v10n5p122   [Google Scholar]
  5. Bonwell C and Eison JA (1991). Creating excitement in the classroom. George Washington University, School of Education and Human Development, Washington D.C., USA.   [Google Scholar]
  6. Bowden SA (2018). Introductory algebra: Linear and quadratic equations and functions. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, Scotts Valley, USA.   [Google Scholar]
  7. Chapaev NK, Akimova OB, Selivanov AV, and Shaforostova TV (2016). The activity-based approach to achieving theoretical and practical consensus in pedagogy of NF Talyzina. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 11(16): 8821-8833.   [Google Scholar]
  8. Churchill D (2003). Effective design principles for activity-based learning: The crucial role of ‘learning objects’ in science and engineering education. Nanyang Technological University's National Institute of Education, Singapore, Singapore.   [Google Scholar]
  9. Deringöl Y, Ugurluel M, and Eren SB (2021). The effect of activity-based teaching approach on the attitudes of math-activities and their beliefs about mathematics of elementary school fourth graders. Acta Didactica Napocensia, 14(2): 284-298. https://doi.org/10.24193/adn.14.2.21   [Google Scholar]
  10. Fallon E, Walsh S, and Prendergast T (2013). An activity-based approach to the learning and teaching of research methods: Measuring student engagement and learning. Irish Journal of Academic Practice, 2(1): 2. https://doi.org/10.21427/D7Q72W   [Google Scholar]
  11. Harfield T, Panko M, Davies K, and Kenley R (2007). Toward a learning-styles profile of construction students: Results from New Zealand. International Journal of Construction Education and Research, 3(3): 143-158. https://doi.org/10.1080/15578770701715060   [Google Scholar]
  12. Henningsen M and Stein MK (1997). Mathematical tasks and student cognition: Classroom-based factors that support and inhibit high-level mathematical thinking and reasoning. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 28(5): 524-549. https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.28.5.0524   [Google Scholar]
  13. Hiebert J and Carpenter TP (1992). Learning and teaching with understanding. In: Grouws DA (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning. MacMillan, London, UK.   [Google Scholar]
  14. Inprasitha M (2019). A new model of mathematics curriculum and instruction system in Thailand. In: Vistro-Yu C and Toh T (Eds.), School mathematics curricula: Mathematics education – An Asian perspective: 51–77. Springer, Singapore, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-6312-2_4   [Google Scholar]
  15. Lampert M and Cobb P (2003). Communication and language. In: Kilpatrick J and Shifter D (Eds.), A research companion to principles and standards for school mathematics: 237–249. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Reston, USA.   [Google Scholar]
  16. Makonye JP (2014). Teaching functions using a realistic mathematics education approach: A theoretical perspective. International Journal of Educational Sciences, 7(3): 653-662. https://doi.org/10.1080/09751122.2014.11890228   [Google Scholar]
  17. McMullen C (2015). Basic linear graphing skills practice workbook: Plotting points, straight lines, slope, Y-intercept and more. Zishka Publishing, Sacramento, USA.   [Google Scholar]
  18. NIETS (2023). NIETS data catalog. National Institution of Education Testing Service, Bangkok, Thailand. 
  19. Noreen R and Rana AMK (2019). Activity-based teaching versus traditional method of teaching in mathematics at elementary level. Bulletin of Education and Research, 41(2): 145-159.   [Google Scholar]
  20. Noreen R, Rafique S, and Perveen R (2020). Effects of activity-based teaching and traditional method of teaching mathematics in the area of knowledge at elementary level. International Journal of Management Research and Emerging Sciences, 10(3): 50-57. https://doi.org/10.56536/ijmres.v10i3.104   [Google Scholar]
  21. Nwoke BL (2021). Enhancing primary school pupils' mathematics creative ability through activity based learning approach. Malikussaleh Journal of Mathematics Learning (MJML), 4(2): 70-76. https://doi.org/10.29103/mjml.v4i2.5707   [Google Scholar]
  22. Panarach Y (2021). Development of mathematical learning model using activity-based learning. Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education (TURCOMAT), 12(8): 2712-2720.   [Google Scholar]
  23. Prediger S, Götze D, Holzäpfel L, Rösken-Winter B, and Selter C (2022). Five principles for high-quality mathematics teaching: Combining normative, epistemological, empirical, and pragmatic perspectives for specifying the content of professional development. Frontiers in Education, 7: 969212. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.969212   [Google Scholar]
  24. Samaddar R and Sikdar DP (2023). Comparison between activity-based learning and traditional learning. GPH-International Journal of Educational Research, 6(10): 17-27.   [Google Scholar]
  25. Trujillo M, Atarés L, Canet MJ, and Pérez-Pascual MA (2023). Learning difficulties with the concept of function in maths: A literature review. Education Sciences, 13(5): 495. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13050495   [Google Scholar]
  26. Vansdadiya RP, Vasoya NH, and Gondaliya PR (2023). Beyond the classroom walls: Activity based learning for a real-world math experience. Asian Journal of Education and Social Studies, 43(1): 1-9. https://doi.org/10.9734/ajess/2023/v43i1930   [Google Scholar]