<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Publishing DTD v1.3 20210610//EN" "https://jats.nlm.nih.gov/publishing/1.3/JATS-journalpublishing1-3.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" article-type="research-article" dtd-version="1.3" xml:lang="en">
<front>
<journal-meta>
  <journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">46</journal-id>
  <journal-id journal-id-type="short-title">gssr</journal-id>
  <journal-id journal-id-type="doi">10.31703/gssr</journal-id>
  <journal-title-group>
    <journal-title>Global Social Sciences Review</journal-title>
    <abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="publisher">gssr</abbrev-journal-title>
  </journal-title-group>
  <issn publication-format="print">2520-0348</issn>
  <issn publication-format="electronic">2616-793X</issn>
  <self-uri xlink:href="https://gssrjournal.com"/>
  <publisher>
    <publisher-name>Humanity Publications</publisher-name>
    <publisher-loc>Pakistan</publisher-loc>
  </publisher>
</journal-meta>
<article-meta>
  <article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">390582</article-id>
  <article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.31703/gssr.2018(III-IV).09</article-id>
  <article-id pub-id-type="other" specific-use="submission-id">1051</article-id>
  <article-version article-version-type="publisher">1.0</article-version>
  <article-categories>
    <subj-group subj-group-type="heading">
      <subject>article</subject>
    </subj-group>
  </article-categories>
  <title-group>
    <article-title xml:lang="en">Teaching Mathematics at High School: A Comparison of Public and Private School Teachers&apos; Practices</article-title>
  </title-group>
<contrib-group>
  <contrib contrib-type="author" seq="1" corresp="yes">
    <name>
      <surname>Hameed</surname>
      <given-names>Gulnaz</given-names>
    </name>
    <role vocab="credit" vocab-identifier="https://credit.niso.org/" vocab-term="Conceptualization" vocab-term-identifier="https://credit.niso.org/contributor-roles/conceptualization/">Conceptualization</role>
    <role vocab="credit" vocab-identifier="https://credit.niso.org/" vocab-term="Writing – original draft" vocab-term-identifier="https://credit.niso.org/contributor-roles/writing-original-draft/">Writing – original draft</role>
    <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"/>
    <xref ref-type="corresp" rid="cor1"/>
  </contrib>
  <contrib contrib-type="author" seq="2">
    <name>
      <surname>Butt</surname>
      <given-names>Intzar Hussain</given-names>
    </name>
    <role vocab="credit" vocab-identifier="https://credit.niso.org/" vocab-term="Writing – review &amp; editing" vocab-term-identifier="https://credit.niso.org/contributor-roles/writing-review-editing/">Writing – review &amp; editing</role>
    <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2"/>
  </contrib>
  <aff id="aff1">
    <label>1</label>
    <institution-wrap>
      <institution>(Education), Department of Education, University of Education, Lahore</institution>
    </institution-wrap>
    <named-content content-type="author-role">PhD Scholar</named-content>
    <addr-line>Punjab</addr-line>
    <country>Pakistan</country>
  </aff>
  <aff id="aff2">
    <label>2</label>
    <institution-wrap>
      <institution>Department of Education, University of Education, Lahore</institution>
    </institution-wrap>
    <named-content content-type="author-role">Assistant Professor</named-content>
    <addr-line>Punjab</addr-line>
    <country>Pakistan</country>
  </aff>
</contrib-group>
<author-notes>
  <corresp id="cor1">Corresponding Author: Gulnaz Hameed, PhD Scholar (Education), Department of Education, University of Education, Lahore, Punjab, Pakistan.. Contact: 0</corresp>
<fn fn-type="COI-statement" id="fn-coi">
  <p>The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.</p>
</fn>
<fn fn-type="ethics-statement" id="fn-ethics">
  <p>This study did not require formal ethics approval.</p>
</fn>
<fn fn-type="data-availability-statement" id="fn-data">
  <p>Data sharing is not applicable to this article.</p>
</fn>
</author-notes>
<pub-date pub-type="epub" date-type="pub" publication-format="electronic">
  <day>31</day>
  <month>12</month>
  <year>2018</year>
</pub-date>
<pub-date pub-type="collection">
  <month>12</month>
  <year>2018</year>
</pub-date>
<pub-date date-type="pub" publication-format="print">
  <day>16</day>
  <month>02</month>
  <year>2022</year>
</pub-date>
  <volume>3</volume>
  <issue>4</issue>
  <season>Fall</season>
  <fpage>127</fpage>
  <lpage>141</lpage>
  <history>
    <date date-type="accepted">
      <day>16</day>
      <month>02</month>
      <year>2022</year>
    </date>
  </history>
<funding-group>
  <funding-statement>
<p>The authors received no specific funding for this work.</p>
  </funding-statement>
</funding-group>
<permissions>
  <copyright-year>2018</copyright-year>
  <copyright-holder>Humanity Publications</copyright-holder>
  <license license-type="open-access" xml:lang="en" xlink:href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">
    <license-p>This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.</license-p>
  </license>
</permissions>
<self-uri content-type="text/html" xlink:href="https://gssrjournal.com/article/Teaching-Mathematics-at-High-School:-A-Comparison-of-Public-and-Private-School-Teachers-Practices"/>
<self-uri content-type="pdf" xlink:href="https://gssrjournal.com/pdf/gssr/6plxHDuuco.pdf"/>
<supplementary-material id="suppl-pdf" content-type="pdf" xlink:href="https://gssrjournal.com/pdf/gssr/6plxHDuuco.pdf">
  <label>PDF</label>
  <caption>
    <title>Full Text PDF</title>
  </caption>
</supplementary-material>
  <abstract>
    <p>This paper compares the mathematics teaching practices of private and public high school teachers in Punjab. Two hundred public and 180 private school teachers were selected by using random sampling technique from district Sahiwal. The quantitative data was collected by using a Likert type 58 questionnaire items. The questionnaire consisted of six parts: mathematic teaching practices, mathematic effective students’ instruction, mathematic resources availability, use of mathematic resources, use of instructional techniques and evaluation techniques used by the teachers. The study indicated that private school teacher teach in cooperative environment, individual concentration, small group discussion and encourage students in mathematic classrooms as compared to public school teachers. They write equations to represent concept and then engage students in problem solving and practice computational skill as compared to public school teachers. Public school teachers highly believe that text book is primary instructional tool for teaching. They practice difficult problem by drill in their classes. Although Public school teachers are well trained, qualified and experienced yet they emphasize rote learning which is a big hurdle in conceptual understanding. Provision of material resources in public schools is high. Mathematic curriculum document, manipulative, measuring devices, and spreadsheets, worksheet calculators, teacher guide and computers as teaching resources are available in public schools. Whereas, helping books and calculators’ availability is better in private schools.</p>
  </abstract>
<kwd-group kwd-group-type="author-keywords">
  <kwd>Teaching Practices</kwd>
  <kwd>Mathematic Classrooms</kwd>
  <kwd>Secondary Education.</kwd>
</kwd-group>
  <custom-meta-group>
    <custom-meta><meta-name>views</meta-name><meta-value>2923</meta-value></custom-meta>
    <custom-meta><meta-name>downloads</meta-name><meta-value>14</meta-value></custom-meta>
    <custom-meta><meta-name>html-views</meta-name><meta-value>0</meta-value></custom-meta>
    <custom-meta><meta-name>google-scholar-citations</meta-name><meta-value>0</meta-value></custom-meta>
    <custom-meta><meta-name>crossref-citations</meta-name><meta-value>0</meta-value></custom-meta>
  </custom-meta-group>
</article-meta>
</front>
<body>
<sec id="sec-1">
  <title>Introduction</title>
<p>The article 25-A, of the constitution of Pakistan requires that free and compulsory education from 5-16 years of age must be organized by the Provinces. Subsequent to 18th amendment, the Government of Punjab enacted the Punjab Free and Compulsory Education Act 2014 to provide make necessary provisions for free and compulsory education from age of 5 to 16 years. A closer look at the curriculum documents which have been implemented since the creation of Pakistan in 1947 reveal that mathematics has remained as a compulsory subject from grades I to X. The central place given to the subject of mathematics up to high school level shows that state has deemed the study of this subject necessary for national development. In today’s competitive world, education is vital for the future for any nation.</p><p>Every nation needs a STEM workforce in order to continuously provide innovation the 21st century demands. Since mathematics plays a strong role in the economic and technological advancement of any nation, therefore, it is not only beneficial but also essential to study how mathematics is being taught at secondary level in opinion of public and private teachers. It is further important to look into how effective students’ instruction is organized, what mathematics resources are available to the teacher and how those resources are used, and what different instruction and evaluation techniques are used by the secondary school teachers. Since in Pakistan there is a huge private sector presence in the system of education, therefore it becomes crucial to make a comparison of mathematics teaching practices in both the public and privately managed schools.</p><p>Simpson, Payne, Munro and Hughes (1999) concluded from his qualitative study that mathematics teaching practices among other aspects that influence students’ knowledge acquisition. Attwood (2001) identified various factors that result into low mathematics achievement and included learning environment and culture amongst other variables. Henson and Eller (1999) reported that mathematics students of the schools achieve higher where classroom practices are discussed by the principals and teachers alongside some other variables.</p><p>Artzt and Thomas (1992) suggested a significant increase in in achievement level when the students learnt in small co-operative groups as compared to individual work. Similar suggestion was made by Stevenson and Stigler (1992) when they compared Asian and United States mathematics classrooms. The teaching methods and strategies used by math teachers also influence students’ learning (Robitaille &amp; Garden, 1989). Wenglinsky (2001) employed multilevel structural equation modeling to study mathematics teachers’ classroom practices related to instruction, type of content taught, and assessment and found that</p><p>Classroom practices indeed have a marked effect on student achievement and that, in concert with the other aspects of teaching under study, this effect is at least as strong as that of student background. This finding documents the fact that schools indeed matter, due to the overwhelming influence of the classroom practices of their teachers.</p><p>Arends, Winnaar and Mesimege (2017) studied mathematics teachers’ classroom practices in African schools and found that the discourse, feedback, continuous assessment, collaboration, and solving problems and metacognitive strategies, are associated with student achievement.</p><p>Stipek, et.al. (2001) mentioned that teachers’ beliefs are strongly associated with their practices. They further reported a strong association between self-confidence of students and teachers as math learner and math teacher respectively. Wenglinsky (2002) studies how teachers’ classroom practices are linked to students’ academic performance. He concluded that effect of classroom practices is as much as the students themselves as far as their achievement is concerned.</p><p>Some of the research conducted in Pakistan have investigated into the classroom practices and its influence on students’ achievement. Awan (2012) and Liaqat (2009) found that private schools were preparing better mathematics lesson plans at secondary level as compared to public schools. Iqbal (2006) explored that private schools used a variety of teaching techniques and has access to and used variety of teaching aids as compared to their counterparts. Similarly Asikhia (2010) and Etuk et al (2013) concluded that teacher teaching style, knowledge of the subject, and teacher interaction with the students influence their mathematics achievement.</p><p>The above review of the literature has shown that teachers’ classroom practices influence the students’ outcomes. In Pakistan a large student population is accommodated in the private schools. It, therefore becomes imperative to compare the classroom practices of the public and private school teachers in the Pakistani context.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="sec-2">
  <title>Theoretical Considerations</title>
<p>Owens (1995, p.158) alludes that “No discipline can claim uniform agreement on the theoretical framework for teaching and learning”. Since the way humans learn is very complex therefore there are various theories of learning (Romberg, 1988) and each of these theories are applicable to a certain extent in mathematics classroom (Maree, 1997).</p><p>Leonard (2002:38), stated that in behaviorism “learners are placed in a controlled environment in order to be directed to a specific set of behavioral changes based on a set of predetermined, instructor-based objectives”. The principles of behaviorism are applicable to teaching of mathematics at secondary level when teacher use drill and practice technique while teaching the concept such as solving linear equations, factorizations and other low level skills and concepts. However, the underlying principles of behaviorism are not helpful solving complex problems, proofs and establishing various mathematical relationships.</p><p>Since drill and practice and reinforcement cannot result into invention of a new idea (Romberg, 1988), therefore, a theory that requires active construction of knowledge was needed. Gestalt theorizes that learning involves active construction: learners experience the world in meaningful patterns and then construct meanings from those patterns. According to this theory learning is defined as change in the thought process while solving a problem.</p><p>The constructivist theories have dominant influence on mathematics classrooms for decades now. The Piaget’s theory is built around three core components: equilibrium, assimilation and accommodation (Anastasia, 2018). In the process of assimilation child’s new knowledge interconnects with his existing insights whereas the process of accommodation reconstruct the internal insights. According to Piaget mathematics learning happens when the learner construct their interactions within their physical, social and cultural environment.</p><p>In order to develop an understanding of two of the main principles of Vygotsky&apos;s work: MKO and  ZPD needs to be understood. The MKO refers to someone who has higher ability level than the learner for a specific situation. The MKO needs not to be a human being. There are various electronic support systems that can be used for the learning process. The teachers in real classroom situations must understand when a learner needs him as an MKO and when he can proceed without him. Vygotsky (1978) sees the ZPD as the area where the child is allowed to develop skills he will then use on his own for developing higher mental functions.</p><p>In recent years, the influence of constructivist theories on mathematics education has decreased (English, 2007). Lesh and Doerr (2003) presented powerful arguments in the edited volume, Beyond constructivism: Models and modeling perspectives on mathematics problem solving, learning, and teaching, for moving away from constructivist ideologies. Goldin (2002) has also underlined the shortcomings of constructivist theories.</p><p>In summary, mathematics teaching and learning has and will remain influenced by each of the above mentioned theories.</p><p><break/></p><p>Purpose of the Study</p><p><break/></p><p>Since mathematics plays a strong role in the economic and technological progress of any nation, therefore, it is not only beneficial but also essential to study how mathematics is being taught at secondary level in opinion of public and private teachers. It is further important to look into how effective students’ instruction is organized, what mathematics resources are available to the teacher and how those resources are used, and what different instruction and evaluation techniques are used by the secondary school teachers. Since, in Pakistan, there is a huge private sector presence in the system of education, therefore it becomes crucial to make a comparison of mathematics teaching practices in both the public and privately managed schools.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="sec-3">
  <title>Methodology</title>
<p>This quantitative study compared the secondary school teachers’ classroom practices by school ownership. The data were collected by administering Likert type questionnaire that was developed by the researchers and validated through expert opinion. It was also pilot tested for reliability and Cronbach alpha for the final version was 0.84. The researchers themselves administered the questionnaire. The final questionnaire was comprised of 58 items and it had six sections namely 1) mathematic teaching practices, 2) mathematic effective students’ instruction, 3) mathematic resources availability, 4) use of mathematic resources, 5) use of instructional techniques and 6) evaluation techniques</p><p>The sample was 380 teachers (public = 200; private = 180) who were randomly selected from the district Sahiwal. The data has been analyzed for each item separately using t-test in order to make comparison between public and private school teachers. The suitability of using t-test for likert scales type items has been confirmed by Norman (2010) using actual examples and simulated data. Similarly, de Winter and Dodou (2010; p.1) concluded that “for five-point Likert items, the t-test and MWW generally have similar power, and researchers do not have to worry about finding a difference whilst there is none in the population”.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="sec-4">
  <title>Findings</title>
<p>Data was collected through the
questionnaire developed by the researcher after the consultation on Likert type
scale. Data was collected from the teachers teaching mathematic subject in
secondary school at public and private sector. Independent sample t-test was
used to see the significance of difference of the use of teaching practices at
public and private sector.</p><p>Table 1 shows that there is a significant difference in the
opinion of public and private school teachers regarding the teaching practices
they use in their mathematics classroom.</p><p>Significantly higher number of private schools teachers
agreed mathematics is best taught <italic>with students of equal capabilities, by
connecting mathematics with other disciplines, by asking questions to students
to gauge their understanding and using textbook as a primary instructional
tool.</italic></p><p>On the other hand significantly higher number of public school
teachers agreed that mathematics is best taught when <italic>built on prior student
understanding of the concept, through students&apos; conceptual understanding, by
engaging students in hands-on/project-based learning and in cooperative
learning groups.</italic></p><p>However, no statistical difference was found regarding the
opinion of teachers about<italic> mathematics is best taught by developing students&apos;
interest in mathematics</italic></p><p><bold>Table 1. Comparison of Mathematics Teaching Practices of Public and Private
School Teachers</bold></p><table-wrap id="table1"><label>Table 1</label><caption><title>Table 1</title></caption><table><tbody><tr><td> <p><bold>Mathematics is Best Taught </bold></p> </td><td> <p><bold>Mean (Public)</bold></p> </td><td> <p><bold>Mean (Private)</bold></p> </td><td> <p><bold>SD (Public)</bold></p> </td><td> <p><bold>SD (Private)</bold></p> </td><td> <p><bold><italic>t</italic></bold></p> </td><td> <p><bold><italic>P</italic></bold></p> </td></tr><tr><td> <p>1.       with students of equal
  capabilities</p> </td><td> <p>2.50</p> </td><td> <p>2.75</p> </td><td> <p>0.89</p> </td><td> <p>0.72</p> </td><td> <p>2.99</p> </td><td> <p>0.003</p> </td></tr><tr><td> <p>2.       by connecting mathematics with
  other disciplines</p> </td><td> <p>2.00</p> </td><td> <p>2.40</p> </td><td> <p>0.73</p> </td><td> <p>0.94</p> </td><td> <p>4.66</p> </td><td> <p>&lt;0.001</p> </td></tr><tr><td> <p>3.       by asking questions to students to
  gauge their understanding</p> </td><td> <p>1.80</p> </td><td> <p>2.20</p> </td><td> <p>0.89</p> </td><td> <p>0.95</p> </td><td> <p>4.24</p> </td><td> <p>&lt;0.001</p> </td></tr><tr><td> <p>4.       using textbook as a primary
  instructional tool</p> </td><td> <p>1.90</p> </td><td> <p>2.65</p> </td><td> <p>0.72</p> </td><td> <p>0.88</p> </td><td> <p>9.13</p> </td><td> <p>&lt;0.001</p> </td></tr><tr><td> <p>5.       when built on prior student
  understanding of the concept</p> </td><td> <p>2.40</p> </td><td> <p>1.95</p> </td><td> <p>0.68</p> </td><td> <p>0.76</p> </td><td> <p>6.09</p> </td><td> <p>&lt;0.001</p> </td></tr><tr><td> <p>6.       through students&apos; conceptual
  understanding</p> </td><td> <p>2.10</p> </td><td> <p>1.90</p> </td><td> <p>0.91</p> </td><td> <p>0.91</p> </td><td> <p>2.14</p> </td><td> <p>0.033</p> </td></tr><tr><td> <p>7.       by engaging students in
  hands-on/project-based learning</p> </td><td> <p>2.30</p> </td><td> <p>2.10</p> </td><td> <p>0.92</p> </td><td> <p>0.72</p> </td><td> <p>2.34</p> </td><td> <p>0.020</p> </td></tr><tr><td> <p>8.       in cooperative learning groups</p> </td><td> <p>2.00</p> </td><td> <p>1.75</p> </td><td> <p>0.92</p> </td><td> <p>0.85</p> </td><td> <p>2.74</p> </td><td> <p>0.006</p> </td></tr><tr><td> <p>9.       by developing students&apos; interest
  in mathematics</p> </td><td> <p>2.10</p> </td><td> <p>2.00</p> </td><td> <p>0.79</p> </td><td> <p>0.97</p> </td><td> <p>1.11</p> </td><td> <p>0.269</p> </td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>Table 2 presents the data analysis
regarding <italic>utilization of effective students’ instruction.</italic> It is evident
that a significantly higher number of private schools teachers agreed that the
effective students’ instruction practices used by them while teaching include <italic>e</italic><italic>xplain the reasoning behind an idea</italic><italic>, i</italic><italic>ntroduce content through formal presentations</italic> and <italic>bind students to practice difficult problems
regularly by drill</italic></p><p><bold>Table 2. Comparison of mathematics Teaching Practices </bold><bold>Regarding Utilization of </bold><bold>Students’
Instruction Techniques</bold></p><table-wrap id="table2"><label>Table 2</label><caption><title>Table 2</title></caption><table><tbody><tr><td> <p><bold>Description</bold></p> </td><td> <p><bold>Mean (Public)</bold></p> </td><td> <p><bold>Mean  (Private)</bold></p> </td><td> <p><bold>SD (Public)</bold></p> </td><td> <p><bold>SD (Private)</bold></p> </td><td> <p><bold><italic>t</italic></bold></p> </td><td> <p><bold><italic>P</italic></bold></p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>1.       Explain the reasoning behind an
  idea</p> </td><td> <p>2.10</p> </td><td> <p>2.40</p> </td><td> <p>0.91</p> </td><td> <p>0.75</p> </td><td> <p>3.48</p> </td><td> <p>&lt;0.001</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>2.       Introduce content through formal
  presentations</p> </td><td> <p>1.95</p> </td><td> <p>2.15</p> </td><td> <p>0.76</p> </td><td> <p>0.93</p> </td><td> <p>2.30</p> </td><td> <p>0.022</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>3.       Bind students to practice
  difficult problems regularly by drill</p> </td><td> <p>2.05</p> </td><td> <p>2.30</p> </td><td> <p>1.05</p> </td><td> <p>0.98</p> </td><td> <p>2.39</p> </td><td> <p>0.017</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>4.       Write equations and functions to
  represent relationships.</p> </td><td> <p>1.95</p> </td><td> <p>1.55</p> </td><td> <p>0.76</p> </td><td> <p>0.60</p> </td><td> <p>5.65</p> </td><td> <p>&lt;0.001</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>5.       Practice your computational
  skills.</p> </td><td> <p>2.30</p> </td><td> <p>1.85</p> </td><td> <p>0.80</p> </td><td> <p>0.93</p> </td><td> <p>5.07</p> </td><td> <p>&lt;0.001</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>6.       Engage students in problem solving
  style of learning than lecture</p> </td><td> <p>2.55</p> </td><td> <p>2.00</p> </td><td> <p>0.89</p> </td><td> <p>0.86</p> </td><td> <p>6.11</p> </td><td> <p>&lt;.001</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>7.       Pose open-ended questions</p> </td><td> <p>1.95</p> </td><td> <p>2.00</p> </td><td> <p>0.76</p> </td><td> <p>0.79</p> </td><td> <p>0.63</p> </td><td> <p>0.530</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>8.       Represent and analyze
  relationships using graphs, charts or tables.</p> </td><td> <p>2.00</p> </td><td> <p>2.05</p> </td><td> <p>0.56</p> </td><td> <p>0.69</p> </td><td> <p>0.78</p> </td><td> <p>0.436</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>9.       Engage the whole class in
  discussions</p> </td><td> <p>1.90</p> </td><td> <p>1.80</p> </td><td> <p>0.79</p> </td><td> <p>0.70</p> </td><td> <p>1.30</p> </td><td> <p>0.194</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>10.    Explain reasoning for solving problems
  differently where needed</p> </td><td> <p>2.00</p> </td><td> <p>1.90</p> </td><td> <p>0.73</p> </td><td> <p>0.72</p> </td><td> <p>1.34</p> </td><td> <p>0.180</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>11.    Example of daily routine life for
  learning</p> </td><td> <p>2.30</p> </td><td> <p>2.15</p> </td><td> <p>0.92</p> </td><td> <p>0.88</p> </td><td> <p>1.62</p> </td><td> <p>0.106</p> </td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>Table 2 further shows that a
significantly higher number of public school teachers agreed that the effective
students’ instruction techniques used by them while teaching mathematics
include <italic>w</italic><italic>rite equations and functions to
represent relationship, practice your computational skills</italic> and <italic>engage students in problem solving style of learning
than lecture. </italic> The table 2 further
reveals there is difference in the opinion of public and private school
teachers regarding use of the effective students instruction techniques such as
<italic>pose open-ended questions, represent and analyze relationships using graphs,
charts or tables., engage the whole class in discussions, explain reasoning for
solving problems differently where needed </italic>and <italic>example of daily routine
life for learning</italic></p><p>Table 3 presents the data regarding availability of
mathematics resources to schools by their ownership. It is evident that the
resources such as <italic>computer software, mathematics manipulative, mathematics
curriculum</italic> and<italic> worksheets</italic> significantly more available to the
private school mathematics teachers as compared to the public school teachers.
The only mathematics resource that more available to the public school teachers
is <italic>teacher’s guides. </italic>No difference was found regarding the availability
of the mathematics resources to the public and private school teachers
including <italic>calculators, computers, measuring devices</italic> and <italic>helping
textbooks.</italic></p><table-wrap id="table3"><label>Table 3</label><caption><title>Comparison of mathematics resources availability</title></caption><table><tbody><tr><td> <p><bold>Resources</bold></p> </td><td> <p><bold>Mean (Public)</bold></p> </td><td> <p><bold>Mean (Private)</bold></p> </td><td> <p><bold>SD (Public)</bold></p> </td><td> <p><bold>SD (Private)</bold></p> </td><td> <p><bold><italic>t</italic></bold></p> </td><td> <p><bold><italic>p</italic></bold></p> </td></tr><tr><td> <p>1.       Computer Software</p> </td><td> <p>2.10</p> </td><td> <p>2.50</p> </td><td> <p>1.29</p> </td><td> <p>1.40</p> </td><td> <p>2.90</p> </td><td> <p>0.004</p> </td></tr><tr><td> <p>2.       Manipulative</p> </td><td> <p>2.05</p> </td><td> <p>2.55</p> </td><td> <p>0.83</p> </td><td> <p>1.10</p> </td><td> <p>5.03</p> </td><td> <p>&lt;0.001</p> </td></tr><tr><td> <p>3.       Curriculum documents</p> </td><td> <p>1.95</p> </td><td> <p>2.30</p> </td><td> <p>0.76</p> </td><td> <p>0.92</p> </td><td> <p>4.06</p> </td><td> <p>&lt;0.001</p> </td></tr><tr><td> <p>4.       Worksheets</p> </td><td> <p>2.25</p> </td><td> <p>2.45</p> </td><td> <p>0.91</p> </td><td> <p>1.05</p> </td><td> <p>1.99</p> </td><td> <p>0.047</p> </td></tr><tr><td> <p>5.       Teacher’s guide</p> </td><td> <p>2.35</p> </td><td> <p>2.00</p> </td><td> <p>0.67</p> </td><td> <p>0.79</p> </td><td> <p>2.00</p> </td><td> <p>0.046</p> </td></tr><tr><td> <p>6.       Calculators</p> </td><td> <p>2.35</p> </td><td> <p>2.20</p> </td><td> <p>0.93</p> </td><td> <p>0.83</p> </td><td> <p>1.10</p> </td><td> <p>0.272</p> </td></tr><tr><td> <p>7.       Computers</p> </td><td> <p>2.15</p> </td><td> <p>2.25</p> </td><td> <p>0.81</p> </td><td> <p>0.91</p> </td><td> <p>1.13</p> </td><td> <p>0.258</p> </td></tr><tr><td> <p>8.       Measuring devices</p> </td><td> <p>2.10</p> </td><td> <p>2.20</p> </td><td> <p>0.72</p> </td><td> <p>0.83</p> </td><td> <p>1.26</p> </td><td> <p>0.210</p> </td></tr><tr><td> <p>9.       Helping Textbooks</p> </td><td> <p>2.25</p> </td><td> <p>2.40</p> </td><td> <p>0.79</p> </td><td> <p>0.99</p> </td><td> <p>1.64</p> </td><td> <p>0.102</p> </td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>Table 4 compares the use of
mathematics resources by public and private school teachers. It is evident that
a significantly more number of public school teachers, than private school
teachers, claim to use <italic>computer software </italic>in mathematics classroom.
Whereas, significantly more private school teachers claim to use <italic>math
manipulatives, curriculum documents, teacher guides </italic>and <italic>worksheets in
mathematics classroom. </italic>No difference in the use of <italic>calculators,
computers, measuring devices and helping books </italic>by the public and private
school teachers was found.</p><table-wrap id="table4"><label>Table 4</label><caption><title>Comparison of Mathematics Resources’ Use in Teaching Practices</title></caption><table><tbody><tr><td> <p><bold>Resources Being Used</bold></p> </td><td> <p><bold>Mean (Public)</bold></p> </td><td> <p><bold>Mean (Private)</bold></p> </td><td> <p><bold>SD (Public)</bold></p> </td><td> <p><bold>SD (Private)</bold></p> </td><td> <p><bold><italic>t</italic></bold></p> </td><td> <p><bold><italic>P</italic></bold></p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>1.       Computer Software</p> </td><td> <p>2.65</p> </td><td> <p>2.35</p> </td><td> <p>1.09</p> </td><td> <p>1.57</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>2.18</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>0.030</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>2.       Math manipulative</p> </td><td> <p>2.35</p> </td><td> <p>2.90</p> </td><td> <p>0.81</p> </td><td> <p>2.45</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>3.00</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>0.003</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>3.       Curriculum documents</p> </td><td> <p>1.95</p> </td><td> <p>2.20</p> </td><td> <p>0.76</p> </td><td> <p>1.15</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>2.52</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>0.012</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>4.       Teacher’s guide</p> </td><td> <p>2.05</p> </td><td> <p>2.30</p> </td><td> <p>0.51</p> </td><td> <p>0.92</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>3.32</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>0.001</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>5.       Worksheets</p> </td><td> <p>1.75</p> </td><td> <p>2.15</p> </td><td> <p>0.64</p> </td><td> <p>0.99</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>4.72</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>&lt;0.001</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>6.       Calculators</p> </td><td> <p>2.15</p> </td><td> <p>2.25</p> </td><td> <p>1.09</p> </td><td> <p>0.79</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>1.01</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>0.311</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>7.       Computers</p> </td><td> <p>2.30</p> </td><td> <p>2.50</p> </td><td> <p>0.80</p> </td><td> <p>1.24</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>1.89</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>0.060</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>8.       Measuring devices</p> </td><td> <p>2.30</p> </td><td> <p>2.45</p> </td><td> <p>0.80</p> </td><td> <p>1.00</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>1.62</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>0.106</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>9.       Helping textbooks</p> </td><td> <p>2.10</p> </td><td> <p>1.90</p> </td><td> <p>1.17</p> </td><td> <p>0.79</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>1.93</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>0.054</p> </td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>Table 5
compares the instructional techniques/methods used by public and private school
mathematics teachers. It is revealed that significantly more public school teachers
claim using <italic>discussion method, lecture method, individual concentration </italic>and <italic>teaching in small groups </italic>as compared to private
teachers. On the other hand significantly more private teachers claim using <italic>project
method, demonstration method, group work </italic>and <italic>visit to mathematics museum</italic>
in their mathematics classroom. No statistical difference in the use of <italic>problem
solving technique </italic>and <italic>drill method</italic> was found among teachers from the
both type of schools though the <italic>drill method</italic> seems to be most commonly
used by the teachers.</p><p><bold>Table 5. Comparison of Mathematics Instructional Techniques/Methods Used by
Public and Private School Teachers</bold></p><table-wrap id="table5"><label>Table 5</label><caption><title>Table 5</title></caption><table><tbody><tr><td> <p><bold>Description</bold></p> </td><td> <p><bold>Mean (Public)</bold></p> </td><td> <p><bold>Mean (Private)</bold></p> </td><td> <p><bold>SD (Public)</bold></p> </td><td> <p><bold>SD (Private)</bold></p> </td><td> <p><bold><italic>t</italic></bold></p> </td><td> <p><bold><italic>P</italic></bold></p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>1.       Discussion method</p> </td><td> <p>2.20</p> </td><td> <p>1.60</p> </td><td> <p>1.01</p> </td><td> <p>0.82</p> </td><td> <p>6.32</p> </td><td> <p>&lt;0.001</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>2.       Lecture method</p> </td><td> <p>2.60</p> </td><td> <p>2.25</p> </td><td> <p>0.82</p> </td><td> <p>0.64</p> </td><td> <p>4.60</p> </td><td> <p>&lt;0.001</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>3.       Individual concentration</p> </td><td> <p>2.50</p> </td><td> <p>2.00</p> </td><td> <p>0.83</p> </td><td> <p>0.86</p> </td><td> <p>4.04</p> </td><td> <p>&lt;0.001</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>4.       Teaching in small groups</p> </td><td> <p>2.30</p> </td><td> <p>2.05</p> </td><td> <p>0.80</p> </td><td> <p>0.89</p> </td><td> <p>2.88</p> </td><td> <p>0.004</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>5.       Project method</p> </td><td> <p>1.65</p> </td><td> <p>2.70</p> </td><td> <p>0.93</p> </td><td> <p>0.92</p> </td><td> <p>11.05</p> </td><td> <p>&lt;0.001</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>6.       Demonstration method</p> </td><td> <p>1.55</p> </td><td> <p>2.00</p> </td><td> <p>1.00</p> </td><td> <p>0.97</p> </td><td> <p>6.42</p> </td><td> <p>&lt;0.001</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>7.       Group work</p> </td><td> <p>2.05</p> </td><td> <p>2.85</p> </td><td> <p>1.00</p> </td><td> <p>0.93</p> </td><td> <p>8.05</p> </td><td> <p>&lt;0.001</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>8.       Visit to mathematics museum</p> </td><td> <p>1.70</p> </td><td> <p>2.75</p> </td><td> <p>0.86</p> </td><td> <p>1.48</p> </td><td> <p>8.56</p> </td><td> <p>&lt;0.001</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>9.       Problem solving technique</p> </td><td> <p>2.25</p> </td><td> <p>2.00</p> </td><td> <p>0.91</p> </td><td> <p>0.46</p> </td><td> <p>1.33</p> </td><td> <p>0.185</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>10.    Drill method</p> </td><td> <p>2.75</p> </td><td> <p>2.90</p> </td><td> <p>2.34</p> </td><td> <p>1.07</p> </td><td> <p>0.79</p> </td><td> <p>0.431</p> </td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>Table 6 presents teachers classroom
practices regarding assessment techniques used by the public and private school
teachers. It is evident that public school teachers use <italic>question/answer
during class </italic>significantly more that private school teachers. However, the
private school teachers use <italic>novel home works, projects,
worksheets, tests based on detailed calculations</italic>
and <italic>examinations on criteria set by school </italic>significantly<italic> more than
public school teachers. </italic>No significant differences in the use of <italic>assignments,
pre-assessments </italic>and <italic>observations </italic>have been found between public and
private school teachers.</p><p><bold>Table 6. Comparison of Mathematics Assessment Techniques Used by Public and
Private School Teachers</bold></p><table-wrap id="table6"><label>Table 6</label><caption><title>Table 6</title></caption><table><tbody><tr><td> <p><bold>Description</bold></p> </td><td> <p><bold>Mean (Public)</bold></p> </td><td> <p><bold>Mean (Private)</bold></p> </td><td> <p><bold>SD (Public)</bold></p> </td><td> <p><bold>SD (Private)</bold></p> </td><td> <p><bold><italic>t</italic></bold></p> </td><td> <p><bold><italic>p</italic></bold></p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>1.       Question/Answer during class</p> </td><td> <p>2.15</p> </td><td> <p>1.55</p> </td><td> <p>0.88</p> </td><td> <p>0.69</p> </td><td> <p>-7.34</p> </td><td> <p>&lt;0.001</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>2.       Novel home works</p> </td><td> <p>1.90</p> </td><td> <p>3.65</p> </td><td> <p>0.79</p> </td><td> <p>6.74</p> </td><td> <p>12.83</p> </td><td> <p>&lt;0.001</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>3.       Projects</p> </td><td> <p>2.15</p> </td><td> <p>2.70</p> </td><td> <p>1.04</p> </td><td> <p>1.30</p> </td><td> <p>4.57</p> </td><td> <p>&lt;0.001</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>4.       Worksheets</p> </td><td> <p>2.15</p> </td><td> <p>2.75</p> </td><td> <p>1.04</p> </td><td> <p>0.85</p> </td><td> <p>6.12</p> </td><td> <p>&lt;0.001</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>5.       Tests based on detailed
  calculations</p> </td><td> <p>1.90</p> </td><td> <p>2.00</p> </td><td> <p>0.72</p> </td><td> <p>0.92</p> </td><td> <p>3.56</p> </td><td> <p>&lt;0.001</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>6.       Examinations on criteria set by
  school</p> </td><td> <p>1.60</p> </td><td> <p>2.05</p> </td><td> <p>0.75</p> </td><td> <p>0.94</p> </td><td> <p>5.18</p> </td><td> <p>&lt;0.001</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>7.       Objective type tests</p> </td><td> <p>2.20</p> </td><td> <p>2.10</p> </td><td> <p>0.70</p> </td><td> <p>0.97</p> </td><td> <p>-1.16</p> </td><td> <p>0.247</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>8.       Assignments</p> </td><td> <p>2.30</p> </td><td> <p>2.15</p> </td><td> <p>1.13</p> </td><td> <p>0.99</p> </td><td> <p>-1.37</p> </td><td> <p>0.172</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>9.       Pre-assessments</p> </td><td> <p>2.80</p> </td><td> <p>2.70</p> </td><td> <p>1.58</p> </td><td> <p>0.86</p> </td><td> <p>-0.75</p> </td><td> <p>0.451</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>10.    Observations</p> </td><td> <p>2.05</p> </td><td> <p>2.10</p> </td><td> <p>0.69</p> </td><td> <p>0.79</p> </td><td> <p>0.66</p> </td><td> <p>0.511</p> </td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap>
</sec>
<sec id="sec-5">
  <title>Discussion</title>
<p>This study was aimed at to compare mathematics classroom practices of public and private secondary school teachers. The classroom practices were split into six components i.e. mathematic teaching practices, mathematic effective students’ instruction, mathematic resources availability, use of mathematic resources, use of instructional techniques and evaluation techniques used by the teachers.</p><p>The findings of this study suggest that in view of private school teachers mathematics is best taught with students of equal capabilities, by connecting mathematics with other disciplines, by asking questions to students to gauge their understanding and using textbook as a primary instructional tool. Whereas, significantly higher number of public school teachers agreed mathematics is best taught when built on prior student understanding of the concept, through students&apos; conceptual understanding, by engaging students in hands-on/project-based learning and in cooperative learning groups. The finding regarding working in cooperative groups for effective math learning is in accordance with Johnson and Johnson (1975) and Davidson (1990). Similarly the teaching through conceptual understanding has also been advocated by Shellard and Moyer (2002). However, no statistical difference was found regarding the opinion of teachers about mathematics is best taught by developing students&apos; interest in mathematics. The mathematics teaching practices of the public and private school teachers are in alignment with the some of the practices listed by Sabean and Bavaria (2005). Khabbazsbashi, Khalifa, Robinson, Ellis and Misfud (2017) also elaborated that text book is a customary method in teacher centered technique.</p><p>Private school teachers give more emphasis on computational skill as compared to public school teachers. Public school teachers explain reasoning, pose open ended question and practice difficult problem by drill in the comparison with private school teachers. Provision of material teaching resources in public schools is high regarding computer software, mathematic curriculum document, manipulative, measuring devices, and spreadsheets as compared to private schools (Iqbal, 2012) In spite of extensive classes at optional level in government funded schools, they indicated great outcomes when contrasted with the private schools. It might be because of the better services in government funded schools as material goods, research facilities and prepared educating staff. I-lead instructors in state funded schools are very well qualified, experienced and have command on their subjects.</p><p>The NCTM has built up a position explanation which gives a system to the utilization of innovation in math educating furthermore, learning. The NCTM announcement supports innovation as a basic instrument for powerful mathematic learning. Utilizing innovation suitably can expand both the extent of substance and scope of issue circumstances accessible to students. NCTM suggests that students and teachers approach an assortment of instructional innovation apparatuses, teachers be given proper expert advancement, the utilization of instructional innovation be incorporated over all educational program and courses, and that instructors make educated choices about the utilization of innovation in mathematics course (NCTM, 2003). This study shows that mathematic curriculum document, manipulative, measuring devices, and spreadsheets, worksheet calculators, teacher guide and computers as teaching resources are used highly at public schools. On the other hand, helping books and computers software is more use in private schools classrooms.</p><p>The highly used instructional techniques at public schools are demonstration, project, drill and group work method whereas problem solving, lecture, individual concentration, small group and discussion methods are largely used at private classrooms. Problem solving technique is recommended in our national curriculum for enhancing students learning. However visit to mathematic museum and computer lab is the practice in public schools. Similarly, problem solving has been advocated as effective mathematics teaching practice by researchers in the past (Checkly, 1997)</p><p>Assessment is the input system for enhancing classroom learning. By enhancing teachers&apos; assessment techniques and abilities, we can enhance classroom learning. This is a motivated errand, yet this is the method for enhancing students’ performance. This study explored that set criteria detail exams, worksheets, projects, observations and novel homework are the practices being used by public secondary school teachers for students’ evaluation. On the other hand, pre-assessments, assignments, objective type test and question answer sessions are practices commonly used for evaluation by the private secondary school teachers. Romberg (2000) and Computing Technology for Math Excellence (2006) have also talked about assessment of thinking skills and diagnostic, formative and summative assessments doe various purposes.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="sec-6">
  <title>Conclusion</title>
<p>The purpose for the study was to identify the teaching practices of public and private schools for the advancement of composing abilities in mathematic classrooms. It has been our common observation that the public school teacher used teacher centered teaching techniques. Previous researches shows that cooperative learning, engage students in different projects  and problem solving techniques are  effective best practices for teaching mathematic. This  study conclude that private school teacher adopt Problem solving techniques, cooperative environment, individual concentration, small group discussion and encourage students in mathematic classrooms as compared to public school teachers. Public school teachers highly believe that text book is primary instructional tool for teaching mathematic. They practice difficult mathematic problem by drill in their classes.  Provision of material resources in public schools is high. Mathematic curriculum document, manipulative, measuring devices, and spreadsheets, worksheet calculators, teacher guide and computers as teaching resources are available in public schools. Private schools are moderately costly so larger part of the general population hurry to the public schools and it is the reason for large classes in the estimate which influenced the teaching of the teachers. In spite of extensive classes at optional level in public schools, they indicated greater outcomes when contrasted with the private schools. It might be because of the better services in public schools such as material goods, laboratories and prepared educating staff .public school teachers are very well qualified, experienced and have command on their subjects.</p>
</sec>
</body>
<back>
<fn-group content-type="conflict-of-interest">
  <title>Conflict of Interest</title>
  <fn fn-type="conflict">
<p>The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.</p>
  </fn>
</fn-group>
<fn-group content-type="ethics-statement">
  <title>Ethics Statement</title>
  <fn fn-type="ethics">
<p>This study did not require formal ethics approval.</p>
  </fn>
</fn-group>
<fn-group content-type="data-availability">
  <title>Data Availability</title>
  <fn fn-type="data-availability-statement">
<p>Data sharing is not applicable to this article.</p>
  </fn>
</fn-group>
<app-group>
  <app id="app-suppl">
    <title>Supplementary Materials</title>
<supplementary-material id="suppl-pdf" content-type="pdf" xlink:href="https://gssrjournal.com/pdf/gssr/6plxHDuuco.pdf">
  <label>PDF</label>
  <caption>
    <title>Full Text PDF</title>
  </caption>
</supplementary-material>
  </app>
</app-group>
<ref-list>
  <title>References</title>
<ref id="Anastasia">
  <label>1</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <article-title>Anastasia</article-title>
    <source>(2018, November 22). Piaget&apos;s theory of cognitive development. Retrieved from</source>
    <page-range>iaget</page-range>
    Anastasia. (2018, November 22). Piaget&apos;s theory of cognitive development. Retrieved from
    <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://www.cleverism.com/piagets-theory.">https://www.cleverism.com/piagets-theory.</ext-link>
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Arends">
  <label>2</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Arends, F., Winnaar, L., &amp; Mosimege, M</person-group>
    <year>2017</year>
    <article-title>. Teacher classroom practices and mathematics performance in south african schools: A reflection on TIMSS 2011</article-title>
    <source>South African Journal of Education</source>
    <volume>37</volume>
    <issue>3</issue>
    <fpage>1</fpage>
    <lpage>11</lpage>
    Arends, F., Winnaar, L., &amp; Mosimege, M. (2017). Teacher classroom practices and mathematics performance in south african schools: A reflection on TIMSS 2011. South African Journal of Education, 37(3), 1-11.
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Artzt">
  <label>3</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Artzt, A.F., &amp; Armour-Thomas, E</person-group>
    <year>1992</year>
    <article-title>. Development of a cognitivemetacognitive framework for protocol analysis of mathematical problem solving in small groups</article-title>
    <source>Cognition and Instruction</source>
    <volume>9</volume>
    <fpage>137</fpage>
    <lpage>175</lpage>
    Artzt, A.F., &amp; Armour-Thomas, E. (1992). Development of a cognitivemetacognitive framework for protocol analysis of mathematical problem solving in small groups. Cognition and Instruction, 9, 137-175.
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Asikhia">
  <label>4</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Asikhia, O.A</person-group>
    <year>2010</year>
    <article-title>. Students&apos; and teachers&apos; perception of the causes of academic performance in Ogun state secondary schools, Nigeria</article-title>
    <source>European Journal of Social Sciences</source>
    <volume>13</volume>
    <issue>2</issue>
    <fpage>229</fpage>
    <lpage>242</lpage>
    Asikhia, O.A. (2010). Students&apos; and teachers&apos; perception of the causes of academic performance in Ogun state secondary schools, Nigeria. European Journal of Social Sciences, 13(2), 229-242
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Attwood">
  <label>5</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Attwood, N</person-group>
    <year>2001</year>
    <article-title>. Relationships between Mathematics aggregate, socioeconomic status and gender of grade 8 learners in a school situated in an economically depressed area of the Cape Flats</article-title>
    <source>Pythagoras, (55): 42-48</source>
    <page-range>ythagoras</page-range>
    Attwood, N. (2001). Relationships between Mathematics aggregate, socioeconomic status and gender of grade 8 learners in a school situated in an economically depressed area of the Cape Flats. Pythagoras, (55): 42-48.
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Awan">
  <label>6</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Awan, A.G</person-group>
    <year>2012</year>
    <article-title>. Capital: Driving force of economic growth in selected emerging economies</article-title>
    <source>Global Disclosure of Economics and Business</source>
    <volume>1</volume>
    <issue>1</issue>
    <fpage>9</fpage>
    <lpage>30</lpage>
    Awan, A.G. (2012). Capital: Driving force of economic growth in selected emerging economies. Global Disclosure of Economics and Business, 1(1), 9-30.
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Checkly">
  <label>7</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Checkly, K</person-group>
    <year>1997</year>
    <article-title>. Problem-based learning</article-title>
    <source>ASCD Curriculum Update, summer, 3</source>
    <page-range>roblem-based</page-range>
    Checkly, K. (1997). Problem-based learning. ASCD Curriculum Update, summer, 3.
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Computing">
  <label>8</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Computing Technology for Math Excellence</person-group>
    <year>2006</year>
    <article-title>. Math Methology</article-title>
    <source>Retrieved February</source>
    Computing Technology for Math Excellence. (2006). Math Methology. Retrieved February 11, 2018 from
    <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.ct4me.net/math_methodology.html">http://www.ct4me.net/math_methodology.html</ext-link>
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Davidson">
  <label>9</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Davidson, N. (Ed.)</person-group>
    <year>1990</year>
    <article-title>. Cooperative learning in mathematics: A handbook for teachers</article-title>
    <source>Menlo Park, CA: Addison-Wesley</source>
    <page-range>ark</page-range>
    Davidson, N. (Ed.). (1990). Cooperative learning in mathematics: A handbook for teachers. Menlo Park, CA: Addison-Wesley.
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="de">
  <label>10</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">de Winter, J.C.F. &amp; Dodou, D</person-group>
    <year>2010</year>
    <article-title>. Five-Point Likert Items: t test versus MannWhitney-Wilcoxon</article-title>
    <source>Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation</source>
    <volume>15</volume>
    <issue>11</issue>
    <fpage>1</fpage>
    <lpage>16</lpage>
    de Winter, J.C.F. &amp; Dodou, D. (2010). Five-Point Likert Items: t test versus MannWhitney-Wilcoxon. Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation, 15(11), 1-16
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="English">
  <label>11</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">English, L. D</person-group>
    <year>2007</year>
    <article-title>. Cognitive psychology and mathematics education: reflections on the past and the future</article-title>
    <source>In Sriraman, Bharath (Ed.) Zoltan Paul Dienes and the Dynamics of Mathematical Learning. Information Age Publishing, Charlotte, NC, USA, pp. 119-126</source>
    <page-range>sychology</page-range>
    English, L. D. (2007). Cognitive psychology and mathematics education: reflections on the past and the future. In Sriraman, Bharath (Ed.) Zoltan Paul Dienes and the Dynamics of Mathematical Learning. Information Age Publishing, Charlotte, NC, USA, pp. 119-126.
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Etuk">
  <label>12</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Etuk, N. Afangideh M.E. &amp; Uya A.O</person-group>
    <year>2013</year>
    <article-title>. Students&apos; perception of teachers&apos; characteristics and their attitude towards mathematics in Oron Education Zone, Nigeria</article-title>
    <source>International Education Studies</source>
    <volume>6</volume>
    <issue>2</issue>
    <fpage>1913</fpage>
    <lpage>9020</lpage>
    Etuk, N. Afangideh M.E. &amp; Uya A.O. (2013). Students&apos; perception of teachers&apos; characteristics and their attitude towards mathematics in Oron Education Zone, Nigeria. International Education Studies; 6(2), 1913-9020.
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Goldin">
  <label>13</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Goldin, G.A</person-group>
    <year>2002</year>
    <article-title>. Representation in mathematical learning and problem solving</article-title>
    <source>In L. D. English, (Ed.), Handbook of International Research in Mathematics Education. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 197-218</source>
    <page-range>roblem</page-range>
    Goldin, G.A. (2002). Representation in mathematical learning and problem solving. In L. D. English, (Ed.), Handbook of International Research in Mathematics Education. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 197-218.
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Henson">
  <label>14</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Henson, K.T., &amp; Eller, B.F</person-group>
    <year>1999</year>
    <article-title>. Educational psychology for effective teaching</article-title>
    <source>Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing Company</source>
    <page-range>sychology</page-range>
    Henson, K.T., &amp; Eller, B.F. (1999). Educational psychology for effective teaching. Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing Company.
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Iqbal">
  <label>15</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Iqbal M</person-group>
    <year>2012</year>
    <article-title>. Public versus Private Secondary Schools: A qualitative comparison</article-title>
    <source>Journal of Research and Reflections in Education</source>
    <volume>6</volume>
    <issue>1</issue>
    <fpage>40</fpage>
    Iqbal M. (2012). Public versus Private Secondary Schools: A qualitative comparison. Journal of Research and Reflections in Education, 6(1), 40 - 49.
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Johnson">
  <label>17</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Johnson, D., &amp; Johnson, R</person-group>
    <year>1975</year>
    <article-title>. Learning together and alone: Cooperation, competition, and individualization</article-title>
    <source>Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall</source>
    <page-range>rentice</page-range>
    Johnson, D., &amp; Johnson, R. (1975). Learning together and alone: Cooperation, competition, and individualization. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Khabbazbashi">
  <label>18</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Khabbazbashi, N., Khalifa, H., Robinson, M., Ellis, S. &amp; Misfsud, C</person-group>
    <year>2017</year>
    <article-title>. Understanding language in Malta</article-title>
    <source>Research Notes</source>
    <volume>65</volume>
    <fpage>3</fpage>
    <lpage>23</lpage>
    Khabbazbashi, N., Khalifa, H., Robinson, M., Ellis, S. &amp; Misfsud, C. (2017). Understanding language in Malta. Research Notes, 65, 3-23.
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Lesh">
  <label>19</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Lesh, R., &amp; Doerr, H. M. (Eds.)</person-group>
    <year>2003</year>
    <article-title>. Beyond constructivism: Models and modeling perspectives on mathematic problem solving, learning and teaching</article-title>
    <source>Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum</source>
    <page-range>erspectives</page-range>
    Lesh, R., &amp; Doerr, H. M. (Eds.). (2003). Beyond constructivism: Models and modeling perspectives on mathematic problem solving, learning and teaching. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Liaqat">
  <label>20</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Liaqat, S</person-group>
    <year>2009</year>
    <article-title>. Comparison of Quality of teaching between Government and Private schools</article-title>
    <source>Unpublished Thesis of Master in Education. Division of Education, University of Education, Lahore</source>
    <page-range>rivate</page-range>
    Liaqat, S. (2009). Comparison of Quality of teaching between Government and Private schools. Unpublished Thesis of Master in Education. Division of Education, University of Education, Lahore.
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Maree">
  <label>21</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Maree, J.G</person-group>
    <year>1997</year>
    <article-title>. The development and evaluation of a study orientation questionnaire in mathematics</article-title>
    <source>PhD thesis. Pretoria: University of Pretoria</source>
    <page-range>hD</page-range>
    Maree, J.G. (1997). The development and evaluation of a study orientation questionnaire in mathematics. PhD thesis. Pretoria: University of Pretoria.
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="National">
  <label>22</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <article-title>National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, (2003, march 24)</article-title>
    <source>The Use of Technology in Learning and Teaching of Mathematics. Retrieved from</source>
    National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, (2003, march 24). The Use of Technology in Learning and Teaching of Mathematics. Retrieved from
    <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://nctm.org/about/position_statements/position_statement_13.htm">http://nctm.org/about/position_statements/position_statement_13.htm</ext-link>
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Norman">
  <label>23</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Norman G</person-group>
    <year>2010</year>
    <source>Likert scales, levels of measurement and the</source>
    Norman G. (2010). Likert scales, levels of measurement and the
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Owens">
  <label>24</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Owens, J.E</person-group>
    <year>1995</year>
    <article-title>. Cooperative learning in secondary schools: research and theories</article-title>
    <source>In Pedersen, J.E., &amp; Digby, A.D. (Eds.). Secondary schools and cooperative learning: theories, models and strategies. New York: Garland Publishing, Inc., 153-183</source>
    <page-range>edersen</page-range>
    Owens, J.E. (1995). Cooperative learning in secondary schools: research and theories. In Pedersen, J.E., &amp; Digby, A.D. (Eds.). Secondary schools and cooperative learning: theories, models and strategies. New York: Garland Publishing, Inc., 153-183.
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Robitaille">
  <label>25</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Robitaille, D. F., &amp; Garden, R. A</person-group>
    <year>1989</year>
    <article-title>. The IEA study of mathematics II: Contexts and outcomes of school mathematics (Vol</article-title>
    <source>2). Pergamon</source>
    <page-range>ergamon</page-range>
    Robitaille, D. F., &amp; Garden, R. A. (1989). The IEA study of mathematics II: Contexts and outcomes of school mathematics (Vol. 2). Pergamon
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Romberg">
  <label>26</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Romberg, T</person-group>
    <year>2000</year>
    <article-title>. Changing the teaching and learning of mathematics</article-title>
    <source>AMT</source>
    <volume>56</volume>
    <issue>4</issue>
    <fpage>6</fpage>
    <lpage>9</lpage>
    Romberg, T. (2000). Changing the teaching and learning of mathematics. AMT, 56 (4), 6-9.
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Sabean">
  <label>27</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Sabean, M.P., &amp; Bavaria, R</person-group>
    <year>2005</year>
    <article-title>. Sylvan Learning Center Math Research</article-title>
    <source>Sylvan Learning, Inc</source>
    Sabean, M.P., &amp; Bavaria, R. (2005). Sylvan Learning Center Math Research. Sylvan Learning, Inc.
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Shellard">
  <label>28</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Shellard, E., &amp; Moyer, P. S</person-group>
    <year>2002</year>
    <article-title>. What Principals Need to Know about Teaching Math</article-title>
    <source>Alexandria. VA: National Association of Elementary School Principals and Education Research Service</source>
    <page-range>S</page-range>
    Shellard, E., &amp; Moyer, P. S. (2002). What Principals Need to Know about Teaching Math. Alexandria. VA: National Association of Elementary School Principals and Education Research Service.
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Simpson">
  <label>29</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Simpson, M., Payne, F., Munro, R., &amp; Hughes, S</person-group>
    <year>1999</year>
    <source>Using information and communications technology as a pedagogical tool: Who educates the educators? Journal of Education for Teaching</source>
    <volume>25</volume>
    <issue>3</issue>
    <fpage>247</fpage>
    <lpage>262</lpage>
    Simpson, M., Payne, F., Munro, R., &amp; Hughes, S. (1999). Using information and communications technology as a pedagogical tool: Who educates the educators? Journal of Education for Teaching, 25(3), 247-262.
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Stevenson">
  <label>30</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Stevenson, H.W., &amp; Stigler, J.W</person-group>
    <year>1992</year>
    <article-title>. The learning gap: Why our schools are failing and what we can learn from Japanese and Chinese education</article-title>
    <source>New York: Simon and Schuster</source>
    Stevenson, H.W., &amp; Stigler, J.W. (1992). The learning gap: Why our schools are failing and what we can learn from Japanese and Chinese education. New York: Simon and Schuster.
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Stipek">
  <label>31</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Stipek, D.J., Givvin, K.B., Salmon, J.M. and MacGyvers, V.L</person-group>
    <year>2001</year>
    <article-title>. Teachers&apos; beliefs and practices related to mathematics instruction</article-title>
    <source>Teaching and Teacher Education</source>
    <volume>17</volume>
    <issue>2</issue>
    <fpage>213</fpage>
    <lpage>226</lpage>
    Stipek, D.J., Givvin, K.B., Salmon, J.M. and MacGyvers, V.L. (2001). Teachers&apos; beliefs and practices related to mathematics instruction. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(2), 213-226.
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Vygotsky">
  <label>32</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Vygotsky, L. S</person-group>
    <year>1978</year>
    <article-title>. Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes</article-title>
    <source>Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press</source>
    <page-range>sychological</page-range>
    Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Wenglinsky">
  <label>33</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Wenglinsky, H</person-group>
    <year>2001</year>
    <article-title>. Teacher classroom practices and student performance: How schools can make a difference</article-title>
    <source>Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service</source>
    <page-range>ractices</page-range>
    Wenglinsky, H. (2001). Teacher classroom practices and student performance: How schools can make a difference. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
</ref-list>
</back>
</article>