Group Revision is Better Than Self-Revision in Case of Mathermatics
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.33367/jtme.v3i1.5192Keywords:
Mathematics, Study, Education, Cognition, Learning, Learning Process, Learning DevelopmentAbstract
One of the most common dilemmas faced by students studying mathematics is whether to opt for group revision or self-revision. Given the increasing perception of mathematics as a challenging and less engaging subject, selecting the most effective revision strategy is crucial. This study systematically reviews existing literature to analyze the comparative benefits and drawbacks of group and self-revision in mathematics education. The research employs a systematic literature review methodology, synthesizing findings from academic studies that explore the cognitive, motivational, and pedagogical aspects of both revision methods. The analysis reveals that while individual preferences and learning styles play a role, group revision generally yields better academic performance, increased motivation, and enhanced conceptual understanding compared to self-revision. The findings have implications for students, educators, and administrators in optimizing pedagogical strategies to enhance mathematics learning outcomes
References
Anthony, G. and Walshaw, M., 2009. Effective pedagogy in mathematics (Vol. 19). Belley, France: International Academy of Education.
Boaler, J. ed., 2000. Multiple perspectives on mathematics teaching and learning (Vol. 1). Greenwood Publishing Group.
Boaler, J., 2002. Experiencing school mathematics: Traditional and reform approaches to teaching and their impact on student learning. Routledge.
Bosworth, K. & Hamilton, S.J (eds.). (1990). Collaborative learning: Underlying process and effective techniques. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, No.59. Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Brown, A. L. (1988). Motivation to learn and understand: On taking charge of one's own learning. Cognition and Instruction, 5(4), 311-321.
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(I), 32-42.
Carey, H. R., & Laughlin, P. R. (2011). Groups perform better than the best individuals on letters-to-numbers problems: Effects of induced strategies. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 15(2), 231-242.
Carr, R., Palmer, S. and Hagel, P., 2015. Active learning: The importance of developing a comprehensive measure. Active Learning in Higher Education, 16(3).
Cf.linnbenton.edu. 2021. [online] Available at: <http://cf.linnbenton.edu/wed/dev/fichtns/upload/Consider%20Studying%20in%20Groups.pdf> [Accessed 21 April 2021].
Cen, L., Ruta, D., Powell, L. and Ng, J., 2014, December. Learning alone or in a group—An empirical case study of the collaborative learning patterns and their impact on student grades. In 2014 International Conference on Interactive Collaborative Learning (ICL) (pp. 627-632). IEEE.
Chiu, M. M. (2000). Group problem solving processes: Social interactions and individual actions. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 30(1), 27-50.
Cooper, J., & Mueck, R. (1990). Student involvement in learning: Cooperative learning and college instruction. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 1, 68-76.
Daniels, H. (2016). Vygotsky and pedagogy. Abingdon: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.
Davis, B.G. (1993). Collaborative learning: Group work and study teams. In Tools for Teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers
Dewey, J., 1904. The relation of theory to practice in education.
Dewey, J., 1964. Dewey on education: Selected writings. Modern Library.
Diab, N. M. (2010). Effects of peer- versus self-editing on students’ revision of language errors in revised drafts. System, 38(1), 85-95.
Dickson, W.P. ed., 1981. Children's oral communication skills. Academic Press.
Flavell, J.H., Speer, J.R., Green, F.L., August, D.L. and Whitehurst, G.J., 1981. The development of comprehension monitoring and knowledge about communication. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, pp.1-65.
Hunter, Roberta. (2005). Reforming Communication in the Classroom: One Teacher's Journey of Change.
Lagemann, E.C., 2002. An elusive science: The troubling history of education research. University of Chicago Press.
Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.
Liberati, A., Altman, D.G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gøtzsche, P.C., Ioannidis, J.P., Clarke, M., Devereaux, P.J., Kleijnen, J. and Moher, D., 2009. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. Journal of clinical epidemiology, 62(10), pp.e1-e34.
Markman, E.M., 1977. Realizing that you don't understand: A preliminary investigation. Child development, pp.986-992.
Markman, E.M., 1979. Realizing that you don't understand: Elementary school children's awareness of inconsistencies. Child development, pp.643-655.
National Center for Biotechnology Information. Review Literature as Topic. 2005. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/ entrez?cmd = Retrieve&db=mesh&dopt=Full&list_uids= 68012196 (accessed 19 April 2021).
Research-Methodology. 2021. Types of Literature Review - Research-Methodology. [online] Available at: <https://research-methodology.net/research-methodology/types-literature-review/> [Accessed 19 April 2021].
Rollinson, P., 2005. Using peer feedback in the ESL writing class. ELT journal, 59(1), pp.23-30.
Roskosa, A. and Rupniece, D., 2016. Advantages and drawbacks of using group work in translator training. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 231, pp.244-250.
Saito, H. and Fujita, T., 2004. Characteristics and user acceptance of peer rating in EFL writing classrooms. Language Teaching Research, 8(1), pp.31-54.
Sfard, A. and Kieran, C., 2001. Preparing teachers for handling students’ mathematical communication: Gathering knowledge and building tools. In Making sense of mathematics teacher education (pp. 185-205). Springer, Dordrecht.
Shulman, L.S., 1986. Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational researcher, 15(2), pp.4-14.
Srichanyachon, N., 2011. A comparative study of three revision methods in EFL writing. Journal of College Teaching & Learning (TLC), 8(9), pp.1-8.
Snyder, H., Witell, L., Gustafsson, A., Fombelle, P. and Kristensson, P., 2016. Identifying categories of service innovation: A review and synthesis of the literature. Journal of Business Research, 69(7), pp.2401-2408.
Snyder, H., 2019. Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 104, pp.333-339.
Thompson, P.W. and Thompson, A.G., 1994. Talking about rates conceptually, Part I: A teacher's struggle. Journal for research in mathematics education, 25(3), pp.279-303.
Tetteh, G. A. (2017). The impact of a student’s study time journal as a lesson and learning study. International Journal for Lesson and Learning Studies, 6(1), 97-115. doi:10.1108/ijlls-05-2016-0013
Walvoord, B. E. (2007). Helping students write well: A guide for teachers in all disciplines. New York: The Modern Language Association of America
Abstract
Views:
203, 
PDF downloads: 76
