Узданица XIX (Ванредни број) (2022), (стр. 115-132)

АУТОР(И): Marijana M. Gorjanac Ranitović, Mirjana T. Maričić, Mia R. Marić, Aleksandar V. Petojević, Snežana S. Gordić

Е-АДРЕСА: ranitovicm@uns.ac.rs

Download Full Pdf  

DOI: 10.46793/Uzdanica19.S.115GR


The purpose of the research was to examine teachers’ perceptions of the re- quirements and benefits of using indirect versus direct instruction in online mathematics teach- ing and its relation with socio-educational variables. Also, it is examined whether, compared to other subjects, teachers more often apply a certain type of instruction in mathematics classes, and what teaching materials and tools for communication they use when applying direct and indirect instruction in online mathematics teaching. The results showed that teachers perceive the benefits and requirements of indirect instruction compared to direct instruction, and this perception is a slightly determined by levels of their education and work experience. About half of teachers, use direct instruction more often in online mathematics classes, compared to the other subjects. They use a wide range of teaching materials and tools for communication. The results have implications for the further professional development of teachers in the domain of using direct and indirect instructions in mathematics teaching.


direct and indirect instruction, online mathematics teaching, primary educa- tion, teachers’ perceptions.


  • Aaron, Herlost (2015): W. Aaron, P. Herlost, Teachers’ perceptions of students’ mathematical work while making conjectures: an examination of teacher discussions of an animated geometry classroom scenario, International Journal of STEM Education.
  • Alferi, Brooks, Aldrich, Tenenbaum (2011): L. Alferi, P. J. Brooks, N. J. Aldrich, H. R. Tenenbaum, Does discovery-based instruction enhance learning?, Journal of Educa- tional Psychology, 103(1), 1‒18.
  • Appana (2008): S. Appana, A Review of Benefits and Limitations of Online Learn- ing in the Context of the Student, the Instructor and the Tenured Faculty, International Journal on E-Learning, 7(1), 207‒213.
  • Aung, Khine (2020): Y. M. Aung, K. M. Khine, A study of the effects of direct instruction and indirect instruction on students’ achievement in geometry, J. Myanmar Acad. Arts Sci., XVIII, 9C.
  • Baysu, Ağırdağ (2019): G. Baysu, O. Ağırdağ, Turkey: Silencing ethnic inequalities under a carpet of nationalism shifting between secular and religious poles, In: P. S. (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of race and ethnic inequalities in education, Palgrave Macmillan, 1073‒1096.
  • Brunstein, Betts, Anderson (2009): A. Brunstein, S. Betts, J. R. Anderson, Practice Enables Successful Learning Under Minimal Guidance, Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(4), 790‒802.
  • Cvjetićanin, Maričić (2022): S. Cvjetićanin, M. Maričić, Doprinos primene direkt- ne u odnosu na indirektnu hands-on instrukciju na postignuća učenika u početnom obra- zovanju u prirodnim naukama, Inovacije u nastavi ‒ časopis za savremenu nastavu, 35(1), Belgrade: University of Belgrade, Teacher Education Faculty, 75‒90.
  • Dean, Kuhn (2007): D. Dean Jr, D. Kuhn, Direct instruction vs. discovery: The long view, Science Education, 91(3), 384‒397.
  • DeCaro, Rittle-Johnson (2012): M. S. DeCaro, B. Rittle-Johnson, Exploring math- ematics problems prepares children to learn from instruction, Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 113, 552‒568.
  • Dignath, Veenman (2021): C. Dignath, M. V. Veenman, The role of direct strategy instruction and indirect activation of self-regulated learning ‒ Evidence from classroom observation studies, Educational Psychology Review, 33(2), 489‒533.
  • Eysnik, De Jong (2012): T. Eysnik, T. De Jong, Does Instructional Approach Mat- ter? How Elaboration Plays a Crutial Role in Multimedia Learning, Journal of the Learning Sciences, 21(4), 583‒625.
  • Fakhrunisa, Prabawanto (2020): F. Fakhrunisa, S. Prabawanto, Online Learning in COVID-19 Pandemic: An Investigation of Mathematics Teachers’ Perception, In 2020 The 4th International Conference on Education and E-Learning (ICEEL 2020), November 06–08, 2020, Yamanashi, Japan, NY, USA: ACM, New York.
  • Guerrero-Ortiz, Huincahue (2020): C. Guerrero-Ortiz, J. Huincahue, Mathematics teacher’ perceptions and adaptations in developing online classes ‒ ideas for teacher training, Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1702.
  • Hmelo-Silver, Duncan, Chinn (2007): C. E. Hmelo-Silver, R. G. Duncan, C. A. Chinn, Scaffolding and Achivement in Problem-Based and Inquiry Learning: A Response to Kirschner, Sweller and Clark (2006), Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 99‒107.
  • Hohlfeld, Ritzhaupt, Dawson, Wilson (2017): T. N. Hohlfeld, A. D. Ritzhaupt, K. Dawson, M. L. Wilson, An examination of seven years of technology integration in Florida schools: Through the lens of the levels of digital divide in schools, Computers & Education, 113, 135‒161.
  • Jones, Southern, (2003): E. D. Jones, T. W. Southern, Balancing perspectives on mathematics instruction, Focus on Exceptional Children, 35(9).
  • Kalyuga, Chandler, Tuovinen, John (2001): S. Kalyuga, P. Chandler, J. Tuovinen, S. John, When Problem Solving Is Superior to Studying Worked Examples, Journal of Educational Psychology, 3, 579‒588.
  • Kirschner, Sweller, Clark (2006): P. A. Kirschner, J. Sweller, R. E. Clark, Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysus of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching, Edu- cational psychologist, 41(2), 75‒86.
  • Kittell (1957): J. E. Kittell, An experimental study of the effect of external direction during learning on transfer and retention of principles, Journal of Educational Psychology, 48(7), 391–405.
  • Kopas-Vukašinović, Mihajlović, Miljković (2021): E. Kopas-Vukašinović, A. Mi- hajlović, A. Miljković, Stavovi studenata o kvalitetu nastave na daljinu, Uzdanica, XVIII/2, 19‒33.
  • Kuhn (2007): D. Kuhn, Is direct instruction an answer to the right question?, Educational psyhologist, 42(2), 109‒113.
  • Lee, Anderson (2013): H. S. Lee, J. R. Anderson, Student Learning:What Has Instruction Got to Do With It?, The Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 445‒469.
  • Loibi, Rummel (2013): K. Loibi, N. Rummel, The impact of guidance during prob- lem-solving prior to instruction on students’ inventions and learning outcomes, Instructional Science, 42(3), 305‒326.
  • Maričić, Cvjetićanin, Adamov, Ninković, Anđić (2022a): M. Maričić, S. Cvjetićanin, J. Adamov, S. O. Ninković, B. Anđić, How Do Direct and Indirect Hands-on Instructions Strengthened by the Self-Explanation Effect Promote Learning? Evidence from Motion Content, Research in Science Education, 1‒21.
  • Maričić, Cvjetićanin, Andevski, Anđić (2022b): M. Maričić, S. Cvjetićanin, M. An- devski, B. Anđić, Effects of Withholding Answers Coupled with Physical Manipulation on Students’ Learning of Magnetism-related Science Content, Research in Science & Techno- logical Education.
  • Matlen, Klahr (2013): B. J. Matlen, D. Klahr, Sequential effects of high and low instructional guidance on children’s acquisition of experimentation skills: Is it all in the timing?, Instructional Science, 41(3),
  • Mayer (2004): R. Mayer, Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning?, American Psychologist, 59, 14‒19.
  • Mihajlović, Vulović, Maričić (2021): A. Mihajlović, N. Vulović, S. Maričić, Teach- ing Mathematics During the Covid-19 Pandemic ‒ Examining the Perceptions of Class Teachers and Mathematics Teachers, Nauka, nastava, učenje u izmenjenom društvenom kontekstu, Jagodina: Faculty of Education, 501‒518.
  • Nifdi, N. I. (2022): DI vs. di: The Term “Direct Instruction”. Retrieved in September 2022 from https://www.nifdi.org/what-is-di/di-vs-di.html.
  • Oladayo, Oladayo (2012): O. T. Oladayo, C. E. Oladayo, Effects of Direct and In- direct Instructional Strategies on Students’ Achivement in Mathematics, African Research Review, 6(4), 349‒361.
  • Özdemir (2016): C. Özdemir, Equity in the Turkish education system: A multilevel analysis of social background influences on the mathematics performance of 15-year-old students, European Educational Research Journal, 15(2), 193–217.
  • Schmidt, Loyens, Van Gog, Paas (2007): H. G. Schmidt, S. M. Loyens, T. Van Gog, F. Paas, Problem-Based Learning is Compatible with Human Cognitive Architecture: Co- mentary on Kirschner, Sweller and Clark (2006), Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 91‒97.
  • Singh, Thurman (2019): V. Singh, A. Thurman, How many ways can we define online learning? A systematic literature review of definitions of online learning, American Journal of Distance Education, 33(4), 289‒306.
  • Stockard, Wood, Coughlin, Rasplica Khoury (2018): J. Stockard, T. W. Wood, C. Coughlin, C. Rasplica Khoury, The Effectiveness of Direct Instruction Curricula: A Meta-Analysis of a Half Century of Research, Review of Educational Research, 88(4), 479‒507.
  • Trybus (2013): M. Trybus, Preparing for the future of education ‒ Equipping stu- dents with 21st century skills: An interview with Dr. Robin Fogarty, Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 80(1), 10‒15.
  • Upu, Buhari (2014): H. Upu, B. Buhari, Constructivism versus Cognitive Load The- ory: In Search for an Effective Mathematics Teaching. Retrived in September 2022 from https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/2108/2108.04796.pdf.
  • Warner, Kaur (2017): S. Warner, A. Kaur, The Perceptions of Teachers and Stu- dents on a 21st Century Mathematics Instructional Model, International electronic journal of mathematics education, 12(2), 193‒215.
  • Yılmaz, Gülbağcı Dede, Sears, Yıldız Nielsen (2021): Z. Yılmaz, H. Gülbağcı Dede, R. Sears, S. Yıldız Nielsen, Are we all in this together?: mathematics teachers’ perspectives on equity in remote instruction during pandemic, Educational Studies in Mathematics.