Feasibility of Modularisation in Teaching and Learning Mathematics Through ODeL in Teacher Education

Chipo Makamure

doi:10.25159/2312-3540/17390

Authors

Chipo Makamure Zimbabwe Open University https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4014-8208

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.25159/2312-3540/17390

Keywords:

Curriculum, higher education, mathematics knowledge, modularisation, ODeL learning, quality learning

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to explore the feasibility of utilising the modular approach to teaching and learning mathematics within the context of open and distance electronic learning (ODeL) at two institutions of higher learning in Zimbabwe. Over the past three years, there has been a notable emphasis on delivering mathematics education within a technological framework at many Zimbabwean universities, thereby necessitating the implementation of a modular system. Modularisation entails partitioning the curriculum into discrete units that are delivered over short durations. Students accumulate credits from individual modules assessed monthly, which subsequently contribute to their final grade for the programme. However, despite being commended as a system capable of enhancing the quality of mathematics learning, modularisation has received scant regard from several scholars. In mathematics education, extended study time correlates with improved performance, highlighting the uncertainty regarding the ability of this system to impart foundational knowledge within a mere three weeks prior to final examinations. This qualitative study explored the feasibility of the modular system of learning by unravelling the experiences of mathematics education instructors and students with the modularisation programme implemented at two state universities in Zimbabwe. The findings suggest that modularisation may hinder mathematical innovation, as it risks fostering examination-oriented behaviours among learners, resulting in superficial understanding because of continuous assessment conducted in “bite-sized” pieces, ultimately leading to a reduction in the time allocated for comprehensive knowledge delivery.

References

Ali, R., R. Ghazi, S. Khan, S. Hussain, and T. Fatima. 2010. “Effectiveness of Modular Teaching in Biology at Secondary School.” Asian Social Science 6 (9): 49–54. https://doi.org/10.5539/ass.v6n9p49 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5539/ass.v6n9p49

Barnes, H. 2005. “The Theory of Realistic Mathematics Education as a Theoretical Framework for Teaching Low Attainers in Mathematics.” Pythagoras 61: 42–57. https://doi.org/10.4102/pythagoras.v0i61.120 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4102/pythagoras.v0i61.120

Clements, D. H., and J. Sarama. 2013. “Rethinking Early Mathematics: What is Research Based Curriculum for Young Children?” In Reconceptualizing Early Mathematics Learning, edited by L. D. English and J. T. Mulligan. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6440-8_7 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6440-8_7

Creswell, J. 2015. Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research. Pearson.

Dejene, G. D. 2023. “Challenges of Teaching and Learning Mathematics Courses in Online Platforms.” International Journal of Online Pedagogy and Course Design 13 (1). https://doi.org/10.4018/IJOPCD.321155 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4018/IJOPCD.321155

Dejene, W., and D. Chen. 2019. “The Practice of Modularized Curriculum in Higher Education Institution: Active Learning and Continuous Assessment in Focus.” Cogent Education 6 (1). https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2019.1611052 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2019.1611052

Dochy, F. J. R. C., L. J. J. M. Wagemans, and H. C. de Wolf. 1989. Modularisation and Student Learning in Modular Instruction in Relation with Prior Knowledge. Open Universiteit.

Edo, S. I., Y. Hartono, and R. I. I. Putri. 2013. “Investigating Secondary School Students’ Difficulties in Modeling Problems PISA-Model Level 5 and 6.” Journal on Mathematics Education 4 (1): 41–58. https://doi.org/10.22342/jme.4.1.561.41-58 DOI: https://doi.org/10.22342/jme.4.1.561.41-58

Ertl, H., and G. Hayward. 2010. “Modularization in Vocational Education and Training.” In International Encyclopedia of Education, edited by Penelope Peterson, Eva Baker, and Barry McGaw. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-044894-7.00786-7 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-044894-7.00786-7

Falloon, G. 2011. “Making the Connection: Moore’s Theory of Transactional Distance and Its Relevance to the Use of a Virtual Classroom in Postgraduate Online Teacher Education.” Journal of Research on Technology in Education 43 (3): 187–209. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2011.10782569 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2011.10782569

French, S. 2015. The Benefits and Challenges of Modular Higher Education Curricular. Melbourne Center for the Study of Higher Education.

Giossos, Y., M. Koutsouba, A. Lionarakis, and K. Skavantzos. 2009. “Reconsidering Moore’s Transactional Distance Theory.” European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning 2: 1–6.

Gora, P. 2023. “Is the Modular Higher Education System a Friend or Foe?” University World News. African edition.

Hodgson, A., and K. Spours. 2001. Evaluating Stage 1 of the Hargreaves Review of Curriculum 2000: An Analysis of Teachers’ and Students’ Views and the Future of the Reform Process. Institute of Education.

Makuvire, C., and M. Mhishi. 2024. “Modularisation of the University Curriculum in Zimbabwe: Perceptions of Lecturers and Students.” Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences 15 (4): 124–139. https://doi.org/10.36941/mjss-2024-0036 DOI: https://doi.org/10.36941/mjss-2024-0036

Moore, M. 1997. “Theory of Transactional Distance.” In Theoretical Principles of Distance Education, edited by D. Keegan. Routledge.

Mushauri, P. K. 2023. “The Modular Learning at University of Zimbabwe (UZ) and Psychological Requirements of Learning.” Psychpolitics [blog]. https://psychpoliticszw.wordpress.com/2023/07/10/the-modular-learning-at-university-of-zimbabwe-uz-and-psychological-requirements-of-learning/

Mutendi, M., and C. Makamure. 2019. “The Role of Written Feedback in Numeracy in the Primary School Classroom.” International Journal of Education 11 (2): 52–67. https://doi.org/10.5296/ije.v11i2.14550 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5296/ije.v11i2.14550

NCCA (National Council for Curriculum and Assessment). 2014. Maths in Practice – Report and Recommendations. http://www.ncca.ie/en/Curriculum_and_Assessment/Post-Primary_Education/Project_Maths/Information/Reports/Maths-in-Practice-Report-.pdf

Nowell, L. S., J. M. Norris, D. E. White, and N. J. Moules. 2017. “Thematic Analysis: Striving to Meet the Trustworthiness Criteria.” International Journal of Qualitative Methods 16 (1). https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406917733847 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406917733847

Ojose, B. 2011. “Mathematics Literacy: Are We Able to Put the Mathematics We Learn Into Everyday Use?” Journal of Mathematics Education 4 (1): 89–100.

Prayekti, N., T. Nusantara, Sudirman, H. Susanto, and I. Rofiki. 2020. “Students’ Mental Models in Mathematics Problem-Solving.” Journal of Critical Reviews 7 (12): 468–470.

Priestley, M. 2003. “Curriculum 2000: A Broader View of A-Levels?” Cambridge Journal of Education 33 (2): 237–255. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057640302037 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03057640302037

Rodeiro, G. L. V., and R. Nadas. 2005. Effects of Modularisation. Assessment Research and Development, Cambridge Assessment. https://www.cambridgeassessment.org.uk/Images/109794-effects-of-modularisation.pdf

Ryan, V., O. Fitzmaurice, and J. O’Donoghue. 2021. A Study of Academic Achievement in Mathematics after the Transition from Primary to Secondary Education.” SN Social Sciences 1 (7). https://doi.org/10.1007/s43545-021-00177-8 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s43545-021-00177-8

Spitzer, M. W. H. 2022. “Just Do It! Study Time Increases Mathematical Achievement Scores for Grade 4–10 Students in a Large Longitudinal Cross-Country Study.” European Journal of Psychology of Education 37: 39–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-021-00546-0 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-021-00546-0

Thomson, D. G. 1988. “The Modular Curriculum – A Critical Investigation.” MPhil diss., University of Cambridge.

Vincent-Lancrin, S., Joaquin Urgel, Soumyajit Kar, and Gwénaël Jacotin. 2019. Measuring Innovation in Education 2019: What Has Changed in the Classroom? OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264311671-en DOI: https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264311671-en

Yang, J., C. Schneller, and S. Roche. 2015. The Role of Higher Education in Promoting Lifelong Learning. UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning.