Articles
DOI DOI: 10.66434/ijssr.v1i1.459

Exploring teachers' experiences in integrating multiple means of engagement for the Mathematics classroom: A desktop study

Senzosethu Mathe1, Matheko Thamae1
  1. 1 University of the Free State, South Africa

Abstract

Multiple means of engagement address problems and emotional dispositions, such as demotivation, anxiety, and disengagement, that learners often experience across various school subjects, particularly in mathematics. There are multiple factors related to student underachievement and disengagement in mathematics. Data processing in qualitative research is inductive, creating themes and patterns. While there are many benefits to using sources as data, several limitations must be considered when employing this research methodology. The multiple means of engagement principle is expedited through the application of numerous, flexible methods of student engagement in learning, incorporated into teaching to support affective learning. Increasing learners’ motivation to learn mathematics is crucial in the classroom environment. Further, it is argued that there is a connection between learners’ motivation and comprehension in mathematics and increased academic performance. The term paradigm is used in educational research to describe a researcher’s worldview, defined as the community’s beliefs and knowledge. The information gathered from books, articles, and journals is organised into themes and presented accordingly. Validity is a fundamental concept in research, referring to the extent to which a test, measurement, or study accurately reflects or assesses the specific concept that the researcher is attempting to measure. The problem is that, for many years, teachers have taught mathematics through whole-group lectures, resulting in very limited learner engagement, instruction, and participation.

How to Cite

Mathe, S. ., & Thamae, M. (2026). Exploring teachers’ experiences in integrating multiple means of engagement for the Mathematics classroom: A desktop study. International Journal of Studies in Systematic Reviews, 1(1), 16–22. https://doi.org/10.66434/ijssr.v1i1.459
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS) BibTeX

References

  1. Adams, N. E. (2015). Bloom’s taxonomy of cognitive learning objectives. Journal of the Medical Library Association: JMLA, 103(3), 152.
  2. Alderson, P., & Morrow, V. (2020). The ethics of research with children and young people: A practical handbook.
  3. Apkon, S. (2014). The age of the image: Redefining literacy in a world of screens. Macmillan.
  4. Attard, C. (2015). Engagement with mathematics: What does it mean and what does it look like?. Australian Primary Mathematics Classroom, 17(1), 9–13. https://search.informit.org/doi/10.3316/informit.049534679809306
  5. Awad, E., Dsouza, S., Kim, R., Schulz, J., Henrich, J., Shariff, A., ... & Rahwan, I. (2018). The moral machine experiment. Nature, 563(7729), 59–64. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0637-6
  6. Bertram, C., & Christiansen, I. (2014). Understanding research. An introduction to reading research. Pretoria: Van Schaik Publishers.
  7. Boaler, J. (2022). Mathematical mindsets: Unleashing students' potential through creative mathematics, inspiring messages, and innovative teaching. John Wiley & Sons.
  8. Boothe, K. A., Lohmann, M. J., Donnell, K. A., & Hall, D. D. (2018). Applying the principles of universal design for learning (UDL) in the college classroom. Journal of Special Education Apprenticeship, 7(3), 1–13.
  9. Capp, M. J. (2020). Teacher confidence to implement the principles, guidelines, and checkpoints of universal design for learning. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 24(7), 706–720. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2018.1482014
  10. Cathcart, G. S., Pothier, Y. M., Vance, J. H., & Bezuk, N. S. (2015). Learning mathematics in elementary and middle school: A learner-centered approach (6th ed.). Pearson.
  11. Chen, V. T., León-Pérez, G., Honnold, J., & Aytar, V. (2024). Content analysis. In C. Tremblay (ed.), Capstone 1: Research methods and proposal. Seneca Polytechnic. https://pressbooks.senecapolytechnic.ca/capstone1tremblay/chapter/15-1-content-analysis
  12. Courey, S. J., Tappe, P., Siker, J., & LePage, P. (2014). Improved lesson planning with universal design for learning (UDL). Teacher education and special education, 36(1), 7–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406412446178
  13. Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage Publications.
  14. Dalton, E. M. (2017). Beyond universal design for learning: Guiding principles to reduce barriers to digital & media literacy competence. Journal of Media Literacy Education, 9(2), 17–29. https://doi.org/10.23860/JMLE-2019-09-02-02
  15. Darling-Hammond, L., Flook, L., Cook-Harvey, C., Barron, B., & Osher, D. (2020). Implications for educational practice of the science of learning and development. Applied developmental science, 24(2), 97–140. 97–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888691.2018.1537791
  16. Elliott, R., & Timulak, L. (2021). Essentials of descriptive-interpretive qualitative research: a generic approach. American Psychological Association.
  17. Evmenova, A. (2018). Preparing teachers to use universal design for learning to support diverse learners. Journal of Online Learning Research, 4(2), 147–171. https://doi.org/10.70725/806763ugjaeu
  18. Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2014). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of educational research, 74(1), 59–109. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001059
  19. Freedberg, S., Bondie, R., Zusho, A., & Allison, C. (2019). Challenging students with high abilities in inclusive math and science classrooms. High Ability Studies, 30(1–2), 237–254. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598139.2019.1568185
  20. Goldman, S. R., & Pellegrino, J. W. (2015). Research on learning and instruction: Implications for curriculum, instruction, and assessment. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 2(1), 33–41. https://doi.org/10.1177/2372732215601866
  21. Goyibova, N., Muslimov, N., Sabirova, G., Kadirova, N., & Samatova, B. (2025). Differentiation approach in education: Tailoring instruction for diverse learner needs. MethodsX, 14, 103163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mex.2025.103163
  22. Grootenboer, P., & Marshman, M. (2016). Mathematics, affect, and learning. Middle school students’ beliefs and attitudes about mathematics education. Nueva York: Springer.
  23. Hammarberg, K., Kirkman, M., & De Lacey, S. (2016). Qualitative research methods: when to use them and how to judge them. Human reproduction, 31(3), 498–501. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dev334
  24. Harini, P., Goyal, G. P., Karthi, V., Mandal, R., Gawade, H. N., Shah, M. A., & Bhoopathy, V. (2026). Teaching Strategies for Active Engagement and Collaboration in Online Courses. In Trust and Connection in Digital Spaces: From Homes to Classrooms (pp. 175–202). IGI Global Scientific Publishing.
  25. Harrington, T. (2017). Understanding the Common Core State Standards in California: A Quick Guide. EdSource. https://edsource.org/2017/understanding-the-common-core-state-standards-in-california-a-quick-guide/585006
  26. Hartnett, M. (2020). Relationships between online motivation, participation, and achievement: More complex than you might think. Journal of open, flexible, and distance learning, 16(1), 28–41. https://doi.org/10.61468/jofdl.v24i1.415
  27. Hennink, M., Hutter, I., & Bailey, A. (2020). Qualitative Research Methods. SAGE Publications Limited, Thousand Oaks.
  28. Hoyles, C. (2016). Engaging with mathematics in the digital age. Cuadernos de Investigación y Formación en Educación Matemática, 225–236.
  29. Ing, M., Webb, N. M., Franke, M.L., Turrou, A. C., Wong, J., Shin, N., & Fernandez, C. H. (2015). Student participation in elementary mathematics classrooms: the missing link between teacher practices and student achievement?. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 90, 341–356. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-015-9625-z
  30. Ireson, J., & Hallam, S. (2005). Pupils' liking for school: Ability grouping, self‐concept and perceptions of teaching. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 75(2), 297–311. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709904X24762
  31. Jackson, H. (2022). UDL lesson planning for pre-service educators (Unpublished PhD thesis). Kansas: University of Kansas, United States.
  32. Jackson, S. E., Schuler, R. S., & Jiang, K. (2014). An aspirational framework for strategic human resource management. Academy of Management Annals, 8(1), 1–56. https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520.2014.872335
  33. Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. A. (2024). Cooperative learning: Improving university instruction by basing practice on validated theory. Journal on excellence in college teaching, 25(3&4), 85–118. https://celt.miamioh.edu/index.php/JECT/article/view/454
  34. Kaushik, V., & Walsh, C. A. (2019). Pragmatism as a research paradigm: implications for social work research. Social Sciences, 8(9), 255. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci8090255
  35. Luo, A. (2019 July 18). What is content analysis, and how can you use it in your research? Scribbr. www.scribbr.com
  36. Maree, K. (ed.). (2019). First steps in research (3rd ed.). Van Schaik Publishers.
  37. Means, B. (2014). The positive effects of technology on teaching and student learning (Position Statement). Education Development Center, Inc.
  38. Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. John Wiley & Sons.
  39. Morsy, L., Khavenson, T., & Carnoy, M. (2018). How international tests fail to inform policy: The unsolved mystery of Australia’s steady decline in PISA scores. International Journal of Educational Development, 60, 60–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2017.10.018
  40. OECD. (2016). Low-performing students: Why they fall behind and how to help them succeed. OECD Publishing.
  41. Ormrod, J. E., Anderman, E. M., & Anderman, L. H. (2017). Educational psychology: Developing learners, loose-leaf version. New Jersey: Pearson.
  42. Padgett, J., Cristancho, S., Lingard, L., Cherry, R., & Haji, F. (2019). Engagement: what is it good for? The role of learner engagement in healthcare simulation contexts. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 24, 811–825. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-018-9865-7
  43. Pantziara, M., & Philippou, G. N. (2015). Students’ motivation in the mathematics classroom. Revealing causes and consequences. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 13(2), 385-411. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-013-9502-0
  44. Parvez, G. S., Mufti, O., & Wahab, M. (2016). Pragmatism for mixed-method research at higher education level. Business & Economic Review, 8(2), 67–79. https://doi.org/10.22547/BER/8.2.5
  45. Pokhrel, S., & Chhetri, R. (2021). A literature review on impact of COVID-19 pandemic on teaching and learning. Higher education for the future, 8(1), 133–141. https://doi.org/10.1177/2347631120983481
  46. Rajaratnam, R. (2018). Themes and Patterns Explored in the Decline of Student Engagement: An Exploratory Case Study (Unpublished PhD thesis). Denver: University of the Rockies, United States.
  47. Salija, K., Basri, M., & Dewi, P. (2024, June). Adapting cooperative learning for the digital age: Harnessing technology to enhance collaborative learning experiences. In International Conference of Business, Education, Health, and Scien-Tech, 1(1), 310–315.
  48. Shirani Bidabadi, N., Nasr Esfahani, A. R., Mirshah Jafari, E., & Abedi, A. (2019). Developing a mathematics curriculum to improve learning behaviors and mathematics competency of children. The Journal of Educational Research, 112(3), 421–428. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2018.1547960
  49. Skinner, E. A., Pitzer, J. R., & Steele, J. S. (2016). Can student engagement serve as a motivational resource for academic coping, persistence, and learning during late elementary and early middle school?. Developmental psychology, 52(12), 2099–2117. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000232
  50. Slavin, R. E. (2022). Cooperative learning in elementary schools. In M. Brundrett, G. Beauchamp, P. Latham, M. Mistry, M. Murray, B. Taylor & P. Wood (eds.). Fifty Years of Education 3-13: International Journal of Primary, Elementary and Early Years Education (pp. 358–368). London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003316862
  51. Smith, B., & McGannon, K. R. (2018). Developing rigor in qualitative research: Problems and opportunities within sport and exercise psychology. International review of sport and exercise psychology, 11(1), 101–121. https://doi.org/10.1080/1750984X.2017.1317357
  52. Snyder, H. (2019). Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 104, 333–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.039
  53. Thomson, S., De Bortoli, L., & Underwood, C. (2017). PISA 2015: Reporting Australia's results. Australian Council for Educational Research. https://research.acer.edu.au/ozpisa/22