The frame-work for engagement theory

THE ENGAGEMENT THEORY FRAME-WORK

Kearsley & Schneiderman

The fundamental idea behind the Engagement theory is that students should be meaningfully involved in their learning, and this come through interactive and worthwhile tasks. Although the use of technology is not essential, it is found that technology can promote engagement that is difficult to achieve otherwise.

The engagement theory encourages and promotes:

i) working collaboratively

ii) project based learning

iii) have an authentic focus

From the above frame-work, we can vividly seen that, teachers can basically choose between different teaching styles available, but most importantly is the engagement of learners in their own learning process. Engagement theory is the advocate of constructivist teaching and learning style.

The theory emphasized on the collaborative and involvement of learners to acquire knowledge by themselves. Teachers should involve learners through either project task, problems solving, or inquiry task etc.

Moreover, the instruction should be clearly stated, with a definite focus free from any ambiguity. That is to say the processes are linked from relationship (collaboration and involvement), creative tendencies ( Problems solving, discovery, questioning and thinking) to donation which is referred to authentic focus such as (clarity, focus, factual, visionary and universal).

Having learners fully engaged into their own learning, it could be possible learners to derive enjoy, interest and persistence in what they learn and when the interest is rose, that will lead to intrinsic motivation, if the learners are motivated it will yield to achievement in which that could yield to a better assessment(examination/CGPA) or demonstration ability.

The Evolution of Mathematical Values Theory

There were numerous researches conducted on mathematics values, such as Krathwohl, Bloom and Masia, (1964); Raths, Harmin and Simon, (1987); Tomlinson and Quinton, (1986), on affective aspects of mathematics education. Buxton, (1981); Fasheh, (1982); McLeod, (1992; Thompson, (1992); Sosniak, et al, (1991), and on social and cultural aspects of mathematics education.

Bishop, (1988); Davis and Hersh, (1981) and (1986); Joseph, (1991); Wilson, (1986). These also made tremendous contribution on the affective domain and values education generally.

With regard Krathwohl’s (1964), analysis of the affective domain of Bloom’s well-known Taxonomy first introduced the ideas of ‘values’ and ‘valuing’ as important educational objectives in the area of mental cognitive development of individual and that analysis suggested five levels of response to a phenomenon in an increasing degrees of commitment and these are: acceptance of value, preference for a value, commitment, conceptualization of a value and organization of a value system.

Mover-over, Raths, Harmin and Simon (1987), drawing an analogy from the oft-quoted book, in which they offer seven criteria for calling something worthy of valuing. They say (p.199): "Unless something meet up the following seven criteria noted below, then we do not call it a value, but rather either a ‘belief’ or an ‘attitude’ or something other than a value."

They summarize this criteria in the following terms: Choosing freely, Choosing from alternatives, Choosing after thought consideration of the consequences of each alternative, Prizing and cherishing , Affirming, Acting upon choices and Repeating.

Both the Taxonomy and the criteria emphasized on certain aspects of valuing which seem important to focus on, such as: Existence of alternatives, Choices and Choosing, Preferences and Consistency.

In relation to values education generally, the work of Tomlinson and Quinton (1986) was particularly important since it moved the discussion from earlier reliance on the work of Kohlberg (1984) and his followers into the mainstream subject curriculum.

They argued strongly that when considering this area due attention should be given to three elements: aims or intended outcomes; means or teaching/learning processes; and effects or actual outcomes.

Buxton (1981) and Fasheh (1982), and McLeod (1992), in one of the current and comprehensive research on values separated the field into studies of beliefs, of attitudes, and of emotions.

They are also follow suit like others who have surveyed the area, cite no research on values, even though the tone of their discussion makes it clear that ideas about both beliefs and attitudes towards mathematics were related to values held by both mathematics teachers and students.

Therefore, this study, that is " An investigation into values inculcation in mathematics teaching and learning among secondary schools teachers' in Nigeria" will be based on the Professor Alan J. Bishop, (1988 and 1999) who theorized the study of values in mathematics within the frame-work of six values cluster of mathematical values.

These values are: Ideological mathematical values (rationalism/objectivism), Attitudinal mathematical values ( control/progress) and Sociological mathematical values ( openness/mystery) which this study is going be used as it's theoretical frame.