Practice and Perception of Group Learning Method by Teachers of Mathematics in selected Secondary Schools of Mazabuka District


  • Chileshe Busaka university of zambia
  • Simeon Mbewe


Practice, perception, Group, Learning


The purpose of this study was to determine the practice and perception of group learning method by teachers of mathematics in selected secondary schools of Mazabuka District. The schools comprised of 2 co-education and 2 single sex schools out of a total of eight (8) secondary schools in the district. The study was guided by three research questions namely; “How do teachers of mathematics in secondary schools practice the group learning method?â€, “How do teachers of mathematics perceive group learning method in the teaching and learning of mathematics at secondary school?â€, “What is the relationship between the practice and perception of group learning method in the teaching and learning of mathematics at secondary school among teachers of mathematics?â€.

 During this study data was collected over a period of six (6) months at two different stages. In the first stage, the lesson observation check list was used to record the amount of time spent on various teaching strategies and learning activities practiced in mathematics lessons. During the second stage, a questionnaire was administered to the teachers of mathematics.

The research has established that group learning method was not often practiced and in cases where the method was practiced, the practice lacked the basic principles needed for successful implementation of the method. Secondly, the study established that the teachers of mathematics who took part in the study possess the conceptual knowledge about group learning method and perceived that the method had overwhelming benefits. The study established that teachers of mathematics had negative attitude towards group learning method as they pointed out that group learning method was time consuming, difficult to measure individual level of understanding, and that some pupils do not participate. Thirdly, the findings of this study further suggest that there was a mismatch between the teachers of mathematics’ perception about group learning method and how they practiced it. The study concluded by making some recommendations that teachers of mathematics should consider integrating strategies that create opportunities for pupils to actively participate in the lesson. Furthermore, the teachers within the department of mathematics should be planning lessons together where group learning method is integrated with other methods, observe each other and discuss such lessons with the aim of establishing effective ways of practicing the group learning method. The study also challenges policy makers and other stake holders in education that have a responsibility of monitoring teachers to ensure that teachers adhere to the demands of pupil centred methods like group learning method.


Author Biography

Chileshe Busaka, university of zambia

Department of mathematics and science, school of education


• Argote, L., Gruenfeld, D. H., and Naquin, C. (2001). Intra-organizational Learning. University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

• Brophy, J. (1986), Teacher influences on student achievement. American Psychologist, 41(10), 1069.

• Cohen L., Manion L., Morrison K.(2007). Research Methods in Education. (6. ed). Routledge, New York

• Cooper, D.R. and Schindler, P.S. (2003). Business research methods (8th ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill.

• Creswell, J. W., (2003). Research Design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches. 110 Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

• Davidson, N. (Ed.). (1990). Cooperative Learning in Mathematics: A Handbook for Teachers. Menlo Park: Addison Wesley.

• Dejarnette A.F, Dao N, and Gonzalez G. (2014). ‘Learning what works: Promoting small group discussions’. journal of National Council of mathematics Teachers,7, 414-419.

• Durrheim, K. (1999). Quantitative analysis. in M. Terre Blanche and K. Durrheim. (Eds.).Research in Practice: Applied Methods for the Social Sciences, 96-122.Cape Town: University of Cape Town Press.

• Fisher, BA and Ellis DG. (1990). Small group decision making, (3rd ed) McGraw Hill, Publishing Co, New York.

• Fisher, C. W., Berliner, D. C., Filby, N. N., Marliave, R., Cahen, L. S., & Dishaw, M. M. (1981). Teaching behaviors, academic learning time, and student achievement: An overview. The Journal of classroom interaction, 17(1), 2-15.

• Garfield J. (1991). Teaching statistics. An international Journal for teachers. (13) 2, p55

• Gillies, Robyn M., Ashman, Adrian F. and Jan Terwel. (2008). Concluding remarks, In Robyn M. Gillies, Adrian Ashman and Jan Terwel (Ed.), The teacher’s role in Implementing cooperative learning in the classroom (pp. 258-261). New York, U.S.A.: Springer.

• Glesne, C. (1999). Becoming Qualitative Researchers: An introduction. New York: Longman.

• Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1999). Making cooperative learning work. Theory into practice, 38(2), 67-73. Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. A. (1998). Cooperative learning returns to college what evidence is there that it works?. Change: the magazine of higher learning, 30(4), 26-35.

• Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., and Holubec, E. J. (1991). Cooperation in the classroom. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.

• Johnson, D., Johnson, R. and Holubec, E. (1998). Cooperation in the classroom. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

• Kagan, S. (1992). Co-operative learning. Resources for teachers. In Responding and sharing: Techniques for energizing classroom discussions., 73(6) , 331-334

• Kagan, S. (1994). Group learning: Resources for teachers. San Juan Capistrano, CA: Kagan Group learning.

• Kagan, S. (1989). The structural approach to cooperative learning. Educational Leadership, Dec 89/ Jan 90, 12-15.

• Kurt Lewin. (1948). Frontiers in group dynamics; (D.Ed.), field theory in social science. London, social science paperbacks.

• Matthews, M. (2000). Constructivism in Science and Mathematics Education. Retrieved From accessed 6.03.12

• Neyland, J. (1994). Collaborative team work. Mathematics education: A hand book for teachers, 1, 18-30, Wellington: college of education.

• Parke Godfrey, Terry Gaasterland and Jack Minker (1992), An overview of cooperative Answering, Journal of Intelligent Information Systems, 1(2),123-157

• Pratt ,N. (2006). ‘Interactive’ teaching in numeracy lessons: what do children have to say? Cambridge Journal of Education,36(2), 221-235

• Stickler, A., McLeroy, K. R., Goodman, R. M., Bird, S. T., and McCormick, L. (1992). Toward integrating qualitative and quantitative methods: An introduction. Health Education Quarterly, 19(1), 1–8

• Strauss, A. L., and Corbin, J. M. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

• Tashakkori, A., and Teddlie, C. (Eds.). (2003). Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioural Research.,Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

• Waters. T, Ed. Robert, J. Marzano and McNulty. B (2003). Balanced Leadership: What 30 years of research tells us about the effective of leadership on pupil achievement. U.S. Department of Education Research and Improvement Resources information Center(ERIC).

• Wandiba. S, Thuranira. J and Baya. D. (2004). Social Studies 2 for primary schools: Teacher’s Guide. East African educational publishers, Westlands Nairobi.

• Webb. M. Noreen. (2009). The teacher's role in promoting collaborative dialogue in the Classroom. British Journal of Educational Psychology,79 (1), 1–28.




How to Cite

Busaka, C., & Mbewe, S. (2018). Practice and Perception of Group Learning Method by Teachers of Mathematics in selected Secondary Schools of Mazabuka District. Asian Journal of Education and E-Learning, 6(1). Retrieved from