1

Role of Teachers in Promoting Students’ Motivation in Mathematics for Secondary Schools of

KohimaTown

1. Sandip Ratna, Reserch Scholar,

Assam Down town university, Guwahati.
sandipncte@yahoo.in
+919856950447
2. Mousumi Deka, Reserch Scholar,
Assam Down town university, Guwahati.
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was to identify role of teachers to imparting preferred learning
styles and strategies of secondary school students and to examine the prevailing problems that restrict
them to motivate towards the subject mathematics. The study was intended to highlight a number of
issues that need to be revealed and addressed in the learning of mathematics.
The types of preferred learning styles and strategies students need to employ in learning
mathematics, the assistance students require from their teachers, the conduciveness of the design of
mathematics curriculum and the challenges they might face to use their own preferred learning styles
and strategies in the learning of mathematics were addressed as basic research questions. The study
dealt with various elements that were related to environmental, emotional, sociological, physiological
and psychological categories of learning in the identification of the types of learning styles and
strategies.

This study is believed to contribute a lot in addressing the problems of learning styles and
strategies, provide feedback to the concerned government bodies to help them improve the teaching
learning processes in secondary schools. It is also to reduce the bias or prejudice on mathematics by
assisting students to use their own preferred learning styles and strategies, and contribute to further
investigations to make the learning of mathematics more enjoyable, participatory and lifelong career.

This study was conducted in nine secondary schools in Kohima town of Kohima District,
Nagaland State of India. A qualitative method that was descriptive in nature was employed in the
study while the instruments of the study were questionnaires and an interview. The sample comprised
of 72(36 male and 36 female) secondary school students and 20 secondary school mathematics
teachers selected randomly.
 2

Introduction
Napoleon has said-“ The progress and the improvement of mathematics are linked to the
prosperity of the state”
Mathematics is about pattern and structure; it is about logical analysis, deduction,
calculation within these pattern and structure. It is a science which deals with the quantitative
aspects of our life and knowledge.
It is an expression of the human mind which reflects the active will, the contemplative will,
reason and the desire for aesthetic perfection. Its basic elements are logic and intuition, analysis
and construction, geometry and individuality.
The subject has also rich potentialities of affording true enjoyment to its students.
Throughout the centuries, mathematics has been recognized as one of the central stands of human
intellectual activity. From the very beginning, mathematics has been a living and growing
intellectual per suit. It has roots in every activities and forms the structure of the highly advanced
technological developments. It comprises intricate and delicate structure which has a strong
aesthetic appeal. It offers opportunities for opening the mind to new lines of creative ideas and
channeling thought.
BACK GROUND OF THE STUDY
The purpose of this study was to investigate teacher and student perspectives on the
motivation of secondary school mathematics students and to explore teachers role specific to
teaching-learning styles and motivational strategies used to promote student motivation. The study
dealt with various elements that were related to environmental, emotional, sociological,
physiological and psychological categories of learning in the identification of the types of learning
styles and strategies.
Motivating students is a tough task for teachers. Once students reach a certain age, they no
longer feel the need to attend school, let alone enjoy it. It is up to teachers to motivate their
students. Without at least minimal motivation, teaching will fall flat and there will be little or no
real learning in your classroom. (May,17,2012:Teachersindex.com)
In India, Educational system is concern for both central as well as state level. In central
level curriculum, syllabuses, Instructional method in use, are revised time to time by competent
authority and suggestion provided to states to bring improvement in the educational system. The
purpose of the study is primarily to investigate the role of teacher in performing teaching-learning
styles and strategies of secondary school students in the teaching-learning of mathematics. It is
envisaged that students will guide their teaching-learning of mathematics with regard to their
preferences. Secondly, the impediments students might encounter to use their own learning
preferences will be identified. Thirdly, the assistance students require to use their own learning
preferences will be determined. When children do not learn the way they are taught, then the
teachers must teach them the way they learn (Dunn, 1995). This shows that teachers must teach
according to the interest of their students and organize their teaching-learning strategies so as to fit
the learning styles and strategies of their students. Moreover, Searson and Dunn (2001) stressed
that learning styles are mostly an individual’s personal characteristics and these characteristics are
subdivided to include environmental, emotional, sociological, physiological and psychological
categories.
In general, this study has sought to identify the preferred learning styles and strategies of
secondary school students at Kohima town in Nagaland and to examine the prevailing problems
that inhibit them to use their preferences.
 3

OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

The objectives of the present study are as follows:
(a)To study dependence of students’ motivation and teachers’ role in teaching-learning
mathematics
(b) To study the difference between students’ motivation in Private and Government
Secondary Schools.

HYPOTHESES OF THE STUDY

The following hypothesis is framed by the investigator for the present study:
H.a: There is a significant difference between students’ motivation and teachers’ role in teaching-
learning mathematics.

POPULATION OF THE STUDY

The population of the present study comprised all the teachers teaching Mathematics in class IX
and X and the all students of class IX and X studying in different Private and Government
Secondary School of Kohima Town. There are 15 Secondary Schools in the Kohima Town.
Tools
(a) Five point Likert Scale, multiple choice questionnaires for students
(b) Multiple Choices (open and closed-ended) questionnaire for mathematics teachers, and
(c) an interview schedule for mathematics teachers that had a semi-structured character to
conduct the study. The interview schedule was developed to explore mathematics teachers’
observations on the experiences of their students’ use of their own preferred learning styles and
strategies.
This chapter presents the major findings of the study. The data was organized in tabular form and
analyzed in line with the basic research question of investigating the preferred learning styles and
strategies of secondary school students to learn mathematics. The data analyzed in this chapter is
intended to address these research questions:
1. What types of learning styles and strategies do secondary school students prefer to use when
they learn mathematics?
2. How do secondary school mathematics teachers assist their students to use their own preferred
learning styles and strategies to learn mathematics?
3. Is there any difference in students’ motivation between private and government secondary
schools?
4. What could be the major challenges that students might face in using their own preferred
learning styles and strategies while learning mathematics?
Each question and its results are presented. The interview data was transcribed and used during the
analysis of the results.
 4

PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF RESULTS

(a) Students’ Preferences for Learning Environment
Table 1: Summary of Responses of Students’ Preferences to Learning Environment
Questions Responses Private school Government school
S A Dk D SD S A Dk D SD
A A
Q1. Respondent 29 2 4 1 0 6 7 2 1 0
I prefer learning and s 2
working mathematics
problems in a silent Percentage 52 3 7% 2 0% 3 43 13 6% 0%
environment of % 9 % 8 % %
responses % %
Q2. 1 5 6 1 27 0 1 2 8 5
I prefer learning and Respondent 7
working mathematics s
problems in a noisy
environment Percentage 2 9 11 3 48 0 6 13 50 31
of % % % 0 % % % % % %
responses %
SA= Strongly Agree, A= Agree, DK=Don’t Know, D=Disagree, SD=Strongly Disagree
Fig1:Figure of Responses of Students’ Preferences to Learning Environment
Question: 1 Question:2

60 53 60
50 48
50 44 50
38 39
40 40
30 31
30 PRIVATE 30 PRIVATE
20 13 GOVT. 20 13 GOVT.
9 10
10 6 6 10 6
2 00 20
0 0
SA A DK D SD SA A DK D SD
.

As shown in Table 3 above, the great majority of the respondents (91%) from Private and
(81%) from Government schools reported that they preferred to learn mathematics in a silent
environment. Only very few of the students (2%) from Private & (7%) from Government School
revealed that they did not want to learn mathematics in a silent environment while 6% and 13%
respectively from Private and Government school students did not identify their preferences. Here,
silent environment is to indicate lack of disturbances either to listen to the detail presentations of
their teachers or to make private trials of the problems before joining other peers for group work
which they preferred (shown in Table 7).
 5

Students’ responses to the second question ( Table 4) further strengthen their position as far as
learning environment preferences is concerned. Most of the students (48% strongly disagreed &
30% disagreed from Private school and 31% Strongly disagreed & 50% disagreed from
Government school) indicated that they did not want to learn mathematics in a noisy environment.
Only a minority of the students (9% and a further 2% from Private school & 0% and 6% from
Government school) agreed to learn mathematics in a noisy environment. Generally, both
responses reflected that these secondary school students preferred to learn mathematics in a silent
environment. When the students know the environment in which they want to learn mathematics,
this will have great impact on their achievement. This agrees with Pewewardy (2002) when he
argued that one’s surroundings or field-independence and field-dependence affect how one learns
rather than what he/she learns.
(b) Preferences for Seating Arrangements
Table 2: Summary of Responses of Students for Preferences of Seating Arrangements
Questions Responses Private school Government school
SA A Dk D SD SA A Dk D SD
Q3. 17 28 6 4 1 6 7 1 2 0
I prefer formal ways of Respondents
seating arrangements in
mathematics classes Percentage 30 50 11 7 2 38 43 6 13 0%
of % % % % % % % % %
responses
Q4. 4 8 10 25 9 3 1 6 6 0
I prefer informal ways of Respondents
seating arrangements in
mathematics classes Percentage 7% 15 18 45 15 19 6 37 37 0%
of % % % % % % % %
responses
SA= Strongly Agree, A= Agree, DK=Don’t Know, D=Disagree, SD=Strongly Disagree
Fig2: Figure of Responses of Students for Preferences of Seating Arrangements
Question:3 Question:4
60 50 45
50
50 44 38 38
40
38
40
30 30
30 PRIVATE 19 18 PRIVATE
20 15 15
20 11 13 GOVT. GOVT.
7 8 6
10 6 10
1 0 0
0 0
SA A DK D SD SA A DK D SD

Table 5 presents the results of seating arrangement preferences. The preferred seating
arrangements in learning mathematics include the choice between formal and informal seating
arrangements. As shown in Table 4 above, the majority of the students (30% strongly agreed and
 6

50% agreed from Private School & 38% and 43% from Govt School) prefer formal ways of
seating arrangements. Only very few students did not prefer formal seating arrangements in
mathematics classes while 11% from Private & 6% from Govt school not able to identify their
preferences.
With regard to informal seating arrangements, 15% from private & 0% from Government
school students strongly-disagreed while many students (45% from Private & 38% from Govt
school) disagreed to informal seating arrangements. 18% from Private & 37% from
Govtschoolchose not to identify their preferences. Only 15%, 6% from Private and Government
school of the students agreed and some of them (7%) from Private and 19% from Govt school
strongly agreed to the informal seating arrangements in mathematics classes. Generally, the result
revealed that most of the students (80% ,81% Private and Govt school) preferred formal seating
arrangements while 60% from Private and 37% Govt school did not prefer the informal seating
arrangement in mathematics classes. Both results indicated that these students preferred the formal
seating arrangements when they learn mathematics.
(c)Students’ Preferences to Structured Ways of Learning Mathematics
From Table 6 shown above, one can observe that three-fourth of the students (54% agreed
and another 21% strongly agreed from Private school , 25% agreed and 31% strongly
agreed from Govt school ) preferred to learn mathematical problems in structured ways.
15% & 18% from Private &Govt school students chose not identify their preferences. On
the other hand, 10% from Private and 26% from Govt school students did not prefer to
learn mathematics in structured ways. Thus, the result for structured ways of learning
mathematics has shown that most of the students preferred structured ways of learning
mathematics.
Null Hypothesis:
Null hypothesis is the starting point in solving a problem related to the significance of
difference between means. The first task of the research worker is to establish this hypothesis. The
researcher formulates null hypothesis for statistical purpose. Such a hypothesis is always
represents a statement of no difference between two population means, and that the difference
found between sample means is, therefore, accidental and unimportant. For the present study the
null hypothesis is formulated based on the third statement of the stated hypothesis as :
H01: There is no significant difference between students’ motivation in mathematics of Private and
Government Secondary Schools.
H11: There is significant difference between students’ motivation in mathematics of Private and
Government Secondary Schools.
The questionnaire used for Likert scale and Multiple choice question of individual student and
teacher for both Private and Government been converted in to ordinal scale according to degree of
liking and disliking to find mean than following analysis been done statistically using QI Macros
of Microsoft Excel 2007.
Analysis of Private and Government Secondary School student

Table3: Mean of Likert scale of students questionnaire

 7

Private School : 4.54 4.31 3.96 2.81 3.88 3.81 3.65 3.19 4.19 3.54 3.27 3.96 3.96
4.38 4.12 3.92 3.54 3.81 3.92 3.81 4.00 4.00 3.54 4.19 3.31 3.85 2.96 3.46 3.81 3.77 3.81
3.04 4.08 2.88 4.38 3.88 3.50 3.85 3.54 3.92 3.73 3.81 3.42 3.65 3.54 3.88 3.88 3.50 3.62
3.46 3.31 3.42 3.54 3.15 3.58 3.81
Government School :4.31 4.00 3.96 3.77 3.23 3.69 3.31 3.65 3.62 4.04 3.92 3.08 3.12
3.88 3.58 3.77
Table4: t-Test for Likert scale of students questionnaire

t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming

Unequal Variances 0.05
Unequal Sample Sizes
Private
School Govt School
Mean 3.708104396 3.682692308
Variance 0.138718493 0.123964497
Observations 56 16
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 50
t Stat 0.251
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.401
T Critical one-tail 1.676
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.803
T Critical Two-tail 2.009
Maximum value assigned is 5 and minimum value is 1
Accept Null Hypothesis because p > 0.05 (Means are the same)
Table5: Mean Score of Multiple Choice Question for students
Private School: 2.6 2.4 2.8 2.8 2.3 2.5 2.7 3 3.1 2.2 3 3.1 1.9 2.6 2.8
2.8 2.6 3 2 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.8 2.2 2.7 2.8 2.4 1.9 2.7 2.7 2.3 1.7 2.9
2.7 2.8 2.9 2.1 2.6 2.5 2.9 2.6 2.8 2.1 2.7 3.1 2 3 2.6 2.9 2 3 2.7
2.6 2.8 2.8 2.5
Govt. School: 2.7 2.3 2.8 2.1 2.9 2.2 2.9 2.5 3.1 1.9 2.9 2.5 2.9 2 2.9 2.6
Table6: t-Test for Multiple Choice Questionnaire of students
t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming
Unequal Variances 0.05
Unequal Sample Sizes
PRIVATE GOVT
Mean 2.608928571 2.575
Variance 0.116464286 0.140666667
Observations 56 16
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 42
t Stat 0.325
 8

P(T<=t) one-tail 0.373

T Critical one-tail 1.682
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.746
T Critical Two-tail 2.018
Maximum value assigned is 5 and minimum value is 1

Accept Null Hypothesis because p > 0.05 (Means are the same)
For both the cases Null Hypothesis is Accepted
Analysis of Private and Government Secondary School Teacher
Table7: Mean Score of Multiple Choice Question for Teacher
Private School: 2.7 2.9 2.8 2.9 2.7 2.3 3.0 1.8 2.8 3.0 2.0 2.9 2.8
2.5
Govt. School : 2.9 1.8 3.1 3.1 2.3 2.7
Table8: t-Test for Multiple Choice Question for Teacher
t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming
Unequal Variances 0.05
Unequal Sample Sizes
PRIVATE GOVT
Mean 2.648809524 2.638888889
Variance 0.132669414 0.25462963
Observations 14 6
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 10
t Stat 0.044
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.483
T Critical one-tail 1.812
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.966
T Critical Two-tail 2.228

Accept Null Hypothesis because p > 0.05 (Means are the same)

Summary of Findings
 The majority of the students preferred to learn mathematics in a silent environment and in
the mornings than evenings.
 They prefer formal seating arrangement than informal seating arrangements in the class
room.
 They also prefer mathematical lessons to be supplemented by visual aids.
Another important findings of the study is that--
 Most of the students preferred to work and study mathematical problems with their peers or
groups than on their own.
 Due to lack of confidence of their own to work, they prefer more working in groups to
solve mathematical problems.
 9

 More than 70% students preferred making graph and charts or visual aids to learn
mathematics.
 They are studying the subject Mathematics as routine work. It reveals that teachers have
failed to motivate the learner and create interest on the subject Mathematics in the class.
 The students also expressed that they preferred lecture and presentation of their teachers
with the help of Information and Communication Technology (ICT).
RECOMMENDATIONS
The objectives of mathematics teaching-learning should be clearly explained to make them
understand why they have to learn mathematics. This helps students to have a clear vision and to
avoid the prejudice. Students’ preferred learning styles and strategies need to be considered from
the beginning of mathematics curriculum design up to the implementation stage by concerned
stakeholders such as curriculum designers, school administrators and mathematics teachers. School
administrators have to consider the preferences of students in order to provide a viable educational
environment for students. Mathematics curriculum designers need to consider all the learning
approaches that allow students to use their own preferred learning styles and strategies in the
learning of mathematics. These learning approaches include revising mathematics course contents
as per the learning styles and strategies of students, allowing extra-time to solve mathematical
problems and including projects and problems that initiate group work. Mathematics teachers need
to promote insightful approaches to learn through the creation of learning environments that
students perceive as safe, supportive, and that offer helpful relationship. Teachers also need to
present opportunities for exploration, inquiry, and experimentation by providing problems to be
solved and matching their teaching styles to the students’ preferred learning styles and strategies.
Moreover, mathematics teachers need to help their students develop qualitative conceptions of
mathematics learning and help to construct their own meaning in the learning of mathematics
rather than giving detail explanations. Qualitative conceptions of mathematics referred here is to
learn mathematics to develop meaning and understanding of mathematics. Since lecturing and
telling the same thing over and over again does not assure the learning of students (Manner, 2001),
the investigator urge teachers to support their students to learn best through various styles.
Teaching strategies and assessment methods employed by mathematics teachers need to be
congruent with the students learning preferences. Finally, the investigator would like to advise
further research needs to be conducted on the teaching style preferences of mathematics teachers
and how it matches with their students’ learning styles and strategies.

Bibliography:
Aggarwal, J.C. 2002. Principles, Methods and Techniques of Teaching, (2ndedition)
Agrawal M. (2004). Curricular reform in schools: the importance of evaluation, J. Curriculum
Studies, (2004), 36 (3), 361–379
Almack, J.C. 2006. Research and Thesis Writing: Study Guides. India: Cosmo Publishers.
education. New Delhi: Vikas Publishing House PVT Ltd.
Anderson L. W. (1985) Attitude and their measurement,In I. Husen, and T. N. postlethwaite
(seds).The International Encyclopedia of Education vol. 1.Cpp 352 -358) Oxford pergamon press.
 10

Anthony, G. 1997. Active Learning in a Constructivist Framework.Educational Studies in

Mathematics, Vol. 32.
Batcher, R. 1971. Psychology Applied to Teaching. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Beck, C.R. 2001.Matching Teaching Strategies to Learning Style Preferences. The Teacher
Educator, 37(1), 1-15.
Best, J. W. & Kahn, J.V. 2002. Research in Education (7th edition)
th
Biggs, J.B. & Moore, P.J. 1993.The Process of Learning (13 edition).London: Prentice Hall.

Burke, K and Dunn, R. 2002. Learning Style Based Teaching to Raise Minority Student Test
Scores: There is no Debate. Clearing House, 76 (2): 103-106.
Chan, D.W. Winter 2001.Learning Styles of Gifted and Non-gifted Secondary Students in Hong-
Kong.Gifted Children Quarterly, 45(1), pp. 35-44.
Constance Kamii (1996). Paiget’s Theory And The Teaching Of Arithmetic,Prospects, Vol.XXVI.
no.1 March 1996.
Cox, J. 1996.Your Opinion, Please! How to Build the Best Questionnaires in the Field of
Education. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc

Dooley, D. 2004. Social Research Methods (3rd edition)

Dunn, R. & Dunn, K. 1993.Teaching Secondary Students Through Their Individual Learning
Styles. Practical Approaches for Grade 7-12. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. edition). New-Delhi:
Prentice-Hall of India.
Fischer, B. & Fischer, M. 1979.Styles in Teaching and Learning. Educational Leadership, 36, pp.
245-254
Harmer, J. 1983.Teaching and Learning Grammar. London: Longman.

Hull, C. (1933). Hypnosis and Suggestability: An Experimental Approach. New York: Appleton-
Century-Crofts.

Keller, J. (1983). Motivational design of instruction.In C. Riegeluth (ed.), Instructional Design

Theories and Models. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Kilbur Singh Sidh (1967, 2003): Effective Teaching of Mathematics
Kochhar, S.K. 2001.Methods and Techniques of Teaching. New Delhi: Sterling Publishers PLC.
Kothari, C.R. 2006. Research Methodology: Methods and Techniques. New-Delhi: New Age
International Publishers.
Manner, B.M. 2001. Learning Styles and Multiple Intelligences in Students: Getting the Most Out
of Your Students’ Learning. Journal of College Science Teaching, 30(6), pp. 390-393.
NCERT (1991), Minimum Levels of Learning At Primary Stage, National Council of Educational
Research and Training, New Delhi.
NCERT (2005),National Curriculum Framework, National Council of Educational Research and
Training, New Delhi.
NCERT, National Focus Group (NFG), 2006, Position Paper
 11

Orlich, D C, Harder, R J, Callahan, R C & Gibson, H W. (2001). Teaching Strategies: A Guide to

Better Instruction, 6th ed. USA: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Oxford, R. & Green, J. M. 1996. Language Learning Histories: Learners and Teachers Helping
Each Other Understand Learning Styles and Strategies. TESOL Journal, 6 (1), pp. 20-23.
Rayneri, L. J., Gerber, B.L. & Wiley, L.P. 2003. Gifted Achievers and Gifted Underachievers: The
Impact of Learning Style Preferences in the Classroom. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 14
(4), pp. 197-204.
SCERT, Nagaland, Kohima,2009, “A study of the Evaluation System in Government & Private
Primary Schools, Kohima District”
nd
Polya, G. 1985. How to Solve It: A New Aspect of Mathematical Method, 2 ed. USA: Princeton
University Press
SCERT, Nagaland, Kohima,2011, “ A Study on Problems Faced By the Teachers in Teaching
Mathematics in Government Primary Schools in Kohima and Phek Districts of Nagaland”
Searson, R & Dunn, R, 2001.The Learning-Style Teaching Model. Journal of Science and
Children, 38(5), pp. 22-26.
Sharma Santosh (2001), Constructivism- A Paradigm Shift, Perspectives InEducation, Volume 17
Number 2 April,2001.
Sharma Santosh (2005), Constructivist Approaches to Teaching and Learning,
(under print), National Council of Educational Research and Training, New Delhi.
She, Hsiao-Ching. 2005. Promoting Students Learning of Air Pressure Concepts: The
Interrelationship of Teaching Approach and Student Learning Characteristics. Journal of
Experimental Education, 74(1), pp. 29-51.
Sinha and Mishra (1997)inthesis Overcoming the Language Barrier for Tribal Children: MLE in
Andhra Pradesh and Orissa, India,
Vithal, R. & Jansen, J. 2003.Designing Your First Research Proposal: A Manual for Researchers in
Education and the Social Sciences. Cape-Town: JUTA and Co. Ltd.
Von Glasserfeld, Ernest. June 2001. Radical Constructivism and Teaching.Prospects, Vol. XXXI,
No 2.
Wheatley, G. 1991. Constructivist Perspectives on Science and Mathematics Learning. Science
Education, 75(1), pp 9-21.
Zhang, Li-Fang. 2001. Do Styles of Thinking Matter among Hong-Kong Secondary School
students? Personality and Individual Differences, 31(3), pp. 289-301.
WEB Resources:
http://robertroeser.com/docs/publications/2009_Wigfieldetal_Motivation.pdf
17 may 2012, www.Teachersindex.com
http://robertroeser.com/docs/publications/2009_Wigfieldetal_Motivation.pdf
http://www.shvoong.com/social-sciences/1781557-education-tribal-people-
india/#ixzz1vBaEolmH
http://students.ed.uiuc.edu/vallicel/Teacher_Professionalism.html
http://www. teachereducationmathematics-com.webs.com