Abstract:

Chickering and Gamson (1987) emphasized that students do not learn just by listening class, they must talk and write about the learning content in class. Furthermore, the instructional approach changes from teacher-centered classes to student-centered classes in many countries (Kennedy 2006). Thus, lecture-style classes are not enough for instructional design, and Active Learning (AL)-style classes are required for instructional design. Jennifer (2015) explains that AL integrates the curriculum to promote understanding in Mathematics. Therefore, AL is required for instructional design in Mathematics. On the other hand, with regard to redesigning classes, Bonwell and Eison (1991) pointed out that AL teaching strategy involves the risk of the failure of classes. These risks emerge from the difficulties faced in large classes, covering all content in class, and the complexity of themes. Teachers must consider the risk of AL teaching strategies while designing instruction. According to the TALIS (OECD 2018) report, compared to other countries, teachers are over worked in Japanese elementary and secondary education. Teachers require additional preparation time when they use AL teaching strategies (Bonwell and Eison 1991). Thus, the teacher’s burden increases. Nevertheless, teachers must use AL in their classes, and dedicate the necessary preparation time. Thus, creating a guide to select AL teaching strategies can reduce the teacher’s burden. In this paper, we investigate four points: the risk of instructional strategy, the teaching style (group or individual), how instructional strategy can promote AL and how learning interaction happens between students and teachers or among students. Here we show that classification of 63 instructional strategies. In this study, we collected data from 25 graduate students in the Tokyo metropolitan area. The questionnaire was a two-point scale test that consists of 63 instructional strategies. This report revealed the risks of AL teaching strategies.

Based on the level of risk, we identified the following four types of instructional strategies:
(A) active but high risk,
(B) active and low risk,
(C) passive and low risk,
(D) passive and high risk.

In terms of the style of class, the instructional strategy of implementing group learning promotes AL; it is high risk, with learning interaction among students. On the other hand, implementing individual learning hinders AL; it is low risk, with learning interaction between students and teachers. I expect to use this guide for realizing AL in mathematics education.

Keywords:

Active Learning, instructional strategies, Math education.