| Summary: | In each classroom there is a teacher with good intentions wanting what´s best for their pupils. But grades and tests in mathematics from 2009 in Sweden shows there is a crack between the subject being taught and the learning child. The purpose with this research is to find an understanding from a teaching and learning perspective of which teaching method is more suitable for teaching and learning mathematics by doing a comparison between two methods. The main question is: What are the advantages and disadvantages of the traditional and the laboratory method of teaching, supported by the two keywords teaching method and learning? This C-paper is based on a qualitative research aiming to gather an in-depth understanding of human behavior. Semi-structured interviews was used on two teachers in primary school, both teachers have integrated classes, grade 2 and 3. Observations were made in both classes. The empirical data was analyzed through theories and sorted in advantages and disadvantages. The result of the traditional method distinguishes to have a textbook and has a reproductive way of teaching, while concrete mathematics has a more reflecting approach. The school using concrete method is also using the model of the four learning style (visual, verbal, tactile and kinesthetic). Accordingly of this study the concrete method support the individual way of learning by using one of the dominant learning styles. Activity, problem solving and making children aware and in charge of their own education, show their way to understanding the subject. 8-9 years old children, learning how to read and write, have another abstract way of thinking which makes it hard for them to work with a textbook. This will lead to a slow learning, preventing the child to achieve understanding of the subject.
|
|---|
