MATHEMATICS TEACHING STYLE:

AN ANALYSIS BASED ON STUDENTS’ PERSPECTIVE

Siti Farhana Husin1 (sitifarhana@uitm.edu.my)

*Mea Haslina Mohd Haris1 (mealina@uitm.edu.my)
Suci Aida Fitri Md Dahhar2 (suciaida.dahhar@intec.edu.my)

Affiliation

1
Centre of Foundation Studies, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Cawangan Selangor, Kampus
Dengkil, 43800 Dengkil, Selangor, Malaysia
2
Pre-University & Diploma, INTEC Education College, Jalan Senangin Satu 17/2A, Seksyen 17,
40200 Shah Alam, Selangor, Malaysia

*CORRESPONDING AUTHOR: Mea Haslina Mohd Haris2 (mealina@uitm.edu.my)

ABSTRACT
Grasha (1994) suggested that five teaching styles are commonly used in the college
classroom: expert, formal authority, personal model, facilitator, and delegator; while Miller
(2010) introduces three distinct approaches in teaching: transmission, transaction and
transformation. In this study, the five teaching styles are set to fit in as reflections of the
three teaching approaches. The objective of this study is to explore the mathematics
lecturer’s teaching styles and approaches based on the perception of the learners. A set of
online quantitative surveys consisting of six sections were responded by 104 participants
who are in their pre-university studies. The findings show that the relationship between all
of the approaches of teaching, which are transmission-transaction, transmission-
transformation and transaction-transformation are highly significantly associated. This
indicates that mathematics lecturers are using and integrating the three teaching
approaches which can benefit the learners who vary in their learning styles too.

KEYWORDS: mathematics teaching style, transmission, transaction, transformation

1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of Study
Teaching styles as suggested by Grasha (1994) can be described in five different categories,
which are expert, formal authority, personal model, facilitator and delegator. Grasha (1994)
defines the expert style possesses knowledge and expertise that students need, the formal
authority style possesses status among students because of knowledge and role as a faculty
member, the personal model style believes in teaching by personal example, the facilitator
style emphasizes the nature of teacher-student interactions and the delegator style
concerned with developing students’ capacity to function autonomously.

As students vary in their learning styles, different teachers may have distinct teaching styles
too, which may vary across levels of education and areas of subjects, including mathematics.
Mathematics in schools, preliminary or secondary, or even in higher education has always
been perceived as a challenging, dull, boring and difficult subject. Despite the importance of
the subject, this perception remains until today, ever since almost a hundred years ago, as
mentioned by Trustram (1938), Gafoor & Kurukkan (2015), Acharya (2017), Langoban &
Langoban(2020).

In Malaysia, the recent PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment) results were
highlighted at an alarming rate where the average 2022 results were down compared to
2018 in mathematics, reading and science. Excerpts of PISA results as extracted from OECD
(2023):
● In Malaysia, 41% of students attained at least Level 2 proficiency in mathematics,
significantly less than on average across OECD countries (OECD average: 69%). At a
minimum, these students can interpret and recognize, without direct instructions,
how a simple situation can be represented mathematically (e.g. comparing the total
distance across two alternative routes, or converting prices into a different currency).
Over 85% of students in Singapore, Macao (China), Japan, Hong Kong (China)*,
Chinese Taipei and Estonia (in descending order of that share) performed at this level
or above.
● Some 1% of students in Malaysia were top performers in mathematics, meaning that
they attained Level 5 or 6 in the PISA mathematics test (OECD average: 9%). Six Asian

2
 countries and economies had the largest shares of students who did so: Singapore
(41%), Chinese Taipei (32%), Macao (China) (29%), Hong Kong (China)* (27%), Japan
(23%) and Korea (23%). At these levels, students can model complex situations
mathematically, and can select, compare and evaluate appropriate problem-solving
strategies for dealing with them. Only in 16 out of 81 countries and economies
participating in PISA 2022 did more than 10% of students attain Level 5 or 6
proficiency.

These current updates are wake up calls for Malaysian educational authorities, including the
teachers, and may be parents too. It is inevitable that the instructors, teachers or the
lecturers play their role to defeat the negative perception towards mathematics among the
students (Langoban, Tan, & Lomibao, 2023), as mentioned by Cardino & Cruz (2020) that the
teachers’ approaches of teaching do have a significant influence on the learners’ academic
performance. The mathematics teachers’ teaching styles also positively moderate correlate
with their thinking styles (Apaydin & Cenberci, 2018), hence, one way to gain the insights on
the teachers’ thinking or styles is by considering the perspective of their learners who view
the instructors’ teaching styles and approaches.

1.2 Statement of Problem

The level of difficulties of mathematics as a subject are always perceived to be related to the
learning style of the students. Encouraging students to be part of developments in teaching
by asking them to evaluate new methods can further help to develop the teaching and
learning environment (Jones et.al, 2018). Another study indicates that pedagogy, teaching
style and teaching effectiveness significantly affect student perception towards their
learning (Vikas & Mathur, 2022). Thus, the students’ learning styles are immensely affected
by the teachers who play their roles significantly to either instill the interest and enthusiasm
to the learners, or to make the learners’ level of interest even lower. Although different
measures for (de)motivating teaching are available for primary and secondary education, a
fine-grained instrument to assess a variety of motivating and demotivating teaching
practices in higher education is lacking (Vermote et.al, 2020). Another analysis of the
differences in the perspectives does not show conclusive evidence about the student and
teacher characteristics that explain those differences (Hidalgo-Cabrillana, A., & Lopez-
Mayan, C. , 2018). In relation to this, a survey on the students’ perspective of their
mathematics instructors’ teaching style should be considered to understand the problem
better, so that a better approach of teaching can be applied.

3
 1.3 Objective of the Study and Research Questions
This study is done to explore perception of learners on their instructor’ use of teaching
strategies. Specifically, this study is done to answer the following questions;

● How do learners perceive transmission in classroom learning?

● How do learners perceive transaction in classroom learning?

● How do learners perceive transformation in classroom learning?

● Is there a relationship between all views of teaching ?

2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Views of Teaching and Teaching Style

Teaching is an activity to facilitate and guide learning and understanding of the
acquisition of knowledge for a certain subject. The approach and behaviour that the
teacher adopts in his/her teaching are referred to as his/her teaching style. Gafoor,
K. A., & Babu, H. (2012) regard teaching as a performing art. In this paper, we believe
that teaching is a metaphor for cooking a menu to be served. However, if the menu
is no longer of interest to the learners, what else is there to have a hope that they
will even taste it? Mathematics as a menu that is served has always been perceived
as a challenging, dull, boring and difficult subject. Therefore, the presentation of the
menu might be able to change the interest. Thus, it is about time to gain the
feedback from the learners on how they perceive the presentation and cooking
styles that influence the interest in the taste of the menu.

2.2 Past Studies on Teaching Style

There have been many past studies based on the styles by Grasha (1994) to
investigate the mathematics teaching styles. A study by Sim & Mohd Matore (2022)
found that personal model teaching style is the most dominant style, and the
facilitator teaching style as the least dominant style among mathematics teachers at

4
 the Chinese Primary Schools (or well-known as SJKC in Malaysia). A similar finding by
Khoirunnisa (2023) for the teachers at private junior high school in Salatiga
(Indonesia), shows that the teachers mostly adopt the personal model teaching style
and the least style is facilitator teaching style.
The study by Sim (2022) is done to investigate teaching style patterns of
mathematics teachers at the SJKC through a survey with 97 mathematics teachers in
SJKC as the respondents. Next, the study by Khoirunnisa (2023) aims to identify the
teaching styles used by the teachers and was responded to by 32 teachers at private
junior high school.

2.3 Conceptual Framework

Different views of teaching can influence the learning environment in a variety of

ways (Rahmat, 2021). Figure 1 below shows the conceptual framework of the study.
This study is scaffolded from Miller (2010) teaching approaches of transmission,
transaction and transformation. In the context of this study, Miller (2010) views of
teaching are reflected in the teaching styles by Grasha (1994) as shown in figure 1
below.

TRANSMISSION TRANSACTION
(through expert (through personal TRANSFORMATION
and formal model and (through delegator
authority teaching facilitator teaching teaching style)
style) style)

Figure 1- Conceptual Framework of the Students-Views of Teaching Style

3.0 METHODOLOGY

5
 This quantitative study is done to explore the teaching styles of mathematics lecturers
from students’ view via online survey instruments. A purposive sample of 104 participants
responded to the survey. The instrument used is a 5 Likert-scale survey and is rooted from
Miller (2010) and Grasha (1994) to reveal the variables in table 1 below. The survey has 6
sections. Section A has items on demographic profile. Section B on Expert teaching style,
Section C on Formal Authority teaching style, Section D on Facilitator teaching style, Section
E on Delegator teaching style, and Section F on Personal Model teaching style. Each section
consists of 8 items respectively. Grasha (1994) defines the expert style possesses knowledge
and expertise that students need, the formal authority style possesses status among
students because of knowledge and role as a faculty member, the personal model style
believes in teaching by personal example, the facilitator style emphasizes the nature of
teacher-student interactions and the delegator style concerned with developing students’
capacity to function autonomously. Miller (2010) introduces three major orientations to
curriculum: the transmission, transaction, and transformation positions. The transmission
approach refers to the facts, skills, and values being transmitted to students . Transactional
teaching focuses on inquiry learning, problem solving, and thinking skills. Underlying
transformative teaching is the view that everything is interconnected, where the aims
include wisdom, compassion, and sense of purpose in one’s life (Miller, 2010).

Table 1- Distribution of Items in the Survey

VIEWS OF
TEACHING STYLE Number Total Cronbach
PART TEACHING
(Grasha, 1994) of Items Items Alpha
(Dreon, 2017)
Expert Teaching
8
Style
1 TRANSMISSION 16 0.839
Formal Authority
8
Teaching Style
Personal Model
8
Teaching Style
2 TRANSACTION 16 0.897
Facilitator Teaching
8
Style
Delegator Teaching
3 TRANSFORMATION 8 8 0.807
Style
OVERALL 40 0.939

6
 Table 1 shows the reliability of the survey. The analysis shows a Cronbach Alpha of 0.839
for Part 1 (Transmission), 0.897 for Part 2 (Transaction), 0.807 for Part 3
(Transformation) and 0.939 for overall items. This reveals a good reliability of the
instrument used. Further analysis using SPSS is done to present findings to answer the
research questions for this study.
4.0 FINDINGS
4.1 Findings for Demographic Profile

Table 2-Percentage for Demographic Profile

Male Female
Q1 Gender
47.1% 52.9%
Science Engineering
Q2 Foundation Program
65.4% 34.6%

As indicated in Table 2, 47.1% of the participants which is 49 respondents are

males while 52.9% which is 55 respondents are females. The targeted
respondents are students who are learning mathematics in their foundation
studies which is a pre-university program. As indicated in Table 2, there are
two foundation programs involved in the study since these two programs
make it compulsory for the students to do mathematics. Table 2 reports that
65.4% which is 68 respondents are from Foundation in Science while 34.6%
which is 36 respondents are from Foundation in Engineering.

4.2 Findings for Transmission

This section presents data to answer research question 1- How do learners
perceive transmission in classroom learning? In the context of this study, this is
measured by (i) expert and (ii) formal authority teaching style.

7
 Table 3 Mean for-EXPERT TEACHING STYLE
ITEM MEAN
ETSQ1 Facts, concepts, and principles are the most important things that 4.7
my mathematics lecturer should deliver.
ETSQ2 My mathematics lecturer set high standards for students in this 3.9
class.
ETSQ3 What my mathematics lecturer says and does will model the 4.6
appropriate ways for students to think about issues in the content.
ETSQ4 My lecturer's teaching goals and methods address a variety of 4.6
student learning styles.
ETSQ5 Students typically work on course projects alone with little 3.1
supervision from my mathematics lecturer.
ETSQ6 Sharing her/his knowledge and expertise with students is very 4.6
important to my mathematics lecturer.
ETSQ7 My mathematics lecturer gives students negative feedback when 2.5
their performance is unsatisfactory.
ETSQ8 Activities in this class encourage students to develop their own 4.5
ideas about content issues.

In view of expert teaching style, the highest mean score is 4.7 for ETSQ1
which the learners strongly agree that facts, concepts, and principles are the most
important things that their mathematics lecturer should deliver. The lowest mean
score is 2.5 for ETSQ7 which indicates that the respondents disagree that their
mathematics lecturer gives students negative feedback when their performance is
unsatisfactory.

Table 4 Mean for -FORMAL AUTHORITY TEACHING STYLE

ITEM MEAN
FATSQ1 My mathematics lecturer spends time consulting with students on 4.5
how to improve their work on individual and/or group projects.
FATSQ2 Activities in this class encourage students to develop their own 4.5
ideas about content issues.
FATSQ3 What my mathematics lecturer have to say about a topic is 4.5
important for students to acquire a broader perspective on the issues in
that area.
FATSQ4 Students would describe my mathematics lecturer's standards 3.4
and expectations as somewhat strict and rigid.
FATSQ5 My mathematics lecturer typically shows students how and what 4.7
to do in order to master course content.
FATSQ6 Small group discussions are employed to help students develop 4.4
their ability to think critically.
8
FATSQ7 Students design one of more self-directed learning experiences. 4.1
FATSQ8 My mathematics lecturer wants students to leave this course well 4.6
prepared for further work in this area.

In view of formal authority teaching style, the highest mean score is 4.7 for
FATSQ5 which the learners strongly agree that their mathematics lecturer typically
shows students how and what to do in order to master course content. The lowest
mean score is 3.4 for FATSQ4 which the respondents neither agree nor disagree that
they would describe their mathematics lecturer's standards and expectations as
somewhat strict and rigid.

4.3 Findings for Transaction

This section presents data to answer research question 2- How do
learners/instructors perceive transaction in classroom learning? In the context of this
study, this is measured by (i) personal model and (ii) facilitator teaching style.

Table 5 Mean for -PERSONAL MODEL TEACHING STYLE

ITEM MEAN
PMTSQ1 It is my mathematics lecturer's responsibility to define what 4.1
students must learn and how they should learn it.
PMTSQ2 Examples from my mathematics lecturer's personal experiences 4.3
often are used to illustrate points about the material.
PMTSQ3 My mathematics lecturer guides students' work on course 4.6
projects by asking questions, exploring options, and suggesting alternative
ways to do things.
PMTSQ4 Developing the ability of students to think and work 4.5
independently is an important goal.
PMTSQ5 Lecturing is a significant part of how my mathematics lecturer 4.7
teaches each of the class sessions.
PMTSQ6 My mathematics lecturer provides very clear guidelines for how 4.6
he/she wants tasks completed in this course.
PMTSQ7 My mathematics lecturer often shows students how they can use 4.7
various principles and concepts.
PMTSQ8 Course activities encourage students to take initiative and 4.5
responsibility for their learning.

In view of personal model teaching style, basically the respondents agree to

all of the items with the highest mean score is 4.7 for PMTSQ5 and PMTSQ7 which
the learners strongly agree that lecturing is a significant part of how their
mathematics lecturer teaches each of the class sessions and that their mathematics
lecturer often shows students how they can use various principles and concepts.

9
Table 6 Mean for -FACILITATOR TEACHING STYLE
ITEM MEAN
FTSQ1 Students take responsibility for teaching part of the class sessions. 3.9
FTSQ2 My mathematics lecturer's expertise is typically used to resolve 4.0
disagreements about content issues.
FTSQ3 This course has very specific goals and objectives that I want to 4.5
accomplish.
FTSQ4 Students receive frequent verbal and/or written comments on their 3.8
performance.
FTSQ5 My mathematics lecturer solicits student advice about how and 4.2
what to teach in this course.
FTSQ6 Students set their own pace for completing independent and/or 4.3
group projects.
FTSQ7 Students might describe my mathematics lecturer as a "storehouse 4.6
of knowledge" who dispenses the facts, principles, and concepts they
need.
FTSQ8 My mathematics lecturer’s expectations for what he/she wants 4.6
students to do in this class are clearly defined in the syllabus.

In view of facilitator teaching style, the highest mean score is 4.6 for FTSQ7
and FTSQ8 which the learners strongly agree that students might describe their
mathematics lecturer as a "storehouse of knowledge" who dispenses the facts,
principles, and concepts they need, and that their mathematics lecturer’s
expectations for what he/she wants students to do in this class are clearly defined in
the syllabus. The lowest mean score is 3.4 for FATSQ4 which the respondents
neither agree nor disagree that they would describe their mathematics lecturer's
standards and expectations as somewhat strict and rigid.

4.4 Findings for Transformation

This section presents data to answer research question 3- How do
learners/instructors perceive transformation in classroom learning? In the context of
this study, this is measured by delegator teaching style.

10
 Table 7 Mean for -DELEGATOR TEACHING STYLE

ITEM MEAN
DTSQ1 Eventually, many students begin to think like my mathematics 4.3
lecturer about course content.
DTSQ2 Students can make choices among activities in order to complete 4.2
course requirements.
DTSQ3 My mathematics lecturer's approach to teaching is similar to a 4.1
manager of a work group who delegates tasks and responsibilities to
subordinates.
DTSQ4 There is more material in this course than my mathematics lecturer 3.4
time available to cover it.
DTSQ5 My mathematics lecturer standards and expectations help students 4.5
develop the discipline they need to learn.
DTSQ 6 Students might describe my mathematics lecturer as a "coach" 4.4
who works closely with someone to correct problems in how they think
and behave.
DTSQ 7 My mathematics lecturer gives students a lot of personal support 4.6
and encouragement to do well in this course.
DTSQ 8 My mathematics lecturer assumes the role of a resource person 4.5
who is available to students whenever we need help.

In view of delegator teaching style, the highest mean score is 4.6 for DTSQ7
which the learners strongly agree that their mathematics lecturer gives students a
lot of personal support and encouragement to do well in these courses. The lowest
mean score is 3.4 for DTSQ4 which the respondents neither agree nor disagree that
there is more material in this course than their mathematics lecturer time available
to cover it.
4.5 Findings for relationship between all views of teaching styles
This section presents data to answer research question 4- Is there a
relationship between all views of teaching? To determine if there is a significant
association in the mean scores between all views of teaching, data is analysed using
SPSS for correlations. Results are presented separately in table 8, 9,and 10 below.

11
 Table 8- Correlation between Transmission and Transaction

Table 8 shows there is an association between transmission and transaction

view of teaching. Correlation analysis shows that there is a high significant
association between transmission and transaction view of teaching (r=.754**) and
(p=.000). According to Jackson (2015), coefficient is significant at the .05 level and
positive correlation is measured on a 0.1 to 1.0 scale. Weak positive correlation
would be in the range of 0.1 to 0.3, moderate positive correlation from 0.3 to 0.5,
and strong positive correlation from 0.5 to 1.0. This means that there is also a strong
positive relationship between transmission and transaction view of teaching.

Table 9- Correlation between Transmission and Transformation

Table 9 shows there is an association between transmission and

transformation view of teaching. Correlation analysis shows that there is a high

12
 significant association between transmission and transformation view of teaching
(r=.695**) and (p=.000). According to Jackson (2015), coefficient is significant at
the .05 level and positive correlation is measured on a 0.1 to 1.0 scale. Weak positive
correlation would be in the range of 0.1 to 0.3, moderate positive correlation from
0.3 to 0.5, and strong positive correlation from 0.5 to 1.0. This means that there is
also a strong positive relationship between transmission and transformation view of
teaching.

Table 10- Correlation between Transaction and Transformation

Table 10 shows there is an association between transaction and

transformation view of teaching. Correlation analysis shows that there is a high
significant association between transaction and transformation view of teaching
(r=.810**) and (p=.000). According to Jackson (2015), coefficient is significant at
the .05 level and positive correlation is measured on a 0.1 to 1.0 scale. Weak positive
correlation would be in the range of 0.1 to 0.3, moderate positive correlation from
0.3 to 0.5, and strong positive correlation from 0.5 to 1.0. This means that there is
also a strong positive relationship between transaction and transformation view of
teaching.

5.0 CONCLUSION
5.1 Summary of Findings and Discussions
In conclusion, as a transmission in classroom learning, the respondents as the learners
perceive that the most important thing is that their mathematics lecturers should deliver
the facts, concepts, and principles The learners also perceive that as a transaction in
classroom learning, lecturing is a significant part of how their mathematics lecturer teaches

13
each of the class sessions and that their mathematics lecturer often shows students how
they can use various principles and concepts. The learners describe their mathematics
lecturer as a "storehouse of knowledge" who dispenses the facts, principles, and concepts
they need, and that their mathematics lecturer’s expectations for what he/she wants
students to do in this class are clearly defined in the syllabus.
As a transformation strategy, the learners perceive that classroom learning should be done
by the mathematics lecturer who gives students a lot of personal support and
encouragement to do well in these courses.
The relationship between all of the approaches of teaching, which are transmission-
transaction, transmission-transformation and transaction-transformation are highly
significantly associated. A study by Hagvall Svensson (2017) also mentions a similar finding
that high levels of transactional teaching in combination with at least some level of
transmissive teaching seem to increase the occurrence of transformative reflective
outcomes. This indicates that none of the approaches would be able to stand on its own, as
when Miller (2010) introduced the idea, it is about whole child education that the
approaches also should be implemented as a whole and not fractured which may break the
learners.

5.2 Pedagogical Implications and Suggestions for Future Research

Looking back to Grasha (1994) with the suggested five teaching styles and fast forward to
Miller (2010) with the introduction of three teaching approaches, it is necessary that the
researchers also look forward to vast advanced technology with a challenging future and the
current generation on the side, a great and innovative approach in mathematics education,
particularly in the teaching styles should be explored further. Future research also should
look into the possibility of learners’ lacking interest in mathematics as a core subject, which
might be due to the teaching styles or the subject content that is no longer an interest for
the current generation.

REFERENCE

14
Acharya, B. R. (2017). Factors affecting difficulties in learning mathematics by mathematics
learners. International Journal of Elementary Education, 6(2), 8-15.

Apaydin, B. B., & Cenberci, S. (2018). Correlation between Thinking Styles and Teaching
Styles of Prospective Mathematics Teachers. World Journal of Education, 8(4), 36-46.

BEYHAN, Ö. (2018). Student perceptions on the teaching styles of their teachers. Hacettepe
Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 33(4), 1038-1048.

Cardino Jr, J. M., & Cruz, R. A. O. D. (2020). Understanding of learning styles and teaching
strategies towards improving the teaching and learning of mathematics. LUMAT:
International Journal on Math, Science and Technology Education, 8(1), 19-43.

Gafoor, K. A., & Babu, H. (2012). Teaching style: A conceptual overview. Teacher education
in the new millennium, 55-69.

Gafoor, K. A., & Kurukkan, A. (2015). Why High School Students Feel Mathematics Difficult?
An Exploration of Affective Beliefs. Online Submission.

Grasha, A.F. (1994) A Matter of style: The Teacher as Expert, Formal Authority, Personal
Model, Facilitator, and Delegator. College Teaching, Vol 42(4) (Fall 1994), pp 142- 149.
https://www.montana.edu/gradschool/documents/A-Matter-of-STyle-Grashab.pdf

Hagvall Svensson, O., Lundqvist, M., & Williams Middleton, K. (2017). Transformative,
transactional and transmissive modes of teaching in action-based entrepreneurial
education. In ECSB Entrepreneurship Education (3E) Conference, May 10-12 Cork Ireland
(pp. 1-15).

Hidalgo-Cabrillana, A., & Lopez-Mayan, C. (2018). Teaching styles and achievement: Student
and teacher perspectives. Economics of Education Review, 67, 184-206.

Jackson,S.L. (2015) Research methods and Statistics-A Critical Thinking Approach (5 tH

Edition) Boston, USA:: Cengage Learning.

Jones, S., Gopalakrishnan, S., Ameh, C. A., Faragher, B., Sam, B., Labicane, R. R., ... & van den
Broek, N. (2018). Student evaluation of the impact of changes in teaching style on their
learning: a mixed method longitudinal study. BMC nursing, 17(1), 1-9.

Khoirunnisa, F. (2023). Teaching style used by teachers in a private junior high school in
Salatiga.

Langoban, M. A., & Langoban, M. A. (2020). What makes mathematics difficult as a subject
for most students in higher education. International Journal of English and Education, 9(3),
214-220.

15
Langoban, M. A., Tan, R. G., & Lomibao, L. S. (2023). Why is there a Need to Foster Positive
Attitude Among Learners in Learning Mathematics?. Journal of Innovations in Teaching and
Learning, 3(1), 35-38.

Lumbre, A. P., Beltran-Joaquin, M. N., & Monterola, S. L. C. Relationship between

Mathematics Teachers’ Teaching Styles and Students’ Achievement in Mathematics.

Miller, J. P. (2010). Whole child education. University of Toronto Press.

OECD (2023), PISA 2022 Results (Volume I): The State of Learning and Equity in Education,
PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/53f23881-en
OECD (2023), PISA 2022 Results (Volume II): Learning During – and From – Disruption, PISA,
OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/a97db61c-en
Rahmat, (2021) Revisiting Lecturers’ Role: Towards a Model of Lecturers’ Quadrant.
European Journal of Education Studies., 8(6), 165-178.
http://dx.doi.org/10.46827/ejes.v8i6.3790

Sim, S. H., & Mohd Matore, M. E. E. (2022). The relationship of Grasha–Riechmann Teaching
Styles with teaching experience of National-Type Chinese Primary Schools Mathematics
Teacher. Frontiers in psychology, 13, 1028145.

Trustram, S. F. (1938). That Dull Subject, Mathematics. The Mathematical Gazette, 22(250),
250-254.

Vermote, B., Aelterman, N., Beyers, W., Aper, L., Buysschaert, F., & Vansteenkiste, M.
(2020). The role of teachers’ motivation and mindsets in predicting a (de) motivating
teaching style in higher education: A circumplex approach. Motivation and emotion, 44, 270-
294.

Vikas, S., & Mathur, A. (2022). An empirical study of student perception towards pedagogy,
teaching style and effectiveness of online classes. Education and Information Technologies,
1-22.

16
17