The Use of Activity, Classroom Discussion, and Exercise (ACE) Teaching Cycle for Improving Students’ Engagement in Learning Elementary Linear Algebra

Hendra Syarifuddin 1 * , Bill Atweh 2
More Detail
1 Universitas Negeri Padang, INDONESIA
2 Curtin University, AUSTRALIA
* Corresponding Author
EUR J SCI MATH ED, Volume 10, Issue 1, pp. 104-138.
Published Online: 06 December 2021, Published: 01 January 2022
OPEN ACCESS   2701 Views   1347 Downloads
Download Full Text (PDF)


The main focus of the study was to identify the the effects of the ACE teaching cycle approach on students’ engagement in learning of Elementary Linear Algebra. The Elementary Linear Algebra course was delivered at the Mathematics Education Study Program of State University of Padang, Indonesia. An action research methodology was adopted for the study and the constructivist theory was used as a theoretical framework. This study used mixed methods to collect, describe, and interpret the data. The data were collected through focus group discussion, classroom observations, and questionnaire. The participants in this study consisted of 37 students enrolled in the Elementary Linear Algebra course during the January-June 2011 semester. The ACE teaching cycle approach that was implemented in this study consisted of three steps. The first step in this cycle was the concept maps activity. This activity encouraged students to prepare for the topics that would be discussed in the class. The next step was classroom discussion which provided a social context in which the students could work together to solve mathematics problems. Finally, exercises were assigned as homework. In this part, students practised solving mathematics problems and wrote reflective journal. Students’ involvement in the ACE teaching cycle approach in the Elementary Linear Algebra course improved their engagement in mathematics learning in the three domains of cognitive engagement, affective engagement and behavioural engagement.


Syarifuddin, H., & Atweh, B. (2022). The Use of Activity, Classroom Discussion, and Exercise (ACE) Teaching Cycle for Improving Students’ Engagement in Learning Elementary Linear Algebra. European Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 10(1), 104-138.


  • Açıkgül, K., & Şad, S. N. (2020). Mobile technology acceptance scale for learning mathematics: Development, validity, and reliability studies. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 21(4), 161-180.
  • Açıkgül, K., & Şad, S. N. (2021). High school students’ acceptance and use of mobile technology in learning mathematics. Education and Information Technologies, 26, 4181-4201.
  • Agustini, N. W. W. (2019). English teacher’ perceptions and classroom practices on constructivism values in primary schools in Badung Regency. Jurnal Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris Indonesia, 7(2), 1-11.
  • Akilli, M., & Genç, M. (2017). Modelling the effects of selected affective factors on learning strategies and classroom activities in science education. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 16(4), 599.
  • Al Ansari, M., Al Bshabshe, A., Al Otair, H., Layqah, L., Al-Roqi, A., Masuadi, E., Alkharashi, N., & Baharoon, S. (2021). Knowledge and confidence of final-year medical students regarding critical care core-concepts, a comparison between problem-based learning and a traditional curriculum. Journal of Medical Education and Curricular Development, 8, 2382120521999669.
  • Aldon, G., & Tragalová, J. (2019). Technology in mathematics teaching. Springer International Publishing.
  • Anderson, G. (2002). Fundamental of educational research (2nd ed.). Routledge Falmer.
  • Anton, H. (2004). Aljabar linear elementer. Erlangga.
  • Archambault, I., Janosz, M., Morizot, J., & Pagani, L. (2009). Adolescent behavioral, affective, and cognitive engagement in school; Relationship to dropout. Journal of School Health, 79(9), 408-415.
  • Arnawa, I. M. (2006). Meningkatkan kemampuan pembuktian mahasiswa dalam aljabar abstrak melalui pembelajaran berdasarkan teori APOS [Improve students’ proofing skills in abstract algebra through learning based on APOS theory]. (S3), UPI, Bandung.
  • Asiala, M., Cottrill, J., Dubinsky, E., & Schwingendorf, K. E. (1997). The development of students’ graphical understanding of the derivative. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 16(4), 399-431.
  • Asiala, M., Dubinsky, E., Mathews, D. M., Morics, S., & Oktaç, A. (1997). Development of students’ understanding of cosets, normality, and quotient groups. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 16(3), 241-309.
  • Askew, M., Bowie, L., & Venkat, H. (2019). Pre-service primary teachers’ mathematical content knowledge: An exploratory study. African Journal of Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 23(3), 286-297.
  • Attard, C. (2011). The influence of teachers on student engagement with mathematics during the middle years.
  • Atweh, B. (2004). Understanding for changing and changing for understanding. In P. V. a. R. Zevenbergen (Ed.), Researching the socio-political dimensions of mathematics education: Issues of power in theory and methodology (pp. 1-19). Kluwer Academic.
  • Baek, J. (2019). EFL college students’ learning experiences during film-based reading class: Focused on the analysis of students’ reflective journals. International Journal of Advanced Culture Technology, 7(4), 49-55.
  • Biggs, J. B. (1978). Individual and group differences in study processes. British Journal of Education Psychology, 48, 266-279.
  • Bodner, G. M. (1986). Constructivism: A theory of knowledge. Journal of Chemical Education, 63(10), 873-878.
  • Bodner, G., & Elmas, R. (2020). The impact of inquiry-based, group-work approaches to instruction on both students and their peer leaders. European Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 8(1), 51-66.
  • Borji, V., & Voskoglou, M. G. (2017). Designing an ACE Approach for teaching the polar coordinates. American Journal of Educational Research, 5(3), 303-309.
  • Brijlall, D., & Maharaj, A. (2009). Applying APOS theory as a theoretical framework for collaborative learning in teacher education.
  • Cano, J. M. M., Salazar, T. D. N. J. M., Priego, C. G., & Hernández, J. A. C. (2018). Construction of media competence in medical education through flipped classroom in a traditional curriculum. Transylvanian Review, 26(28).
  • Carini, R., Kuh, G., & Klein, S. (2006). Student engagement and student learning: Testing the linkages. Research in Higher Education, 47(1), 1-32.
  • Casinillo, L., Camulte, M. C., Raagas, D., & Riña, T. S. (2020). Cultural factors in learning mathematics: the case on achievement level among Badjao students. International Journal of Indonesian Education and Teaching, 4(1), 71-81.
  • Cattaneo, L. B., Shor, R., Calton, J. M., Gebhard, K. T., Buchwach, S. Y., Elshabassi, N., & Hargrove, S. (2019). Social problems are social: Empirical evidence and reflections on integrating community psychology into traditional curriculum. Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice, 10(1), 1-29.
  • Caulfield, J. (2010). Applying graduate student perceptions of task engagement to enhance learning conditions. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 4(1), 8.
  • Chan, K. K. H., & Hume, A. (2019). Towards a consenus model: Literature review of how science teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge is investigated. In A. Hume, R. Cooper, & A. Borowski (Eds.), Repositioning PCK in teachers’ professional knowledge (pp. 3-76). Springer.
  • Chapman, E. (2003). Alternative approaches to assessing student engagement rates. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 8, 13.
  • Charalambous, C. Y., Hill, H. C., Chin, M. J., & McGinn, D. (2020). Mathematical content knowledge and knowledge for teaching: exploring their distinguishability and contribution to student learning. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 23(6), 579-613.
  • Cho, H. J., Wang, C., Bonem, E. M., & Levesque-Bristol, C. (2021). How can we support students’ learning experiences in higher education? Campus wide course transformation program systematic review and meta-analysis. Innovative Higher Education, 1-30.
  • Cole, M. (1996). Cultural psychology: A once and future discipline. Harvard University Press.
  • Copley, J. (1992). The integration of teacher education and technology: A constructivist model. AACE.
  • Copur-Gencturk, Y., Jacobson, E., & Rasiej, R. (2021). On the alignment of teachers’ mathematical content knowledge assessments with the common core state standards. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 1-25.
  • Creswell, J. W. (2008). Educational research: planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (3th ed.). Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall.
  • Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2010). Chapter 1: The nature of mixed methods research. In Designing and conducting mixed methods research (pp. 1-18).
  • Crowder, C. D. (2011). How to overcome mathematics test anxiety.
  • Daniel, L. (2017). The interplay between pre-service teachers’ intentions and enacted mathematical content knowledge in the classroom. Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia.
  • De Oliveira, D. F. M., Simas, B. C., Guimarães Caldeira, A. L., Medeiros, A. D. G. E. B., Freitas, M. R., Jr, J. D., & Diniz, R. (2018). School of Medicine of Federal University of Rio Grande Do Norte: A traditional curriculum with innovative trends in medical education. Medical teacher, 40(5), 467-471.
  • Denton, J. M., Esparza, S. D., Fike, D. S., & González, J. (2018). Improvements in cultural competence in athletic training and rehabilitative science students through classroom activities. Journal of Cultural Diversity, 25(1), 32-37.
  • Dikici, A. (2006). The effects of cooperative learning on the abilities of pre-service art teacher candidates to lesson planning in Turkey. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 31(2), 35-44.
  • Dinh, H. (2019). Towards a knowledge-rich curriculum. Journal of Curriculum Studies Research, 1(1), 54-70.
  • D’mello, K. (2008). How can we maximise student engagement in the classroom?
  • Driscoll, M P. (2000). Psychology of learning for instruction (2nd ed.). Allyn and Bacon.
  • Dubinsky, E. (1995). ISETL: a programming language for learning mathematics. Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics, XLVIII, 1027-1051.
  • Dubinsky, E. (2001). Using a theory of learning in college mathematics course.
  • Elmore, R. F. (1990). Restructuring school: The next generation of educational reform. Jossey-Bass.
  • Exley, B. (2008). Communities of learners: Early years students, new learning pedagogies, and transformations. In A. Healy (Ed.), Multiliteratures and diversity in education: new pedagogies for expanding landscape (pp. 126-143). University Press.
  • Finn, J. D. (1993). School engagement and students at risk. National Center for Education Statistics.
  • Fosnot, C. T. (1996). Constructivism: Theory, perspective, and practice. Teachers College Press.
  • Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59-110.
  • Fuentes-Cabrera, A., Parra-González, M. E., López-Belmonte, J., & Segura-Robles, A. (2020). Learning mathematics with emerging methodologies—The escape room as a case study. Mathematics, 8(9), 1586.
  • Ganapathy, M., Kaur, M., & Kaur, S. (2017). Tertiary students’ learning practices using information and communication technology to promote higher-order thinking. Pertanika Journal of Social Sciences & Humanities, 25(2), 877-890.
  • Getenet, S., & Callingham, R. (2021). Teaching interrelated concepts of fraction for understanding and teacher’s pedagogical content knowledge. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 33, 201-221.
  • Hava, K., Guyer, T., & Cakir, H. (2020). Gifted students’ learning experiences in systematic game development process in after-school activities. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(3), 1439-1459.
  • Janna, I., Christopher, K., Barbara, S., Kalle, J., Joseph, K., Jari, L., & Katariina, S. A. (2019). Science classroom activities and student situational engagement. International Journal of Science Education, 41(3), 316-329.
  • Jitka, N., Jitka, P., & Pavlna, K. (2018). Teacher’s concept of constructivism in real conditions of school teaching. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 6(n11a), 133-138.
  • Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (1988). The action research planner. Deakin University.
  • Kent, L. (2017). Examining mathematics classroom interactions: Elevating student roles in teaching and learning. International Journal of Educational Methodology, 3(2), 93-102.
  • Kent, M, Gilbertson, D, & Hunt, C. (1997). Fieldwork in geography teaching: A critical review of the literature and approaches. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 21(3), 313-332.
  • Kind, V., & Chan, K. K. (2019). Resolving the amalgam: connecting pedagogical content knowledge, content knowledge and pedagogical knowledge. International Journal of Science Education, 41(7), 964-978.
  • King, E. (2020). Implications for the child friendly schools policy within Cambodia’s cultural and primary school context. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 48(4), 375-388.
  • Kong, Q. P., Wong, N. Y., & Lam, C. C. (2003). Student engagement in mathematics: development of instrument and validation of construct. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 15(1), 4-21.
  • LaMotte, M. (2018). The integrated approach versus the traditional approach: Analyzing the benefits of a dance and transportation integrated curriculum. Journal of Dance Education, 18(1), 23-32.
  • Livy, S., & Vale, C. (2011). First year pre-service teachers’ mathematical content knowledge: methods of solution for a ratio question. Mathematics Teacher Education and Development, 13(2), 22-43.
  • Livy, S., Herbert, S., & Vale, C. (2019). Developing primary pre-service teachers’ mathematical content knowledge: Opportunities and influences. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 31(3), 279-299.
  • Lo, W. Y. (2020). Examining the mathematical content knowledge of pre-service primary teachers at the highest primary school level in Hong Kong. Teacher Development, 24(3), 315-332.
  • Ma, L. (1999). Knowing and teaching elementary mathematics; teachers’ understanding of fundamental mathematics in China and the United States. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
  • Maharaj, A. (2011). An APOS analysis of students’ understanding of the concept of a limit of a function. Pythagoras: Journal of the Association for Mathematics Education of South Africa, 71(2010), 41-52.
  • Mainali, B. (2021). Representation in teaching and learning mathematics. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 9(1), 1-21.
  • Marks, H. M. (2000). Students engagement in instructional activity: Patterns in the elementary, middle, and high school years. American Educational Research Journal, 37(1), 153-184.
  • Masaviru, M. (2020). From physical classrooms to e-learning and online teaching: A case study of Light International School, Mombasa. Journal of Education and Practice, 11(13), 57-72.
  • Mathison, S. (1988). Why triangulate? Educational Researcher, 17(2), 13-17.
  • Mazana, Y. M., Suero Montero, C., & Olifage, C. R. (2019). Investigating students’ attitude towards learning mathematics. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 14(1), 207-231.
  • McMillan, J. H. (1992). Educational research: Fundamental for consumers. Harper Collins Publishers Inc.
  • Mills, G. E. (2007). Action research: a guide for the teacher researcher (4th ed.). Pearson Education, Inc.
  • Miserandino, M. (1996). Children who do well in school: Individual differences in perceived competenceand autonomy in above-average children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(2), 203-214.
  • Mulenga, E. M., & Marbán, J. M. (2020). Prospective teachers’ online learning mathematics activities in the age of COVID-19: A cluster analysis approach. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 16(9), em1872.
  • NCTM. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics.
  • Nesmith, S. J. (2008). Mathematics and literature: Educators’ perspectives on utilizing a reformative approach to bridge two cultures.
  • Neumann, K., Kind, V., & Harms, U. (2019). Probing the amalgam: the relationship between science teachers’ content, pedagogical and pedagogical content knowledge. International Journal of Science Education, 41(7), 847-861.
  • Newmann, F. M. (1992). Student engagement and achievement in American secondary school. Teachers Collage Press.
  • Newmann, Fred M., & Lamborn, S. D. (1992). The significance and source of student engagement. In F. M. Newmann (Ed.), Student engagement and achievement in American secondary school (pp. 11-39). Teachers College Press.
  • Nguyen, T. T. T., Seki, N., & Morio, I. (2018). Stress predictors in two Asian dental schools with an integrated curriculum and traditional curriculum. European Journal of Dental Education, 22(3), e594-e601.
  • Norton, S. (2019). The relationship between mathematical content knowledge and mathematical pedagogical content knowledge of prospective primary teachers. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 22(5), 489-514.
  • O’Toole, J., & Beckett, D. (2010). Educational research: creating thinking & doing. Oxford University Press.
  • Özgür, H. (2020). Relationships between teachers’ technostress, technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK), school support and demographic variables: A structural equation modeling. Computers in Human Behavior, 112, 106468.
  • Pazicni, S., & Flynn, A. B. (2019). Systems thinking in chemistry education: Theoretical challenges and opportunities. Journal of Chemical Education, 96(12), 2752-2763.
  • Pedro, J., & Brunheira, L. (2001). Analysing practice in preservice mathematics teacher education. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 3(1), 16-27.
  • Peker, E., & Ataöv, A. (2020). Exploring the ways in which campus open space design influences students’ learning experiences. Landscape Research, 45(3), 310-326.
  • Peker, M. (2009). Pre-service teachers’ teaching anxiety about mathematics and their learning styles. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 5(4), 335-345.
  • Pierce, R., Kaye, S., & Anastasios, B. (2005). A scale for monitoring students’ attitude to learning mathematics with technology. Computer & Education, 48(2007), 285-300.
  • Potgieter, E. (2020). Pedagogies of play to develop intermediate phase mathematics teachers’ metacognitive awareness (Doctoral dissertation, North-West University).
  • Rohaizati, U. (2020, February). Junior secondary school teachers and students’ needs for the use of digital comics in learning mathematics. In Journal of Physics: Conference Series (Vol. 1460, No. 1, p. 012026). IOP Publishing.
  • Rotgans, J. I., & Schmidt, H. G. (2011). Cognitive engagement in the problem-based learning classroom. Advance in Health Science Education, 16(4), 465-479.
  • Sacristán, A. I. (2019, July). Mathematics teachers’ education for technological integration: Necessary knowledge and possible online means for its development. Introduction to the Section. In Technology in Mathematics Teaching: Selected Papers of the 13th ICTMT Conference (Vol. 13, p. 173). Springer.
  • Salame, I. I., Casino, P., & Hodges, N. (2020). Examining Challenges that Students Face in Learning Organic Chemistry Synthesis. International Journal of Chemistry Education Research, 4(1), 1-9.
  • Sarantakos, S. (2005). Social research. Palgrave Macmillan.
  • Schifter, D., & Simon, M. A. (1992). Assessing teachers’ development of a constructivist view of mathematics learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 8(2), 187-197.
  • Schmid, M., Brianza, E., & Petko, D. (2020). Developing a short assessment instrument for Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK. xs) and comparing the factor structure of an integrative and a transformative model. Computers & Education, 157, 103967.
  • Schulman, L S. (1998). Teaching and teacher education among profession. Elementary School Journal, 98(5), 511-526.
  • Scott, T., & Husain, F. N. (2021). Textbook Reliance: Traditional Curriculum Dependence Is Symptomatic of a Larger Educational Problem. Journal of Educational Issues, 7(1), 233-248.
  • Selvanathan, M., Hussin, N. A. M., & Azazi, N. A. N. (2020). Students learning experiences during COVID-19: Work from home period in Malaysian higher learning institutions. Teaching Public Administration, 0144739420977900.
  • Setianingsih, R., Sa’dijah, C., As’ari, A. R., & Muksar, M. (2017). Investigating fifth-grade students’ construction of mathematical knowledge through classroom discussion. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 12(3), 383-396.
  • Shrivastava, S. R., & Shrivastava, P. S. (2020). Advocating for the retention of positive attributes of the traditional curriculum amidst the transition to the competency based curriculum in medical education delivery. South-East Asian Journal of Medical Education, 13(2), 14.
  • Skinner, E., & Belmont, M. (1993). Motivation in the classroom: Reciprocal effect of teacher behaviour and student engagement across the school year. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(4), 571-581.
  • Sulistyowati, T. (2019). Bottom-up and top-down listening processes within cognitive constructivist learning theory. PROMINENT Journal, 2(1), 92-100.
  • Tabach, M., & Trgalová, J. (2018). ICT standards for teachers: Toward a frame defining mathematics teachers’ digital knowledge. In H.-G. Weigand, et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 5th ERME Topic Conference. Mathematics Education in the Digital Age (pp. 273-280). University of Copenhagen.
  • Tabach, M., & Trgalová, J. (2019). The knowledge and skills that mathematics teachers need for ICT integration: The issue of Standards. In Technology in mathematics teaching (pp. 183-203). Springer.
  • Tabach, M., & Trgalová, J. (2020). Teaching mathematics in the digital era: Standards and beyond. In STEM Teachers and Teaching in the Digital Era: Professional Expectations and Advancement in the 21st Century Schools (pp. 221-242). Springer.
  • Tanak, A. (2020). Designing TPACK-based course for preparing student teachers to teach science with technological pedagogical content knowledge. Kasetsart Journal of Social Sciences, 41(1), 53-59.
  • Taplin, M. (1998). Preservice teachers’ problem-solving processes. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 10(3), 59-76.
  • Technology Assistance Program. (1998). Constructivism and technology on the road to student-centered learning. TAP into Learning, 1(1).
  • Tomlinson, A. (2002). Invitation to learn. Educational Leadership, 60(1), 6-10.
  • Trigueros, M., Oktac, A., & Manzanero, L. (2007). Understanding of system of equation in linear algebra.
  • Tsybulsky, D. (2020). Digital curation for promoting personalized learning: A study of secondary-school science students’ learning experiences. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 52(3), 429-440.
  • Werner, J. M., Scovotti, C., Cummings, R. G., & Bronson, J. W. (2018). Building a case for active learning: The use of lecture vs. other classroom activities at LMBC. Journal of Learning in Higher Education, 14(1), 7-15.
  • Zahner, W., Calleros, E. D., & Pelaez, K. (2021). Designing learning environments to promote academic literacy in mathematics in multilingual secondary mathematics classrooms. ZDM Mathematics Education, 53, 359-373.