Quantitative analysis shows positive correlation between instructional strategies and critical thinking dispositions in learners, suggesting effective teaching enhances skills.
This study examined the relationship between teachers’ instructional strategies and the critical thinking dispositions of learners in Mathematics at Agusan del Sur National High School. The research focused on five instructional strategies: Collaborative Learning, Differentiated Instruction, Inquiry-Based Learning, Use of Visual Aids and Manipulatives, and Real-World Applications. It also assessed learners’ critical thinking dispositions in terms of Inference, Deduction, and Evaluation of Arguments. A quantitative descriptive correlational design was employed, with data collected from 40 Mathematics teachers and 1,600 learners using researcher-made questionnaires. Findings revealed that teachers strongly agreed on their use of these strategies, while learners only agreed, indicating a slight disparity in perception. Learners rated their critical thinking dispositions positively, though teachers rated them slightly lower. A significant positive correlation was found between instructional strategies and critical thinking dispositions, suggesting that effective teaching methods enhance learners’ critical thinking skills. Collaborative Learning and Real-World Applications were particularly impactful, while the Use of Visual Aids and Manipulatives showed room for improvement. The study concluded that while teachers employ diverse strategies, there is a need to align these methods more closely with learners’ experiences to maximize their effectiveness. Recommendations include developing an intervention program to strengthen instructional practices, providing professional development for teachers, and designing tasks that explicitly foster critical thinking. The findings contribute to the ongoing discourse on effective Mathematics education and underscore the importance of student-centered approaches in cultivating 21st-century skills.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Alburo et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: