The ability of students to build problem-solving models using procedural knowledge can be viewed from several aspects, including Mastery of Mathematical Problem Solving (MPS), understanding concepts and application of concepts, the relationship between learning outcomes of mathematics and interest in learning, and examine the contribution of the ability to understand concept problems, the application of concepts to the ability of MPS, as well as student difficulties and some of the advantages of students in solving problems. This experimental study aims to explain the effect of the MPS model using procedural knowledge on solving mathematical problems for Junior High School Students (JHSS). The findings showed that 1) The MPS method using procedural knowledge significantly improved learning outcomes, but the mastery of MPS for JHSS was still unsatisfactory. 2) MPS teaching could still not improve meaningful learning outcomes. However, when JHSS applied the concepts, calculations, and problem-solving aspects, MPS teaching improved meaningful learning outcomes. 3) Students' interest in learning mathematics in the two sample classes was classified as positive. Shortly, MPS teaching accustoms students to think systematically and creatively and not just give up on the problems they face.

This study tested hypotheses of a hypothetical model determining the influence of teacher clarity and real-world applications while teaching group theory concepts on students’ achievement in modern algebra. The data collected from 139 undergraduate students were analyzed by regression analysis using Stata14’s structural equation model building and estimation. The path regression analysis of the model using SEM model building and estimation confirmed the research hypotheses. First, the utilization of real-world application problems while teaching group theory concepts has a significant influence on students’ achievement in modern algebra. Second, the clear presentation of group theory concepts by the teacher has a significant influence on students’ achievement in modern algebra. Finally, both teachers’ clear presentation of group theory concepts and utilization of its real-world applications have a significant influence on students’ achievement in modern algebra.

Research into knowledge which mathematics teachers require to teach abounds. There is also mounting interest among mathematics teacher education researchers to characterize mathematics teacher educator knowledge (MTEK). However, there is a generic dearth of studies focusing on conceptions of mathematics teacher educators (MTE) regarding MTEK. This article is a product of a qualitative case study underscoring teacher educator conceptions in that regard and the investigation involved two MTE who were practicing in a university. The research site was conveniently chosen, and participants were intentionally selected to respond to interview questions which elicited espoused views. Narrative analysis was used through exploration and subsequent interpretation of transcripts which aligned with questions posed. Analyses suggested a complexity to exhaustively categorize the MTEK necessary for MTE to train mathematics teachers. Notwithstanding, MTE believed that MTEK should include understanding of research in mathematics teacher education and teaching, mathematics teacher knowledge, and MTE professional development. Additionally, the findings suggested that MTE acquire mathematics teacher educator knowledge through postgraduate studies, on the job practice, mentorship, and participation in professional development activities. Research in other contexts is recommended to identify mathematics teacher educators’ understandings of MTEK and how that knowledge should be acquired.

Out-of-field teaching in science is a phenomenon in many secondary schools across the world. While the reasons for out-of-field teaching are complex, its incidence is heightened in low socio-economic communities and in regional and remote school locations. Research on out-of-field science teaching in secondary schools has tended to focus on teacher competence, particularly in relation to pedagogical content knowledge. However, while teachers’ beliefs and teaching practices within their specialist subject are shown to be related, it is unclear how teachers’ beliefs and practices alter when teaching across subject boundaries. Using a boundary-crossing lens, where teachers engage in passing back and forth between different contexts, this study explored the relationship between teachers’ beliefs about their in-field and out-of-field discipline (science) and the connections to their teaching practice. Interview data, including a video-stimulated interview of a lesson in a teacher’s specialist field and then a subsequent out-of-field lesson, were analysed using the framework of a belief that investigated the relationships between in-field and out-of-field beliefs and practices. Findings indicate that those who teach science out-of-field revert to traditional ways of teaching, despite being more open and adventurous in their in-field discipline areas. However, there were significant instances of boundary crossing with their pedagogy to support their teaching – both in-field and out-of-field. These findings support the development of structured mechanisms and strategies to assist teachers to cross boundaries to establish new and unique interdisciplinary practices.

In terms of learning and academic level, this study compares the development of mathematical creative thinking skills between students who use the Blended Learning Model with GeoGebra support (BLM-G) and students who use the Blended Learning Model without GeoGebra aid (BLM-non-G). A nonequivalent control-group design and a quasi-experimental research methodology are being used. The participants in this study were eighth-grade SMPN students in Ternate City, Indonesia. The research sample was 125 people from two schools with different grade levels. The instrument used is a mathematical creative thinking ability test. Research result; Learning using BLM-G influences students' mathematical creative thinking abilities at high and medium school levels, with very high categories. When compared to kids who learn using BLM-non-G learning, students who use BLM-G learning exhibit greater growth in their capacity for both mathematical and creative thought. This is based on high school level pupils. Kids who study using BLM-G learning and students who learn using BLM-non-G learning exhibit equal increases in their capacity for mathematical and creative thought at the middle school level.