Discover Education

Research

The impact of constructivist methods on students’ mathematical

problem‑solving
Blerina Çibukçiu1

Received: 10 December 2024 / Accepted: 1 April 2025

© The Author(s) 2025  OPEN

Abstract
This study examines the impact of constructivist methods on students’ performance in mathematical problem-solving,
which is a significant issue in contemporary educational research. Traditional teaching methods, which are often oriented
towards rote learning and memorization, have limitations in increasing students’ performance in solving mathematical
problems. This research has analyzed how constructivist methods have a major impact on the third-graders’ performance
in solving these problems. In this research, a quantitative method with a quasi-experimental design was used. The sample
consists of 143 third-graders, who were separated into two groups; the experimental group which used constructivist
methods for solving mathematical problems and the controlled group which continued using traditional methods
through standard teaching materials and relevant textbooks. All students were tested on mathematical-problem solving
twice, once before the intervention and once after the intervention. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS (version
27) and included Paired Samples T-test analysis. The results of the Paired Samples T-Test show a statistically important
difference between the average scores before and after the use of constructivist methods in students’ performance for
solving mathematical problems. The average score in the pre-test was M = 39.77, while in the post-test it was M = 59.46,
with an average difference of −19.69 and a statistical significance of p < 0.001. This study confirms that the use of
constructivist methods in solving mathematical problems has a significant positive impact. These findings suggest that
the integration of constructivist methods in teaching mathematics can be an effective strategy to help improve students’
performance in solving mathematical problems.

Keywords Constructivist methods · Solutions · Student · Mathematical problems

1 Introduction

Mathematics is an inseparable part of everyday life, playing a crucial role in almost every aspect of it, from the simplest
calculations to complex problem-solving. Therefore, schools nowadays aim to teach children mathematics in such a way
that they can relate it to real-life situations, using it in the best possible way.
According to [1], “teaching mathematics in a real-life context increases students’ understanding and motivation and
also helps them see the practical value of mathematics in solving everyday problems.” Traditional teaching methods,
which often focus on rote learning and memorization, lead to limitations in students’ knowledge and difficulties in
relating this knowledge to everyday life. This form of learning creates a shallow understanding and often leads to a lack
of interest in mathematics subject. "When students only learn by heart, without understanding the concepts behind

* Blerina Çibukçiu, blerina.cibukciu97@gmail.com | 1Faculty of Educational Studies and the Arts, Sofia University “St. Kliment Ohridski”,
Sofia, Bulgaria.

Discover Education (2025) 4:83 | https://doi.org/10.1007/s44217-025-00475-w

Vol.:(0123456789)
Research
Discover Education (2025) 4:83 | https://doi.org/10.1007/s44217-025-00475-w

them, they lose the ability to apply knowledge to new and complex situations." [2]. Today, education aims to evolve
towards methods that encourage critical thinking and problem-solving, making mathematics understandable and
valuable to students in their daily lives. A critical aspect of this evolution is the use of constructivist methods in teaching,
where the student has an active role in constructing knowledge and where the teacher is not only a transmitter of
information, but also a leader who creates opportunities for research and solving problems. According to [3] the OECD
emphasizes that changes in pedagogy, including the adoption of constructivist methods, can better prepare students
to develop the mathematical that are needed in innovative societies. Moreover, Piaget’s constructivist theory emphasizes
that "knowledge is built through the students’ active and interactive experiences" [4] and when students construct their
own knowledge through active experiences, they achieve a deeper and more lasting understanding of the content. In
this context, teachers provide assignments and problems that challenge students, encouraging them to research,
experiment, and find solutions independently. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics [5] highlights that
constructivism focuses on how students learn and how teachers can facilitate understanding. In constructivist teaching,
students are encouraged to use their own methods to solve problems, fostering deeper engagement and a fuller
comprehension. Clements and Battista [6] present two major goals of using constructivist methods in mathematics
teaching. Firstly, students should develop mathematical structures that are more complex, abstract, and powerful than
the ones they currently possess, so that they are increasingly capable of solving a wide variety of meaningful problems.
Second, students should become autonomous and self-motivated in their mathematical activities. Such students believe
that mathematics is a way of thinking about problems. According to [7], constructivist theory has been prominent in
research on mathematics learning and has provided a basis for efforts to reform education in mathematics. Furthermore,
constructivist theory is one of the significant theories of teaching and learning mathematics and science courses [8]. In
addition, [9]stated that constructivism is an alternative to traditional methodologies because students are able to solve
a variety of mathematical problems and they develop more complex and abstract structures. While students are
constructing their knowledge, students change their perspective by being able to create and control mathematics. There
are two fundamental reasons why a constructivist perspective can be an alternative to transmission-based teaching
methodologies. On one hand, it allows students to create more complex and abstract strategies, thus strengthening
their ability to solve problems in a significant way. On the other hand, it provides students with a sense of control that
motivates and makes them be conscious that they are capable of learning and constructing mathematics through
problem-solving [10]. Besides [11], showed that constructivist methods not only improve students’ comprehension and
involvement in problem- solving, but they also develop critical thinking, independent research and the ability to relate
different information. Mathematics problem-solving is essential to improve the ability to deal with various mathematical
problems in daily life, increase the imagination, develop creativity, and develop an individual’s comprehension skills [12].
Teaching mathematical problem-solving is an effective way to develop twenty-first century performance of students
and give students cross-curricular experiences with real-world meaning [13]. One of the important roles of learning
mathematics is to understand the abstract objects of mathematics directly. These can be better achieved through
constructivist methods. According to Piaget, age 7–11 years old, it is a stage of concrete operational development and
in this phase, the child can perform operations, and logical reasoning as long as reasoning can be applied to specific and
concrete examples [14]. Moreover, the programs based on consturctivism like PEIM, which consists of the main
constructivist foundations: (a) children will construct their own knowledge; (b) instruction guides and supports their
knowledge construction; (c) instruction will focus on understanding and solving problems; and (d) specific mathematical
development will form the foundation for sequencing instructional objectives. The profile of the constructivist student
is made of: (a) he constructs his own knowledge; (b) is mentally and manually active; (c) acquires significant knowledge;
and (d) is autonomous and independent in constructing their knowledge. Nevertheless, the profile of the constructivist
teacher consists of: (a) the child that constructs his knowledge and is the protagonist of the classroom; (b) learning
mathematics involves understanding the procedures and solving problems; (c) schoolchildren come with previous
knowledge before class instruction; (d) the teacher has an active attitude, by listening and asking his students,
continuously evaluating all the processes and intervening whenever appropriate; and (e) personalized interaction with
students [10]. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics and Bermejo et al. [5, 10] agreed that an appropriate
constructivist intervention would allow the student to interact with both the teacher and the rest of the students, using
at all times different means to reason, relate, solve problems and communicate. Furthermore, it will help the learner to
focus on solving problems that allow examples and counterexamples to be explored. Moreover, constructivist methods
change the process of teaching and learning mathematics by relating it to everyday life, instead of just teaching abstract
formulas [15]. There are different constructivist methods: problem and project-based, corporative and collaborative
methods. According to [16], there are many constructivist methods and in his research he used teaching methods such

Vol:.(1234567890)
Discover Education (2025) 4:83 | https://doi.org/10.1007/s44217-025-00475-w
Research

as: problem-based learning, inquiry-based learning, project-based learning, case-based teaching, and discovery-based
learning, which promotes active participation in the classroom. One of the methods for solving mathematical problems
that reflect the theory of constructivism is project-based learning or PjBL [17], which has an origin based on architecture,
but nowadays, it is also used in primary education of childrenInquiry learning models provide opportunities for students
to develop active learning methods by finding and investigating their own knowledge [18]). Problem-based learning or
PBL has several positive effects on student’s content knowledge and performance of solving math problems compared
to traditional teaching methods. In addition, students in PBL performed better on assessment of science content
knowledge, they also manage to develop critical thinking, problem-solvingand development of collaborative[19, 20].
Action learning and problem-based learning are examples of constructivist teaching and learning methods. Both these
methods help students find the most optimal solution for a problem through activities in small groups of five or six. The
difference between action learning and problem-based learning lies in the type of case scenario adopted. In action
learning, students solve real problems from real situations, while in problem-based learning, they solve artificial, model
problems developed by the teacher [21]. With case-based learning (CBL), students develop higher-order thinking and
reflection skills by reading and discussing complex, real-life scenarios [22]. The 5E model is often associated with inquiry-
based learning, active learning, experiential learning, discovery learning, and knowledge building—all variations and
parallels of constructivism. The 5E Model is based on the constructivist theory of learning, which suggests that people
construct knowledge and comprehension from experiences. By understanding and reflecting on activities, students are
able to reconcile new knowledge with previous ideas. According to subject-matter expert Beverlee Jobrack, “Educational
movements, such as inquiry-based learning, active learning, experiential learning, discovery learning, and knowledge
building, are variations of the constructivism.”[23]. It falls within the theories of the constructivist teaching model [24].
Access prior knowledge and engage the new concept through short activities that promote curiosity. 2. Exploration-
Provide a common base of activities in which current concepts are identified and conceptual change is facilitated. 3.
Explanation-Focus on a particular aspect of engagement to provide opportunities to demonstrate conceptual
understanding, process skills, or behaviors. This phase also provides an opportunity for teachers to directly introduce a
concept, process, or skill to guide students toward a deeper understanding. 4. Elaboration-Challenge conceptual
understanding and skills through new experiences to develop deeper understanding and application. 5. Evaluation-
Students assess their understanding and the teacher evaluates student progress toward educational objectives.
Researchers believe that teachers play a crucial role in students’ performance in mathematics, leading [25] to investigate
the CRA model as a variable to improve student academic performance. Furthermore, CRA, which is a constructivist
method, consists of three levels of learning. Each level builds on the previous level to promote overall conceptual and
procedural comprehension [26].
Due to the fact that the OECD [27] recognizes knowledge construction and problem-solving as specific forms of
constructivist learning and emphasizes the significance of these methods in modern education, this study aims to find
the effect of constructivist methods as an opportunity to enhance students’ mathematical problem-solving performance,
and the main research hypothesis of this study derives from this specific aim.

2 Methodology

2.1 Sample

In this research, 143 primary school students were included. The participants were students from four third grades
(N = 140). Out of the total number of third grade students, 70 students were included in the experimental group and
73 were engaged in the control classes. The selection of this sample was made due to the fact that children from the
ages of 7–11 years old pass into the stage of development of concrete thinking, where they begin to develop more
advanced performance to solve problems and to understand the connection between abstract ideas and their direct
experience [4], their demographic characteristics are presented in Tables 1 and 2. Moreover, four teachers from the third
grade participated in this research and they were selected with the same qualifications, using textbooks from the same
publishing house. Therefore, the sample could be considered representative of the Kosovo students’ population. The
third-grader’s teachers in the control group were instructed to work without any guidance, only based on traditional
methods and relevant textbooks for a period of one month. On the other hand, the third-grader’s teachers in the
experimental group were instructed to work with constructivist methods. Teachers were provided with a guide for
using constructivist methods, developed by researchers and professional development collaborators, which is based

Vol.:(0123456789)
Research
Discover Education (2025) 4:83 | https://doi.org/10.1007/s44217-025-00475-w

Table 1  Sample distribution Gender Experimental group Control group

by gender
N % N %

Female 42 60 32 43.8
Male 28 40 41 56.2
Total 70 100 73 100

Table 2  Sample distribution Age Experimental group Control group

by age
N % N %

8 year old 11 15.7 21 28.7

9 year old 53 75.5 50 68.5
10 year old 6 8.6 2 2.7
Total 70 100 73 100

Table 3  Some examples of mathematical problems used in the pre-test and post-test phases
Knowledge level according to Bloom’s Taxonomy
Mathematical problems Remembering Understanding Applying

Calculate: 35 × 10 √
Inara’s father gave her 100 euros to buy clothes, 40 euros of which Inara √
decided to save. How much money does Inara have to spend on clothes?
The farmer planted 13 rows of 124 chokeberry seedlings in his field. After √
planting, 37 seedlings failed. How many seedlings does the farmer have ?
Knowledge level according to Bloom’s taxonomy
Mathematical problems Analyzing Evaluating Creating

A class has 24 students, and each student has 3 pens. How many pens do the √
students have in total?’ Show what steps you need to follow to solve it and
why
Dielli has saved 270 euros in his money box. He wants to buy a camera that √
costs 150 euros. What mathematical operation should he use to find out if he
has enough money?
Compile a word problem that involves subtracting three-digit numbers √

mainly on the work of "Art of constructivist teaching in the primary school: A guide for students and teachers" [28] and
The BSCS 5E instructional model: Origins and effectiveness [29] and the CRA model [30]. Teachers also received several
hours of training on constructivist methods.

2.2 Research instrument

A number of mathematical problems were designed in the form of a test to measure the impact of constructivist
methods on solving mathematical problems. The test was compiled based on the levels of knowledge (remembering,
understanding, applying, analyzing, evaluating and creating) (Table 3) according to Bloom’s Taxonomy [31] and the
assessment according to the Administrative Guidelines for the Assessment of Students in Pre-University Education [32].
Ten mathematical problems (pre-test) were compiled and distributed to all students before using constructivist methods
and the same procedure was repeated in the post-test. A pre-test was created to assess students’ initial problem-solving
performance and a post-test to measure improvement after the intervention. The tests were reviewed together with a
third grade teacher and a mathematics teacher. This process was led by the relevant classroom teachers. Students were
assessed with points in solving mathematical problems in both phases of testing (pre-test and post-test).

Vol:.(1234567890)
Discover Education (2025) 4:83 | https://doi.org/10.1007/s44217-025-00475-w
Research

Table 4  Reliability statistics Cronbach’s alpha N of items

.880 12

Fig. 1  Distribution of variables in the pre-test and the post-test in control group

The Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient was calculated to assess the reliability of the measuring instrument. The Cronbach’s
Alpha result is 880, indicating that the instrument is reliable and suitable for use in research (Table 4).

3 Findings

In order to examine the impact of constructivist methods on solving mathematical problems by third grade students, the
points scored in the pre-test and post-test were analyzed through the Paired Samples T-Test. Figures 1 and 2 show the
distribution of variables, and from these figures it can be seen that the variables of the control group and the experimental
group in both the pre-test and post-test measurement periods have a normal distribution, which allows us to continue
using the Paired Samples T-Test analysis.
Also, for the control group, Levene’s test for homogeneity of variance was performed and according to this test the
values are: F = 0.0053 and p = 0.9421. Since the P value is much greater than 0.05, there are no significant differences in the
variance of the results before and after the test. Therefore, we can say that the hypothesis of Equal variances assumed is
accepted and according to the results, we find that the groups are homogeneous. For the experimental group, Levene’s
test for homogeneity of variance gives us the value F = 0.0797 and the value P = 0.7781. This means that the variances
of the results before and after the test for both groups are homogeneous, and we can continue using the Paired T-Test
to compare their averages.
Paired samples T-Test results show a statistically important difference between the averages of pre-test and post-test
scores after using constructivist methods for solving mathematical problems. The average score in the pre-test was
M = 39.77, while in the post-test it was M = 59.46, with an average difference of -19.69.
The test showed a significant t-value t(69) = −56.27, and a p-value less than 0.001 (p < 0.001), indicating that the
difference is statistically significant. The 95% reliable interval for the difference in averages was CI [−20.384: −18.988],
indicating that the use of constructivist methods has had a positive impact on improving students’ mathematical
problem-solving performance (Table 5).

Vol.:(0123456789)
Research
Discover Education (2025) 4:83 | https://doi.org/10.1007/s44217-025-00475-w

Fig. 2  Distribution of variables in the pre-test and the post-test in experimental group

Table 5  Presentation of the experimental group scores before and after the intervention
n Mean Difference Standard deviation t P Confidence interval of the difference 95%

Pretest 70 39.77 −19.69 2.927 −56.273 < 0.001 (−20.384: −18.988)

Posttest 70 59.46
*
Kolmogorov-Simirnov (p = 0.146, p = 0.481)
**
Paired Samples T test
***
Levene’s Test (F = 0.079; p = 0.778)

Table 6  Presentation of the Experimental group Control group

overall pre-test and post-
test scores according to the Sufficient Good Very good Total Sufficient Good Very good Total
students’ overall success score
Pretest Pretest
N 23 24 23 70 N 25 23 25 73
32.9% 34,3% 32.9% 100% 34.2% 31.5% 34.2% 100%
Posttest Posttest
N 10 10 50 70 N 26 22 25 73
14.3% 14.3% 71.4% 100% 35.6% 30.1% 34.2% 100%

Table 6 presents the pre-test and post-test results analyzed according to the overall students’ success score
(sufficient, good, and very good). The experimental group, which used constructivist methods, showed improvement
as most students moved into the "very good" category, while the control group, which continued to use traditional
methods, showed no changes.

4 Discussion and conclusion

This study examined the impact of using constructivist methods on solving students’ mathematical problems. Further-
more, the study showed that using constructivist methods has an important impact on third-graders in solving math
problems. This is notably significant since mathematical problem-solving is a decisive factor in students’ success in the

Vol:.(1234567890)
Discover Education (2025) 4:83 | https://doi.org/10.1007/s44217-025-00475-w
Research

subject of mathematics. The results of this study emphasize that the use of constructivist methods in teaching positively
affects students’ performance in solving mathematical problems. Constructivism, by placing the student at the center of
the learning process, offers a more interactive and reflective method, which stimulates the building of knowledge through
experience. Otherwise, traditional methods, which often rely on the direct transmission of knowledge from teacher to
student, constructivist methods give students the opportunity to actively construct knowledge through discussion,
group work, and problem-solving in real-world contexts. Research indicates that students who have learned through
constructivist methods have better performance in solving mathematical problems, compared to those who have learned
through traditional methods. Moreover, previous studies support this conclusion that using a constructivist intervention
program helps in solving mathematical problems [10]. The statistical results obtained from the Paired Samples T-test,
with a substantial difference between the results of students before and after the intervention of constructivist methods,
prove the effectiveness of these methods. The noteworthy difference on average from 39.77 to 59.46 (p < 0.001) shows
a dominant improvement in the performance of students who used constructivist methods, compared to those who
followed traditional ones.
The inclusion of these methods in the teaching curricula can be an effective strategy to improve the performance of
solutions to mathematical problems and in other subjects as well. Additionally, this is also supported by [33], which verifies
how programs and methods based on the development of thinking and problem-solving performance, such as those
developed for third-graders, can improve the performance of students in mathematics and other fields. Nonetheless, our
study has some limitations including short implementation time, limited numbers of students, intervention duration and
the study used only quantitative methods for measuring results. The lack of qualitative analysis limits the opportunity to
explore the experiences and perceptions of students and teachers regarding the used methodologies.
Likewise, it is recommended to take into consideration other variables that may influence mathematical problem-
solving, such as student demographics, teacher experience or any external support system. In the future, including these
variables could provide a deeper understanding of the role of these factors in students’ mathematical problem-solving
abilities.
In conclusion, the results of this study show us that constructivist methods are powerful methods in improving
students’ mathematical problem-solving performance, and we recommend their deeper integration into the educational
curriculum and mathematics teaching practices in primary schools.

Author contributions B.C ideated and designed the study. She completed literature review, data collection, analysis and manuscript writing.

Funding The author declares that no funding was received for conducting this study. Additionally, the author has been granted a full waiver
for the Article Processing Charge (APC) as per the approval received on January 23, 2025. The waiver details can be found at the following link:
https://​artic​le-​disco​unts-​and-​waive​rs.​sprin​gerna​ture.​com/​reque​st-​summa​ry/​6bd32​e8f-​2398-​4e78-​8abe-​c8220​03b01​de.

Data availability All data is stored and available upon request.

Declarations
Ethics approval and consent to participate The approval was obtained by the Municipal Directorate of Education of Vushtrri, as part of a series
of research projects. Accordingly, the informed consent forms were provided to the school principals, who then distributed them to parents
and teachers for their approvals and signatures. All methods in this study were carried out in accordance with the relevant guidelines and
regulations, ensuring the protection of participants’ rights, anonymity, and confidentiality.

Competing interests The authors declare no competing interests.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which
permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to
the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You
do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party
material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If
material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds
the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://​creat​iveco​
mmons.​org/​licen​ses/​by-​nc-​nd/4.​0/.

Vol.:(0123456789)
Research
Discover Education (2025) 4:83 | https://doi.org/10.1007/s44217-025-00475-w

References
1. Boaler J. Designing mathematics classes to promote equity and engagement. J Math Behav. 2016;41:172–8.
2. Hiebert J. Making sense: teaching and learning mathematics with understanding. Portsmouth: Heinemann; 1997.
3. Mevarech Z, Kramarski B. Critical maths for innovative societies: the role of metaognitive pedagogies. Paris: OECD Publishing; 2014.
4. Piaget J. The Psychology of the Child. New York: Basic Books; 1972.
5. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston: NCTM; 2000.
6. Clements DH, Battista MT. Constructivist learning and teaching. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. 2009.
7. Simon MA. Reconstructing mathematics pedagogy from a constructivist perspective. J Res Math Educ. 1995;26(2):114–45.
8. Aydisheh FH, Gharibi H. Effectiveness of constructivist teaching method on students’ mathematic academic achievement. Mediterr J Soc
Sci. 2015;6(6):572–9.
9. Cobb P. The tension between theories of learning and instruction in mathematics education. Educ Psychol. 1988;23(2):87–103.
10. Bermejo V, Ester P, Morales I. A constructivist intervention program for the improvement of mathematical performance based on empiric
developmental results (PEIM). Front Psychol. 2021;11:582805.
11. Driscoll MP. Psychology of learning for instruction. 3rd ed. Boston: Pearson; 2005.
12. Ling ANB, Mahmud MS. Challenges of teachers when teaching sentence-based mathematics problem-solving skills. Front Psychol.
2023;13:1074202.
13. Szabo ZK, Körtesi P, Guncaga J, Szabo D, Neag R. Examples of problem-solving strategies in mathematics education supporting the
sustainability of 21st-century skills. Sustainability. 2020;12(23):10113.
14. Santrock JW. A topical approach to life-span development. New York: McGraw-Hill; 2007.
15. Vintere A. A constructivist approach to the teaching of mathematics to boost competences needed for sustainable development. Rural
Sustain Res. 2018;39(334):1–7.
16. Makgato M. Identifying constructivist methodologies and pedagogic content knowledge in the teaching and learning of technology.
Procedia Soc Behav Sci. 2012;47:1398–402.
17. Jumaat NF, Tasir Z, Halim NDA, Ashari ZM. Project-based learning from constructivism point of view. Adv Sci Lett. 2017;23(8):7904–6.
18. Perdana R, Atmojo IRW. A conceptual of teaching models inquiry-based social constructivism (IbSC). IOP Conf Ser Earth Environ Sci.
2019;243(1):012110.
19. Schmidt HG. Problem-based learning: rationale and description. Med Educ. 1983;17(1):11–6.
20. Schmidt HG, Rotgans JI, Yew EH. Cognitive constructivist foundations of problem-based learning. In: Moallem M, Hung W, Dabbagh N,
editors. The Wiley Handbook of problem-based learning. Hoboken: Wiley; 2019. p. 25–50.
21. Choe K, Park S, Yoo SY. Effects of constructivist teaching methods on bioethics education for nursing students: a quasi-experimental
study. Nurse Educ Today. 2014;34(5):848–53.
22. Butler MB, Lee S, Tippins DJ. Case-based methodology as an instructional strategy for understanding diversity: preservice teachers’
perceptions. Multicult Educ. 2006;13(3):20–6.
23. Jobrack B. The 5E instructional model: engage explore explain evaluate extend. From Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics.
2013. https://​www.​mnheo​nline.​com/​secon​darys​cience.​pdf.
24. Bybee RW. The BSCS 5E instructional model: personal reflections and contemporary implications. Sci Child. 2014;51(8):10–3.
25. Gallo-Toong N. The extent of use of concrete-representational-abstract (CRA) model in mathematics. Int J Res Math Stat. 2020;6(5):1–25.
26. Witzel BS, Riccomini PJ, Schneider E. Implementing CRA with secondary students with learning disabilities in mathematics. Interv Sch
Clin. 2008;43(5):270–6.
27. OECD. PISA 2025 Learning in the Digital World Framework (Second Draft). Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
2023.
28. Selley N. Art of constructivist teaching in the primary school: a guide for students and teachers. London: Routledge; 2013.
29. Bybee RW, Taylor JA, Gardner A, Van Scotter P, Powell JC, Westbrook A, Landes N. The BSCS 5E instructional model: origins and effectiveness.
Colorado Springs: BSCS. 2006; 5(88–98).
30. Special Connections. From concrete to representational to abstract. 2005. https://​speci​alcon​necti​ons.​ku.​edu/​instr​uction/​mathe​matics/​
teach​er_​tools/​concr​ete_​to_​repre​senta​tional_​to_​abstr​act_​instr​uction. Accessed 2 Mar 2024.
31. Orhani S. Preparation of tests from the subject of mathematics according to Bloom’s taxonomy. Int J Res Publ Rev. 2024;5(2):2335–23450.
32. MASHTI.Udhëzimi administrativ për vlerësimin e nxënësve në arsimin paraunivesitar të Republikës së Kosovës. 2022. https://​masht.​rks-​
gov.​net/​wp-​conte​nt/​uploa​ds/​2022/​09/​UA-​PER-​VLERE​SIMIN-E-​NXENE​SVE_​Fina. Accessed 22 Mar 2024.
33. Shayer M, Adey P. Learning intelligence: cognitive acceleration across the curriculum. London: Open University Press; 2002.

Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Vol:.(1234567890)