https://masterjournals.com/index.php/crjp <div class="card_metrics"><span class="metrics_left">E-ISSN</span> <span class="metrics_right">2767-3278</span></div> <div class="card_metrics"><span class="metrics_left">DOI Prefix</span> <span class="metrics_right">10.37547/crjp</span></div> <div class="card_metrics"><span class="metrics_left">Started</span> <span class="metrics_right">2021</span></div> <div class="card_metrics"><span class="metrics_left">Frequency</span> <span class="metrics_right">Monthly</span></div> <div class="card_metrics"><span class="metrics_left">Language</span> <span class="metrics_right">English</span></div> <div class="card_metrics"><span class="metrics_left">APC</span> <span class="metrics_right">$250</span></div> Master Journals en-US Current Research Journal of Pedagogics 2767-3278 <p><em>Authors retain the copyright of their manuscripts, and all Open Access articles are disseminated under the terms of the <a href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"><strong>Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 (CC-BY)</strong></a>, which licenses unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided that the original work is appropriately cited. The use of general descriptive names, trade names, trademarks, and so forth in this publication, even if not specifically identified, does not imply that these names are not protected by the relevant laws and regulations.</em></p> https://masterjournals.com/index.php/crjp/article/view/2169 <p>Background: Effective geometry instruction is fundamental to mathematical proficiency, yet students often struggle with its abstract concepts. While various student-centered pedagogical approaches have been proposed, there is a need for direct empirical comparison of their effectiveness. This study investigates the relative impact of three prominent instructional strategies: the heuristic method, discovery-based learning, and manipulative-aided instruction.</p> <p>Purpose: The primary purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy of these three teaching methods against a traditional, lecture-based approach on sixth-grade students' achievement in geometry.</p> <p>Methods: A quasi-experimental, pre-test/post-test control group design was employed with 124 sixth-grade students from four intact classes in a public middle school. Each class was randomly assigned to one of four conditions for an eight-week instructional period: (1) Heuristic Method, focusing on structured problem-solving; (2) Discovery Learning, emphasizing student-led exploration; (3) Manipulative-Aided Instruction, utilizing concrete physical objects; and (4) a Control Group receiving traditional instruction. A validated Geometry Achievement Test was administered before and after the intervention. Data were analyzed using Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA), with pre-test scores serving as the covariate.</p> <p>Results: The ANCOVA revealed a statistically significant difference in post-test achievement scores among the four groups, F(3, 119) = 15.42, p &lt; .001, partial η² = .28. Post-hoc comparisons using Tukey's HSD indicated that both the Manipulative-Aided (Adjusted M = 85.05) and Heuristic (Adjusted M = 81.85) groups were associated with significantly higher achievement than the Discovery Learning (Adjusted M = 74.58) and Traditional Control (Adjusted M = 73.90) groups. The manipulative group was associated with the highest mean score.</p> <p>Conclusion: The findings suggest that instructional methods incorporating concrete experiences and structured problem-solving are associated with significantly more effective learning outcomes in geometry than either unguided discovery or traditional methods. The study provides strong evidence for integrating manipulatives and heuristic strategies into middle school mathematics curricula to enhance students' geometric understanding.</p> Dr. Elena Vance Prof. Samuel J. Carter Copyright (c) 2025 Dr. Elena Vance, Prof. Samuel J. Carter https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 2025-09-01 2025-09-01 6 09 1 11 https://masterjournals.com/index.php/crjp/article/view/2180 <p>The article discusses the issue of preparing future vocational education teachers for methodological activities in higher educational institutions. It presents materials on the types and tasks of methodological activities, as well as the stages of preparation for methodological work.</p> Maksudov Pulat Maksudovich Copyright (c) 2025 Maksudov Pulat Maksudovich https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 2025-09-17 2025-09-17 6 09 12 17 10.37547/pedagogics-crjp-06-09-02