The Integration of the 4MAT Teaching Model with the Interdisciplinary Structure: A New Model Proposal and Test
More details
Hide details
Balıkesir University, Faculty of Necatibey Education, Balıkesir, TURKEY
Online publish date: 2018-02-08
Publish date: 2018-02-08
EURASIA J. Math., Sci Tech. Ed 2018;14(5):1767–1790
In this study, the “4MAT (4 Mode Application Techniques) Teaching Model” and “Interdisciplinary Concept Model”, the applications of which aimed to gather different disciplines around the selected concepts, were integrated within the scope of the disciplines of mathematics and social studies. For this study, these two models were combined to develop and test what was designated the I4MAT (Interdisciplinary 4MAT) model. The study was planned with a pretest-posttest, control group, experimental design. The study involved 65 students (primary school, 2016). This study found that the attainment level of students and their mean scores significantly favored the experimental group. It also found that education with the I4MAT model effectively and fully attained the learning aims and achievement and that the scores differed in the control group according to their learning styles.
1. Ahuja, O. P., & Jahangiri, J. M. (2003). An integrated approach to teaching and learning college mathematics. Journal of the Korea Society of Mathematical Education Series D: Research in Mathematical Education, 7(11-24), 11-24. Retrieved from
2. Altun, M. (2006). Matematik öğretiminde gelişmeler. Uludağ Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 19(2). Retrieved from
3. Altun, M. (2007). Ortaöğretimde Matematik Öğretimi. Alfa Akademi Publication: İstanbul.
4. Aşkar, P., & Akkoyunlu, B. (1993). Kolb öğrenme stili envanteri, Education and Science, 17(87), 37-47. Retrieved from
5. Ballone, L. M. (2001). Teachers’ beliefs about accommodating students’ learning styles in science classes. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 6(2), 1-44. Retrieved on 5th Feb 2016 from
6. Beane, J. A. (2016). Curriculum integration: Designing the core of democratic education. Newyork, USA: Teachers College Press.
7. Becher, A. (1989). Academic Tribes and Territories: intellectual enquiry and the cultures of disciplines. Newyork, USA: The Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press.
8. Bıkmaz, F. (2001). Öğrenme biçimlerini (style) okula getirmede 4MAT sistemini kullanma. Journal of Faculty of Educational Sciences (JFES), 34(1-2), 105-115. Retrieved from
9. Blair, D., & Judah, S. S. (1990). Need a Strong Foundation for an Interdisciplinary Program? Try 4MAT! Educational Leadership, 48 (2), 37-38. Retrieved from
10. Bloom, B. S. (1998). İnsan nitelikleri ve okulda öğrenme (D. A. Özçelik, Trans.). Ankara, Turkey: Milli Eğitim Press.
11. Boix Mansilla, V. (2005). Assessing student work at disciplinary crossroads. Change Magazine, 37(1), 14-21. Retrieved from
12. Bonk, C. J., & Zhang, K. (2006). Introducing the R2D2 model: Online learning for the diverse learners of this world. Distance Education, 27(2), 249-264.
13. Brears, L., MacIntyre, B., & O’Sullivan, G. (2011). Preparing teachers for the 21st century using PBL as an integrating strategy in science and technology education. Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 16(1), 36-46. Retrieved from
14. Bromme, R. (2000). Beyond one’s own perspective: The psychology of cognitive interdisciplinarity. In P. Weingart & N. Stehr (Eds.), Practising interdisciplinarity (pp. 115-133). Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press.
15. Capraro, M. M., & Jones, M. (2013). Interdisciplinary STEM project-based learning (Eds: Capraro, Capraro& Morgan). In STEM Project-Based Learning (pp. 51-58). USA: Sense Publishers.
16. Chrysostomou, S. (2004). Interdisciplinary approaches in the new curriculum in Greece: a focus on music education, Arts Education Policy Review, 105(5), 23-29.
17. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
18. Crow, G. M., & Pounder, D. G. (2000). Interdisciplinary teacher teams: Context, design, and process. Educational Administration Quarterly, 36(2), 216-254. Retrieved from
19. Czerniak, C. M., & Johnson, C. C. (2014). Interdisciplinary science teaching education, Lederman & Abell (Eds.), 537-559. Handbook of Research on Science. Newyork, USA: Routledge.
20. Davis, S. A., & Knobloch, N. A. (2002). Transforming the curriculum for the 21st century. The Agricultural Education Magazine, 75(3), 14.
21. Feng, L. (2012). Teacher and student responses to interdisciplinary aspects of sustainability education: what do we really know? Environmental Education Research, 18(1), 31-43.
22. Gülpinar, M. A. (2005). The principles of brain-based learning and constructivist models in education. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 5(2), 299-306. Retrieved from
23. Hotmanoğlu, Ç. (2014). Sekizinci sınıf öğrencilerinin grafik çizme yorumlama ve grafikleri diğer gösterimlerle ilişkilendirme becerilerinin incelenmesi (Unpublished Master Thesis). Karadeniz Teknik Üniversitesi, Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Trabzon. Retrieved from
24. Jacobs, H. H. (Ed.) (1989). Interdisciplinary curriculum: design and implementation. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
25. Jacobs, H. H., & Borland, J. H. (1986). The interdisciplinary concept model: theory and practice. Gifted Child Quarterly, 30(4), 159-163. Retrieved from
26. Kegan, R. (1982). The evolving self: problems and process in human development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
27. Kılıçoğlu, G., & Akhan, N. E. (2014). Sosyal Bilgiler Öğretmen Adaylarının Ekonomi Kavramlarını Anlama Düzeyleri. Elektronik Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 13(51), 209-225.
28. Klein, J. T. (1990). The Interdisciplinary Process (Eds: Birnbaum, Rossini & Baldwin). Interdisciplinary Research. International research management: studies in interdisciplinary methods from business, government, and academia, 20-33. Newyork, USA: Oxford University Press.
29. Klein, J. T. (2002). Interdisciplinary education in K-12 and college: A foundation for K-16 dialogue. Newyork, USA: College Board Publications.
30. Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: experience as the source of learning and development. NJ: Prentice Hall.
31. Lafer, S. (1996). The interdisciplinary teacher’s handbook: Integrated teaching across the curriculum. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook.
32. Lattuca, L. R. (2001). Creativity interdisciplinary: interdisciplinary research and teaching among college and university faculty. Nashville, USA: Vanderbilt University Press.
33. Lattuca, L. R. (2006). The constructivist pedagogy we’re looking for. Journal & Mass Communication Educator, 60(4), 354-458.
34. Lawshe, C. H. (1975). A quantitative approach to content validity. Personnel Psychology, 28, 563–575. Retrieved from
35. Lee, G. H., & Lee, S. J. (2013). A study on the relationship between learning styles of students and academic achievement in mathematics-Focusing on freshmen enrolled in a college of science and engineering of the medium-sized university. Communications of Mathematical Education, 27(4), 473-486.
36. Leinhardt, G., Zaslavsky, O., & Stein, M. K. (1990). Functions, graphs, and graphing: Tasks, learning, and teaching. Review of educational research, 60(1), 1-64. Retrieved from
37. Max-Neef, M. (2005). Foundations of transdisciplinarity. Ecological Economics, 52(1), 5–16.
38. McCarthy, B. (1987). What 4MAT training teaches us about staff development? Educational Leadership, 42(7), 6I-68. Retrieved from
39. McCarthy, B. (2000a). About Learning, Chicago, USA: About Teaching, Inc.
40. McCarthy, B. (2000b). About teaching: 4MAT in the classroom. Wauconda, IL: About Teaching, Inc.
41. McCharthy, B., & McCharthy, D. (2003). About teaching, companion the 4MAT implementation workbook. Chicago, USA: About Teaching, Inc.
42. McGehee, J. J. (2001). Developing interdisciplinary units: A strategy based on problem solving. School Science and Mathematics, 101(7), 380-389. Retrieved from
43. McManus, D. A. (2001). The Two Paradigms of Education and the Peer Review of Teaching. Journal of Geoscience Education, 49, 423-434. Retrieved from
44. Merrill, M. D. (2001). Components of instruction toward a theoretical tool for instructional design. Instructional Science, 29(4), 291-310. Retrieved from
45. Ministry of National Education. (2015a). T.C. Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı Talim Terbiye Kurulu Başkanlığı İlkokul Matematik Dersi (1, 2, 3 ve 4. Sınıflar) Öğretim Programı. Ankara.
46. Ministry of National Education. (2015b). İlköğretim Sosyal Bilgiler Dersi 4. Sınıf Öğretim Program ıve Kılavuzu. Ankara.
47. National Council for the Social Studies. (2010). National Curriculum Standards for Social Studies: A Framework for Teaching, Learning, and Assessment. Reston VA: National Council for the Social Studies.
48. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (2000). Principles and standards for school Mathematics, Reston VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
49. Nicoll-Senft, J. M., & Seider, S. N. (2009). Assessing the impact of the 4MAT teaching model across multiple disciplines in higher education. College Teaching, 58(1), 19-27. Retrieved from
50. Nowacki, A. S. (2011). Using the 4MAT framework to design a problem-based learning biostatistics course. Journal of Statistics Education, 19(3), 1-24. Retrieved from
51. Özgen, K. (2013). An analysis of high school students’ mathematical literacy self-efficacy beliefs in relation to their learning styles. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 22(1), 91-100. Retrieved from
52. Özgen, K., & Alkan, H. (2012). The relationship between secondary school pre-service mathematics teachers’ skills in problem solving dimensions and their learning style characteristics. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 12(2), 1173-1181. Retrieved from
53. Parker, J. (2002). A New Disciplinarity: communities of knowledge, learning and practice. Teaching in Higher Education, 7(4), 373-386. Retrieved from
54. Peker, M. (2003). Investigate the effects of 4MAT instructional system on students’ achievement and their attitudes (Doctoral dissertation). Ankara: Faculty of Ankara: Faculty of Education University of Gazi. Retrieved from
55. Pruekpramool, C. (2011). The development of the science of sound in traditional Thai musical instruments interdisciplinary course for non-science upper secondary school students by using integrated teaching approach (Doctoral dissertation). Srinakharinwirot University. Retrieved from
56. Repko, A. (2007). Integrating interdisciplinarity: How the theories of common ground and cognitive interdisciplinarity are informing the debate on interdisciplinary integration. Issues in Interdisciplinary Studies. 25, 1-31. Retrieved from
57. Rosenfield, P. L. (1992). The potential of transdisciplinary research for sustaining and extending linkages between the health and social sciences. Soc Sci Med, 35, 1343-1357.
58. Schoch, E., & Seitz, H. (1997). Interdisziplinärer unterricht-anspruch und wirklichkeit. 25 Jahre IWP. Schule in Wissenschaft, Politik und Praxis, Dubs, R. und Luzi R. (Hrsg.), 633-645, Germany, St. Gallen: İnstitut für Wirthschaftspadagogik.
59. Tchudi, S., & Lafer, S. (1996). The interdisciplinary teacher’s handbook: Integrated teaching across the curriculum. Portsmouth, NH: Boyntod Cook.
60. Thomas, A. M. (2015). Effectiveness of 4MAT system of instructional design on learning styles, hemispheric preferences and achievement in physics of students at secondary level. Doctoral dissertation. Kerala: School of Pedagogical Sciences Mahatma Gandhi University Kottayam. Retrieved from
61. Veneziano, L., & Hooper, J. (1997). A method for quantifying content validity of health related questionnaires. American Journal of Health Behavior, 21(1), 67-70.
62. Yıldırım, A. (1996). Disiplinlerarası öğretim kavramı ve programlar açısından doğurduğu sonuçlar. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 12, 89–94. Retrieved from
63. Yurdugül, H. (2005). Davranış bilimlerinde ölçek geliştirme çalışmaları için bazı ayrıntılar. Retrieved from Genislikleri.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAIWOWYYGZ2Y53UL3A&Expires=1486641699&Signature= ORyZWokPThORgJUOP2QpAXvAt08%3D&response-content-disposition=inline%3B%20filename%3DFA_Orneklem_Genislikleri.pdf.
64. Yurt, E., Aydin, M., & Sahin, I. (2015). Assessing uses of motivated strategies by middle school students based on their learning styles. Hrvatskičasopiszaodgojiobrazovanje, 17, 117-149.