1. Master Teacher I, Gumaca National High School, Gumaca West District, Philippines.

*             Correspondence: richard.cabangon001@deped.gov.ph

Keywords: instructional materials, learning styles, mathematical concepts, shapes

1. INTRODUCTION

Understanding students’ learning styles and difficulties shapes instructional strategies and materials in the classroom. In Grade 7 Mathematics learning and enhancement, developing lesson exemplars, worksheets, and activity sheets that align with students’ diverse learning preferences can enhance engagement and improve learning outcomes. Research shows that instructional materials tailored to specific learning styles, including visual, auditory, or kinesthetic, can lead to more profound understanding and help address common difficulties students face in subjects like mathematics [1]. In the Philippines, the Department of Education (DepEd, 2023) continuously emphasizes the need for contextualized teaching strategies and materials under the MATATAG Curriculum, which focuses on students’ holistic development and readiness for higher learning. They create tools to respond to students’ learning gaps while ensuring content remains relevant and aligned with national learning competencies [2]. However, a gap still needs to be in understanding the specific learning challenges students face in mathematics, particularly at the Grade 7 level. Studies highlight that many students need help understanding abstract concepts, problem-solving, and basic computation, which hinder their academic performance [3]. These challenges are compounded by the variability in students’ learning styles, with some learners benefiting more from visual aids while others thrive through hands-on activities or auditory instruction [4]. The study determined the needs assessment to identify the learning styles and difficulties of Grade 7 students in mathematics at Gumaca National High School. The findings will support policy improvement and contribute to action plans that foster better learning environments aligned with DepEd’s MATATAG Agenda. Learning Styles in Mathematics Research has consistently shown that individual learning styles significantly influence students’ engagement and performance in mathematics. For example, the Grasha-Riechmann Learning Styles Model highlights that students adopt different approaches to learning, from independent and collaborative styles to more passive or active ones. Teaching methods that incorporate learning styles can improve students’ academic outcomes. For instance, an author [5] found that cooperative and participative learning styles enhance student engagement and mental activities, suggesting that instructional materials should cater to various learning preferences to be more effective​. This instructional approach is highly effective for students with visual and auditory learning styles. Auditory learners absorb information best through hearing, benefiting from discussions and explanations of mathematical concepts. On the other hand, visual learners excel when engaging with content presented through visual aids such as symbols, graphs, or mathematical solutions displayed by the teacher on the board [6]. An author [7] highlights that Generation Z learners prefer collaborative learning environments, as they seek active engagement rather than passivity in their educational experiences. Visual and tactile learning styles are particularly dominant in this generation, surpassing auditory preferences. Similarly, [8] emphasizes that Generation Z’s learning style preferences differ significantly from those of earlier generations. This cohort thrives in do-it-yourself learning (DIYL) settings, often favoring peer-to-peer interactions where leadership roles and the exchange of innovative ideas foster deeper understanding and new perspectives. The findings of [9] emphasize the procedural challenges students face in mathematical problem-solving, including difficulty understanding rules, methods, and the sequential steps required for solving problems. The study reveals that nearly 80% of respondents struggled with grasping rules and methods, while 78% found it challenging to select appropriate techniques for solving problems. Additionally, 72% admitted difficulty in following procedural steps, and a significant majority expressed confusion due to numerous mathematical formulas. These challenges highlight the critical need to strengthen students’ procedural knowledge and algorithmic understanding in mathematics. This insight aligns with broader literature, which identifies procedural fluency as a foundational skill for mathematical competence [10]. Studies indicate that students’ inability to effectively follow algorithms often stems from a lack of conceptual understanding, which underpins procedural fluency [11]. Furthermore, when instructional approaches fail to cater to diverse cognitive needs, learners struggle with bridging the gap between conceptual and procedural knowledge, exacerbating their challenges in mathematics. Challenges and Difficulties in Mathematics Learning Students often face challenges in learning mathematics, such as math anxiety, lack of understanding of fundamental concepts, and difficulty applying abstract theories to practical problems. An author [12] identifies a mix of cognitive, affective, and psychomotor difficulties that hinder students’ performance. These challenges necessitate instructional materials that can scaffold learning in a way that gradually builds understanding, starting from concrete examples before introducing more abstract mathematical concepts​. However, [13] summed mathematics learning difficulties into four categories: mathematical objects and thinking processes, mathematics teaching processes, students’ cognitive processes, and lack of a rational attitude towards mathematics. Variations in students’ learning styles necessitate that teachers identify and adapt their mathematics teaching methods accordingly. A significant barrier to students effectively mastering learning content is the mismatch between teachers’ instructional styles and their students’ diverse learning preferences [14]. Furthermore, [15] found that primary students often struggle with foundational arithmetic skills, which suggests the importance of reinforcing basic numeracy in early instruction​. Current studies highlight the need for integrative instructional approaches that align with students’ diverse learning styles. The ADDIE model (Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation, and Evaluation) is one widely used framework for developing effective instructional materials. An author [16] argue that this model facilitates the creation of teaching tools that are practical and tailored to student’s needs, focusing on step-by-step mastery of mathematical skills​. Despite the breadth of research on learning styles and difficulties, limited literature directly connects these findings to the development of specific instructional materials, particularly for the Metatag K to 10 Curriculum. This study aimed to fill that gap by conducting a needs assessment of Grade 7 students’ learning preferences and mathematical challenges, thus providing empirical data that can inform the creation of targeted instructional materials. In addition, this study addressed the essential issues by aligning the development of instructional materials with students’ actual learning needs. The study results will inform school policies and strategies, help schools design more effective mathematics programs, and ultimately enhance students’ success.

2. MATERIALS AND METHODS

The target participants of this study are Grade 7 students from Gumaca National High School, specifically a population of 780 students across 20 sections, handled by 5 mathematics teachers. The sample size will be determined using Cochran’s formula for sample size estimation, which is appropriate for large populations and provides a representative sample size with a specified confidence level and margin of error. Based on the calculations, the sample size will be approximately 260 students, but to ensure a more manageable and practical sample for the study. The participants will be Grade 7 students from different sections, ensuring diversity in learning backgrounds, abilities, and experiences with mathematics. They will be from varied socioeconomic backgrounds and have differing levels of proficiency in mathematics, as reported by their teachers. Stratified random sampling will be employed to ensure that each of the 20 sections is proportionally represented in the study. This method will divide the population into subgroups (strata) based on their section, and a random sample will be taken from each stratum. This approach ensures that all sections are fairly represented, and any variability in teaching methods or section-level performance is accounted for.

Table 01: Sections and their population and sample

Sections	Population	Sample
1. Masinop	40	13
2. Malikhain	35	12
3. Matiyaga	35	12
4. Matulungin	39	13
5. Magiting	39	13
6. SPA	43	15
7. Maparaan	38	13
8. Masigasig	37	12
9. Masikap	36	12
10. Masunurin	39	13
11. Mapagmahal	40	13
12. SPJ	39	13
13. Marangal	38	13
14. Mapagbigay	40	13
15. Matapat	39	13
16. Maaasahan	39	13
17. SPS	45	15
18. Makabansa	40	13
19. Matatag	39	13
20. SSP	40	13
Total	780	260

The inclusion of Grade 7 students in this study is essential as they represent the primary beneficiaries of instructional materials designed for early secondary mathematics education. Their direct experience with mathematics instruction and learning difficulties is vital for developing materials that address their needs. The selection criteria include enrollment in Grade 7 at Gumaca National High School during the 2024–2025 academic year, ensuring the participants have had sufficient exposure to the mathematics curriculum being studied. Data collection involved the administration of a researcher-designed survey questionnaire to 260 Grade 7 students from Gumaca National High School, divided across 20 sections. The survey will be conducted during school hours, ensuring a high response rate and consistency in data gathering. Each respondent will complete the questionnaire within a designated time frame in their respective classrooms, ensuring minimal disruption to their schedules. The survey will be administered on-site over one week, with the assistance of the mathematics teachers for proper coordination. The chosen method, a survey questionnaire, is well-suited to the nature and purpose of this research. It allows for efficient data collection from a large sample, making it ideal for identifying trends in learning styles and difficulties in mathematics across a diverse group of students. Given the quantitative nature of the study, this method is appropriate for collecting data that can be easily analyzed to inform the development of instructional materials. By using standardized questions, the survey will ensure consistency in responses, which is essential for comparing data across different sections and drawing generalizable conclusions. The data types to be gathered include students’ preferred learning styles, the mathematical topics they find most difficult, and their perceptions of the effectiveness of current and customized instructional materials. These data will be collected through Likert-scale items, ensuring that all relevant variables are measured effectively. This aligns directly with the study’s research questions, which aim to identify learning preferences, difficulties, and the potential benefits of tailored instructional materials. The research instrument, a survey questionnaire, is divided into sections corresponding to the study’s variables: learning styles, mathematical difficulties, and perceptions of instructional materials. The instrument has been carefully designed to capture the necessary data to answer the research questions. Before its actual administration, the questionnaire will be validated by subject matter experts, particularly mathematics teachers, to ensure content validity. Furthermore, a pilot test will be conducted with a small group of students (20-30) who are not part of the final sample. This pilot test will help refine the questionnaire, ensuring clarity and reliability before the full-scale data collection begins.

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The study applied quantitative analysis to examine the data gathered through the survey questionnaire. Each research question and corresponding variables were addressed using appropriate statistical methods, ensuring that the analysis aligns with the nature of the data collected: To determine the most common learning styles among Grade 7 students in Mathematics: A Likert scale was used to gauge the learning styles 5-Strongly Agree, 4-agree, 3-Neutral,    2-Disagree,1-Strongly Disagree and a weighted mean was used to summarize and identify the dominant learning styles among students. To identify the specific mathematical concepts or topics Grade 7 students find most difficult. It consists of specific mathematical concepts or topics. A Likert scale used to gauge the difficulty level, 5 very Difficult, 4 difficult, 3-neutral, 2 easy, 1-very Easy, and mean scores calculated for the most difficult topics. To analyze how students’ learning styles influence the type of difficulties they experience in Mathematics: A Likert scale will be used to gauge the learning styles 5-Always, 4-Often, 3-Sometimes, 2-Rarely,1-Never and used weighted mean to summarize and identify the influence of learning styles on difficulties. To assess the extent to which current instructional materials meet the learning needs of Grade 7 students based on their learning styles. A Likert scale will be used to gauge the effectiveness of the current instructional materials in mathematics with 5-Strongly Agree, 4-agree, 3-Neutral,               2-Disagree,1-Strongly Disagree and used weighted mean. To evaluate the customized instructional materials based on their learning styles that would improve their understanding of Mathematics: A Likert scale will be used to customize instructional materials and the student perception of improvement. Responses will be summarized using frequency counts and weighted mean, highlighting the proportion of students who feel customized materials would enhance their learning. This study aimed to determine the Needs Assessment of Grade 7 Students’ Learning Styles and Difficulties as a Basis for the Development of Instructional Materials in Mathematics at Gumaca National High School using strategic intervention material.

Table 02: The Most Common Learning Styles Among Grade 7 Students in Mathematics

Learning Styles	WM	Interpretation
1. I learn best by seeing visual representations, such as graphs, charts, or diagrams.	4.10	Agree
2. I prefer to learn by listening to explanations or audio materials.	3.90	Agree
3. I find that hands-on activities or physical models help me understand mathematical concepts better.	4.08	Agree
4. Reading or writing down information helps me retain mathematical concepts.	4.03	Agree
5. I find group discussions or peer interactions helpful in understanding new mathematical ideas.	3.67	Agree
Composite Mean	3.96	Agree

As shown in Table, which examines the most common learning styles among Grade 7 students in Mathematics, it reveals that a diverse range of learning preferences exists within the group. The composite mean of 3.96 or Agree suggests that students respond well to various instructional methods, underscoring the need for a multimodal teaching approach. Visual learning received the highest rating, with a weighted mean (WM) of 4.10, indicating that students highly benefit from visual aids like graphs and charts, which are known to enhance comprehension and retention in Mathematics. The auditory learning style, with a WM of 3.90, reflects a significant preference for verbal explanations or audio materials, aligning with findings that auditory cues can improve memory retention, particularly for complex, multi-step problems, making word problems more complex, and including a more varied set of individual differences, tapping into reading comprehension and domain-general cognitive resources [17]. Kinesthetic learning, with a statement of “I find that hands-on activities or physical models help me understand mathematical concepts better,” with a WM of 4.08, further emphasizes the importance of hands-on activities, suggesting that students understand mathematical concepts better when they engage physically with learning materials. This observation is supported by [18], who note that kinesthetic learning strengthens students’ ability to relate abstract ideas to concrete experiences. Additionally, reading and writing activities, with a WM of 4.03, are beneficial for retention, and note-taking fosters deeper cognitive engagement with mathematical content. Finally, peer discussions, while slightly lower at 3.67, remain beneficial, promoting collaborative learning which can enhance understanding, as [19] found in his research on cooperative learning. These insights collectively highlight the necessity of integrating multiple learning styles into instructional materials to support students’ varied preferences and improve learning outcomes in Mathematics.

Table 03: Difficulty In Mathematics Concepts or Topics

Mathematical Concepts or Topics	WM	Interpretation
1. Number Sense and Algebra	3.13	Neutral
2. Measurement and Geometry	3.02	Neutral
3. Fractions and Decimals	2.66	Neutral
4. Data and Probability	3.18	Neutral
5. Word Problems	2.96	Neutral
Composite Mean	2.99	Neutral

As illustrated in Table 03, Grade 7 students’ perceived difficulty levels in various mathematical topics. With a composite mean of 2.99, interpreted as “Neutral,” the results indicate that students generally find these mathematical concepts neither overwhelmingly difficult nor exceptionally easy. Among the specific topics, Data and Probability received the highest weighted mean (WM) of 3.18, suggesting slight difficulty, potentially due to the abstract nature of probabilistic reasoning, which often requires understanding both theory and real-world applications [20]. In contrast, fractions and decimals scored the lowest WM at 2.66, and “Neutral,” which may reflect students’ mixed familiarity with these foundational skills, as prior studies show that difficulty in this area varies widely among learners. Similarly, Number Sense and Algebra, Measurement, Geometry, and Word Problems also yielded “Neutral” ratings. Algebra often poses a unique challenge for younger students because it introduces symbolic thinking, which can be difficult to grasp without a solid conceptual foundation. Measurement and Geometry scored a WM of 3.02, suggesting that spatial and measurement skills present moderate challenges, possibly because of the visual and spatial reasoning required [12]. Word problems, meanwhile, scored 2.96, showing that students may not perceive them as excessively challenging. However, research indicates that word problems often test multiple skills simultaneously, such as reading comprehension and arithmetic [8]. These findings align with research that suggests certain mathematical areas, such as Algebra and Geometry, require diverse cognitive skills, which may influence how difficult students perceive them [11]. Overall, the results indicate a balanced perception of difficulty across topics, underscoring the importance of differentiated instruction to address specific needs in topics that vary in perceived difficulty.

Table 04: Influence of Learning Styles on Difficulties

Influence of Learning Styles on Difficulties	WM	Interpretation
1. I struggle with understanding mathematical concepts (e.g., formulas, theories).	3.29	Sometimes
2. I find it difficult to solve word problems or apply mathematical concepts in real-life situations. Geometry (shapes, angles, theorems)	3.07	Sometimes
3. I make calculation errors even when I understand the concept.	3.36	Sometimes
4. I have difficulty visualizing geometric shapes or solving problems involving angles.	3.12	Sometimes
5. I find it challenging to organize the steps needed to solve complex problems.	3.20	Sometimes
Composite Mean	3.21	Sometimes

As presented in Table 4, the influence of learning styles on specific difficulties in mathematics experienced by Grade 7 students. The composite mean of 3.21, interpreted as “Sometimes,” indicates that while students occasionally struggle with particular areas, these challenges are not constant. The highest weighted mean (WM) is 3.36 for “I make calculation errors even when I understand the concept,” suggesting that calculation errors persist despite conceptual understanding. This aligns with studies suggesting that even students with solid conceptual foundations may struggle with arithmetic fluency due to cognitive load or anxiety. Furthermore, challenges in maintaining accuracy despite comprehension are often linked to difficulties in working memory, which can hinder sequential calculations [13]. Students also noted moderate difficulties in understanding and applying mathematical concepts in real-world situations (WM = 3.29 and 3.07, respectively). These findings reflect previous research, highlighting that many students grapple with the abstract nature of mathematics, making it harder to relate classroom learning to practical applications [4]. Difficulty with visualizing geometric shapes or organizing steps for complex problem-solving, as indicated by the means of 3.12 and 3.20, can also be attributed to differences in spatial reasoning skills, which are essential for geometry and multi-step problem-solving [6]. Research supports the idea that individual learning styles can influence how students interact with mathematical content, especially when instructional methods are not aligned with their preferred learning modalities. For instance, visual learners might perform better in geometry, while kinesthetic learners may need more hands-on activities to engage fully [9]. Thus, adapting instruction to align with students’ learning preferences can alleviate some of these difficulties, improving both engagement and comprehension [10].

Table 05: Current Instructional Materials Meet the Learning Needs

Instructional Materials	WM	Interpretation
1. The textbook helps me understand mathematical concepts.	3.82	Agree
2. The worksheets provided in class meet my learning needs.	3.94	Agree
3. I find the learning activity sheets helpful in applying what I’ve learned.	3.95	Agree
4. The visual aids (e.g., charts, and diagrams) in class are effective for my learning style.	3.59	Agree
5. The examples in the instructional materials are easy to follow and understand.	3.82	Agree
Composite Mean	3.82	Agree

As stated in Table 05, the extent to which current instructional materials meet the learning needs of Grade 7 students in Mathematics, showing a composite mean of 3.82, interpreted as “Agree.” The high ratings indicate that students generally find existing resources textbooks, worksheets, activity sheets, and visual aids effective for supporting their understanding of mathematical concepts. The highest weighted mean statement, “learning activity sheets” with 3.95, suggests that students appreciate resources that allow for application-based learning, aligning with findings by [16], who notes that hands-on activities and interactive materials enhance engagement and comprehension in mathematics. Students consider textbooks and worksheets helpful, with means of 3.82 and 3.94, respectively, indicating their importance as primary resources. Research suggests that structured worksheets help students focus on key concepts and improve problem-solving skills. Visual aids, with a weighted mean of 3.59, although positively rated, indicate a need for more visual support for some students, especially those with a visual learning preference. Studies show that visual aids, like diagrams and charts, are critical for visual learners and can significantly enhance understanding by making abstract concepts more accessible. These findings underscore the efficacy of well-rounded instructional materials, such as those that combine textual explanations, visual representations, and application-oriented exercises, in meeting diverse student needs (National Research Council, 2018). However, it also suggests potential areas for improvement, such as incorporating more differentiated instructional materials to cater to individual learning styles, which could further optimize comprehension and retention for all students.

Table 06: Customized Instructional Materials Based on Their Learning Styles

Customized Instructional Materials	WM	Interpretation
1. I believe that if the instructional materials were adapted to my learning style, my understanding of Mathematics would improve.	3.97	Agree
2. Customized lesson exemplars or activity sheets based on my learning style would make Mathematics more enjoyable for me.	3.87	Agree
3. I think that instructional materials designed for my learning style could help me overcome the difficulties I face in Mathematics.	3.85	Agree
4. Customized visual aids would improve my understanding of difficult topics.	3.71	Agree
5. I believe I would perform better in assessments if the instructional materials were tailored to my learning style.	3.89	Agree
Composite Mean	3.86	Agree

As gleaned in Table 06, students’ perceptions of customized instructional materials based on their learning styles, with a composite mean of 3.86, are interpreted as “Agree.” The results suggest that students believe personalized materials would enhance their understanding of Mathematics, making learning more enjoyable and potentially improving their performance. The highest-rated item, “I believe that if the instructional materials were adapted to my learning style, my understanding of Mathematics would improve,” with a weighted mean of 3.97, indicates a strong preference for materials that align with individual learning preferences, a finding supported by studies showing that differentiated instruction can increase student engagement and achievement [13]. The benefits of customized materials, such as visual aids with a weighted mean of 3.71, highlight the importance of tailoring resources to fit various learning styles, as many students understand complex concepts more effectively through visual elements. Additionally, the positive response to “Customized lesson exemplars or activity sheets based on my learning style would make Mathematics more enjoyable” (WM = 3.87) aligns with research by [17], which emphasizes that personalized, engaging resources can reduce anxiety in subjects that students typically find challenging, like Mathematics. The belief that tailored materials could aid in overcoming learning difficulties (WM = 3.85) further reinforces the impact of individualized instructional approaches. This approach aligns with constructivist theories, suggesting that learning is more meaningful when students can connect new information to existing knowledge [15]. Consequently, these findings advocate for developing adaptable, student-centered resources that address specific learning preferences, ultimately fostering a more inclusive and supportive learning environment in Mathematics. The findings indicating students’ preferences for instructional materials customized to their learning styles have significant theoretical and practical implications. Theoretically, they align with constructivist learning theories, which argue that students learn best when they can connect new information to their existing knowledge base and experiences [13]. Personalized instructional materials cater to this by allowing students to engage with mathematical content in ways that match their cognitive and sensory preferences, fostering a more profound understanding and retention of information [17]. From a practical standpoint, these findings support differentiated instruction and suggest that educators could improve learning outcomes by adapting resources to meet students’ specific learning needs.

4. CONCLUSION

This study investigated the learning styles and difficulties of Grade 7 students in Mathematics at Gumaca National High School, aiming to guide the development of tailored instructional materials to enhance mathematical understanding. With a focus on identifying the prevalent learning styles, areas of difficulty in mathematical concepts, and the influence of learning styles on students’ challenges, the study explores how current instructional materials align with students’ needs. A quantitative approach was employed, using a survey questionnaire distributed to a sample of 260 students, and analyzed using weighted mean computations to interpret responses. Findings indicate a preference for visual and hands-on learning styles and highlight key difficulties in areas such as data and probability, and number sense and algebra. Results further show that students perceive customized instructional materials as beneficial in improving understanding and reducing difficulties, emphasizing the importance of differentiated instructional approaches in mathematics. These insights underscore the need for curriculum developers and educators to consider learning diversity in instructional material design, potentially enhancing student performance and engagement. This study’s implications support evidence-based advocacy for adaptable educational resources that address varied learning needs, thus fostering a more inclusive and effective mathematics education framework, students’ preferences for instructional materials customized to their learning styles have significant theoretical and practical implications. The belief that tailored materials could aid in overcoming learning difficulties (WM = 3.85) further reinforces the impact of individualized instructional approaches. This approach aligns with constructivist theories, suggesting that learning is more meaningful when students can connect new information to existing knowledge. Consequently, these findings advocate for developing adaptable, student-centered resources that address specific learning preferences, ultimately fostering a more inclusive and supportive learning environment in Mathematics.The findings indicating students’ preferences for instructional materials customized to their learning styles have significant theoretical and practical implications. Theoretically, they align with constructivist learning theories, which argue that students learn best when they can connect new information to their existing knowledge base and experiences. Personalized instructional materials cater to this by allowing students to engage with mathematical content in ways that match their cognitive and sensory preferences, fostering a more profound understanding and retention of information. From a practical standpoint, these findings support differentiated instruction and suggest that educators could improve learning outcomes by adapting resources to meet students’ specific learning needs.

5. RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the findings, the following recommendations are proposed:

• Schools and curriculum designers should prioritize developing visual, auditory, kinesthetic, and reading/writing-based resources corresponding to the identified primary learning styles. Teachers can engage students more effectively by providing diverse instructional materials, particularly in challenging subjects like Mathematics.
• Teachers should receive ongoing training to identify student learning styles and implement differentiated instructional techniques. This training could empower teachers to create or modify existing materials to accommodate a wider range of learning preferences.
• Digital tools like interactive whiteboards, educational software, and adaptive learning platforms can facilitate customized learning experiences. These technologies allow teachers to create and adjust content dynamically, enabling students to interact with material in ways that resonate with their preferred learning styles.
• Regular feedback from students on the efficacy of instructional materials in meeting their learning needs should be collected. This data can be used to continuously improve and refine the resources, ensuring they remain aligned with students’ learning styles and educational goals.

• The dissemination and advocacy plan for this research aims to maximize the impact of the findings on improving educational practices and policies related to differentiated instruction in mathematics. The researcher plans to share the findings through research plenum and LAC sessions with key stakeholders, including school administrators, curriculum developers, and mathematics teachers, through organized presentations and workshops. These sessions will provide insights into the identified learning styles of Grade 7 students and offer practical guidance on developing instructional materials that cater to diverse learning preferences, which could enhance student engagement and performance in mathematics.

• To promote advocacy, the researchers will draft policy briefs summarizing the study’s outcomes and recommendations, targeting decision-makers at the school and district levels. By sharing these insights, the study advocates for reforms in instructional material design and teaching methods that align with students’ learning styles. Additionally, the researchers will consider publishing the findings in academic journals and presenting them at education-focused conferences to encourage broader dialogue and adoption of differentiated instructional practices.

REFERENCES

1. Al-kassab M., M. (2023) Mathematics Learning Challenges and Difficulties: A Students’ Perspective
2. Department of Education (DepEd). (2023). MATATAG Curriculum Guide for K to 10: Developing lifelong learners. DepEd.
3. Hickendorff, M., (2021) The Demands of Simple and Complex Arithmetic Word Problems on Language and Cognitive Resources.
4. Joswick, C., Skultety, L., and Olsen, A.A. Mathematics, Learning Disabilities, and Learning Styles: A Review of Perspectives Published by the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Educ. Sci. 2023, 13, 1023.
5. Kozinsky, S. (2017). How Generation Z Is Shaping The Change In Education.
6. Malat, L. (2018), Gen Z is about to take overhigher education—here’s what to expect, e CampusNews, Technology News and Innovation in Higher Education,
7. Manjares, V.D. & Pasia, A.E. (2023). Contextualized Mathematics Instruction Based on Learning Styles in Improving Critical Thinking Skills of Grade 7 Students. Industry and Academic Research Review, 4 (1), 443-449.
8. Mustaffa, Z., Hussin, Z., & Sulaiman, A. M. (2021). Pedagogi Terbeza Untuk Pengajaran Guru Terhadap Kepelbagaian Murid. Malays. J. Soc. Sci. Hum. 6, 202–214.
9. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). (2014). Principles to Actions: Ensuring Mathematical Success for All. Reston, VA.
10. Riechmann, S. W., & Grasha, T. (1974). Grasha-Riechmann Student Learning Style Scales (GRSLSS) [Database record]. APA PsycTests.
11. Valdez, S., J. (2021). Proposed Intervention Material for Grade 7 Students.
12. Vernez, G., Culbertson, S., Constant, L., Karam, R. (2016). Initiatives to improve quality of education in the Kurdistan Region-Iraq. Rand Corporation, RAND Education
13. Zulkipli, N. Z. M., Mohamad, W. M. R. W., and Surat, S. (2019). Pengaplikasian Gaya Pembelajaran VAK Bagi Pembelajaran Budaya Melayu Dalam Kalangan Pelajar Di Tufs, Jepun. J. Melayu Sedunia 2, 112–142.
14. Bearneza, F. J. D. (2023). Students’ learning styles and performance in mathematics: basis for the development of teaching materials. International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology, 11(3), 987-998.
15. Adu, E. (2021). Learning Styles and Instructional Materials as Correlates of Grade 6 Learners’Mathematics Performance in Buffalo City, South Africa. Research in Social Sciences and Technology.
16. Dewi, N. K. A. Y., Budiarta, L. G. R., & Utami, I. A. M. I. (2024). Need analysis in developing differentiated assessment instrument for 7th grade junior high school students based on learning style in Emancipated Curriculum. Journal of English Language Learning, 8(1), 542-557.
17. Shofyan, A., Yuliati, N., & Rizkika, P. (2021, March). The development of worksheet oriented by visual learning style to measure geometry problem-solving skills. In Journal of Physics: Conference Series (Vol. 1839, No. 1, p. 012011). IOP Publishing.
18. Annisah, S., Zulela, Z., & Boeriswati, E. (2020, February). Analysis of student needs for mathematics teaching materials. In Journal of Physics: Conference Series (Vol. 1469, No. 1, p. 012156). IOP Publishing. Annisah, S., Zulela, Z., & Boeriswati, E. (2020, February). Analysis of student needs for mathematics teaching materials. In Journal of Physics: Conference Series (Vol. 1469, No. 1, p. 012156). IOP Publishing.
19. Ocampo, E. N., Siahaan, K. W. A., Sinaga, S. J., & Cutillas, A. L. (2023). Pedagogical exemplars for mathematics across learning styles. Edunesia: Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan, 4(2), 644-658.
20. Noviyanti, P. L., Atmaja, I. M. D., & Murtini, N. M. W. (2024). Enhancing Student Achievement Through Tailored Mathematics Instruction. JST (Jurnal Sains dan Teknologi), 13(1), 190-197.