UPSI Digital Repository (UDRep)
|
UPSI Digital Repository (UDRep)
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Abstract : Perpustakaan Tuanku Bainun |
| Three phases of quasi-experimental study with non-equivalent control group posttest only design were conducted to investigate the effects of using graphing calculators in mathematics teaching and learning on Form Four Malaysian secondary school students_ performance. Experiment in Phase I was conducted for two weeks to provide an initial indicator of the effectiveness of graphing calculator strategy on students_ performance. Graphing calculator strategy refers to the use of TI-83 Plus graphing calculator in teaching and learning of Straight Lines topic. The first phase involved one experimental group (n=21) and one control group (n=19) from two Form Four classes in a randomly selected school in Selangor. The experimental group underwent learning using graphing calculator while the control group underwent learning using conventional instruction. Experiment for Phase II was further carried out for six weeks incorporating measures of mathematical performance, mental effort and instructional efficiency. This phase involved two experimental groups (n=33) and two control groups (n=32) from four Form Four classes in one randomly selected school in Malacca. As in Phase I, the same learning conditions were given for both experimental and control groups. Finally, experiment in Phase III was carried out for six weeks incorporating comparison on two levels of mathematics ability (low and average) and two types of instructional strategy (graphing calculator strategy and conventional instruction strategy). Form Four students from one of the schools in Malacca were the sample for Phase III. Altogether there were four groups of students given four learning conditions vis-a-vis: the average mathematical ability given the use of graphing calculators (n=15), the low mathematical ability were also given graphing calculators (n=19), the average mathematical ability were given the conventional instruction (n=16) and the low mathematical ability were also given the conventional instruction (n=20). There were two instruments used in this study namely, Straight Lines Achievement Test and Paas Mental Effort Rating Scale. The data for Phases I and II were analysed using independent t-test and planned comparison test while data for Phase III were analysed using multiple analysis of variance and planned comparison test. The study shows that the graphing calculator instruction enhanced students_ performance with less mental effort invested during the learning and test phases and hence increased 3- dimensional instructional efficiency index in learning of Straight Lines topic for both groups of low and average mathematics ability. These findings indicated that the graphing calculator instruction is superior in comparison to the conventional instruction, hence implying that it was more efficient instructionally than the conventional instruction strategy. The average mathematics ability group greatly benefited from the graphing calculator instruction as it decreased the amount of mental effort by double than the low mathematics ability group.
Keywords: Graphing calculator, quasi-experimental design, instructional efficiency. |
| References |
Acelajado, M. J. (2004). Use of graphing calculator: Effect on students‟ achievement in ANMATH1 and anxiety in mathematics, In Yahya Abu Hassan, Adam Baharum, Ahmad Izani Mohd. Ismail, Koh Hock Lye and Low Heng Chin (Eds.) Integrating Technology in the Mathematical Sciences. USM Proceeding Series. Pulau Pinang: Penerbit Universiti Sains Malaysia.
Adams, T. L. (1997). Addressing students‟ difficulties with the concept of function: applying graphing calculators and a model of conceptual change. Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics. 19(2): 43-57.
Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C. & Razavieh, A. (1996). Introduction to Research in Education. Florida: Harcourt Brace College Publishers.
Barton, S. (2000). What does the research say about achievement of students who use calculator technologies and those who do not? In P. Bogacki, E. D. Fife & L. Husch. Proceeding Electronic of the 13th Annual International Conference Technology in Collegiate Mathematics, Atlanta, 2000. Retrieved 12 December 2005 from http://archives.math.utk.edu/ICTCM/EP-13/C25/pdf/paper.pdf#search =%22
Berger, M. (1998). Graphings calculators: An interpretive framework. For the Learning of Mathematics. 18(2): 13-20.
Burill, G., Allison, J., Breaux, G., Kastberg, S., Leatham, K. & Sanchez, W. (2002). Handheld Graphing Technology in Secondary Mathematics: Research Findings and Implications for Classroom Practice. Dallas, TX: Texas Instruments Corp.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Science, (2nd Ed.). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Publishers.
Connors, M. A. & Snook, K. G. (2001). The effects of hand-held CAS on students achievement in a first year college core calculus sequence. The International Journal of Computer Algebra in Mathematics Education. 8(2): 99-114.
Cook, T. D. & Campbell (1979). Quasi-Experimentation: Design & Analysis Issues for Field Settings. Boston, Mass.: Houghton Mifflin.
Cooper, G. (1998). Research into Cognitive Load Theory and Instructional Design at UNSW. Retrieved 22 December 2005, from http://www. arts.unsw.edu. au/ educational/clt.html.
Creswell, J. W. (2002). Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research. Columbus, Ohio: Merrill Prentice Hall and Upper Saddle River.
Dick, T. (1992). Supercalculators: Implications for calculus curriculum, instruction, and assessment. In J. T. Fey & C. H. Hirsch. Calculators in Mathematics Education: 1992 Yearbook of National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (pp. 145-147). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Dunham, P. H. (2000).Hand-held calculators in mathematics education: A research perspective. In Edward. D. Laughbaum. Hand-held Technology in Mathematics and Science Education: A Collection of Papers (pp 39-47). Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University.
Giamati, C. (1991). The Effects of Graphing Calculators Use on Students’ Understanding of Variations on a Family of Equations and Transformations of Their Graphs. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan. Dissertation Abstracts International. 52, 103A.
Gick, M. L. & Holyoak, K. J. (1983). Schema induction and analogical transfer. Cognitive Psychology. 15: 1-38.
Graham, A. T. & Thomas, M. O. J. (2000). Building a versatile understanding of algebraic variables with a graphing calculator. Educational Studies in Mathematics. 41(3): 265- 282.
Hong, Y., Toham, M. & Kiernan, C. (2000). Supercalculators and university entrance calculus examinations. Mathematics Education Research Journal. 12(3): 321-336.
Horton, R. B., Storm, J. & Leornard, W. H. (2004). The graphing calculator as an aid to teaching algebra. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education. 4(20): 152-162.
Jones, P. (1996). Handheld technology and mathematics: Towards the intelligent partnership. In P. Gomez & B. Waits. Roles of Calculators in the Classroom (pp.87- 96). USA: Una Empresa Dosente.
Jones, P. (2000). Realizing the educational potential of the graphing calculator. In Edward. D. Laughbaum. Hand-Held Technology in Mathematics and Science Education: A Collection of Papers. Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University.
Kaput, J. J. (1992). Technology and mathematics education. In D.A. Grouws. Handbook on Research on Mathematics Teaching and Learning (pp. 515-574). New York: Macmillan.
Kissane, B. (2000). Technology and the curriculum: The case of the graphings calculator. In M. J. Thomas. In Proceeding of the TIME 2000: An International Conference on Teaching in Mathematics Education, 60-71. Auckland, New Zealand. Retrieved 17 July 2004 from http://www.staf.murdoch.edu.au/ ~kissane/papers/ATCM99.pdf.
Lim Chap Sam & Kor Liew Kee (2004). Teaching statistics with graphical calculators in Malaysia: Challenges and constraint. Micromath. 20(2): 30-33.
Mayer, R. E. & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist. 28 (1): 43 – 52.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (1998). Principals and Standards for School mathematics: Discussion Draft October 1998. Reston, VA: NCTM.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (1999). Calculators – one of the many tools to enhance students‟ learning, from Straight talk about issues in Mathematics Education dated June 29, 1999 (On-line). Retrieved 15 November 2005 from http://www.ntcm.org
Noraini Idris, Tay Bee Lian, Ding Hong Eng, Goh Lee Siew & Nilawati Mahfud. A Graphing Calculator-Based Instruction and its Impact on the Teaching and Learning of Mathematics, In Graphing Calculators in Mathematics: Potential and Application, Proceedings of the 1st National Conference on Graphing Calculators, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, July 11-12, 2003. Kuala Lumpur: Faculty of Education, University of Malaya.
Noraini Idris. (2006). Teaching and Learning of Mathematics: Making Sense and Developing Cognitive Abilities. Kuala Lumpur: Utusan Publications & Distributors Sdn. Bhd.
Noraini Idris. Communication in Mathematics: Usage of Graphing Calculator, In Graphing Calculators in Mathematics: Potential and Application, Proceedings of the 1st National Conference on Graphing Calculators, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, July 11-12, 2003. Kuala Lumpur: Faculty of Education, University of Malaya.
Noraini Idris. Exploration and Entertainment Mathematics: Why Graphings Calculator? In Rosihan M. Ali, Anton Abdulbasah Kamil, Adam Baharum, Adli Mustafa, Ahmad Izani Md. Ismail & V. Ravichandran. Proceedings of the 2nd National Conference on Graphing Calculators, Penang, Malaysia, Oct. 4-6, 2004. Pulau Pinang, Malaysia: Penerbit Universiti Sains Malaysia.
Noraini Idris & Norjoharuddeen Mohd Nor. Comparative studies on the integration of graphing calculator in mathematics assessment in Australia, Singapore and Malaysia Proceedings of the 3nd National Conference on Graphing Calculators, April 16-18, 2008. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: Penerbit Universiti Sains Malaysia.
Norman, D. A. (1976). Memory and Attention: An Introduction to Human Information Processing. London: Wiley.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometry Theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw Hill Book Company.
Paas, F. & Van Merrienboer, J.J.G. (1994). Variability of worked examples and transfer of geometrical problem solving skills: A cognitive-load approach. Journal of Educational Psychology. 86: 122-133.
Paas, F. (1992). Training strategies for attaining transfer of problem-solving skill in statistics: A cognitive-load approach. Journal of Educational Psychology. 84: 429- 434.
Paas, F., Renkl, A. & Sweller, J. (2003). Cognitive load theory and instructional design: Recent developments. Educational Psychologist. 38: 23-32.
Paas, F., Renkl, A. & Sweller, J. (2004). Cognitive load theory: Instructional implications of the interaction between information structures and cognitive architecture. Instructional Science. 32: 1-8.
Pea, R. D. (1985). Beyond amplification: using the computer to recognize mental functioning, Special issue: Computers and education. Educational Psychologist. 20(4): 167-182.
Quesada, A. R. & Maxwell, M. E. (1994). The effects of using graphing calculators to enhance college students‟ performance in precalculus. Educational Studies in Mathematics. 27: 205-215.
Ruthven, K. (1990). The influence of graphing calculator use on translation from graphic to symbolic forms, Educational Studies in Mathematics. 21: 431-450.
Silva, J. C. (1996). Are graphing calculators the catalyzers for a real change in mathematics education?. In P Gomez & B. Waits. Roles of Calculator in the Classroom (pp. 21–30). USA: Una Empresa Dosente.
Smith, K. B. & Shotsberger, P. G. (1997). Assessing the use of graphing calculators in college algebra: Reflecting on dimensions of teaching and learning. School Science and Mathematics. 97 (7): 368-377.
Smith, N. L. (1996). A Study of Sixth-Grade Students‟ Metacognition and Choices Concerning the Use of the Calculator, Mental Computation, and Written Computation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Missouri-Columbia. Dissertation Abstracts International, 157, 615A.
Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: effects on learning. Cognitive Science. 12: 257-285.
Sweller, J. (1994). Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty and instructional design. Learning and Instruction. 4: 295-312.
Sweller, J. (1999). Instructional Design in Technical Areas. CER Press, Cambelwell: Victoria, Australia.
Sweller, J. (2004). Instructional design consequences of an analogy between evolution by natural selection and human cognitive architecture. Instructional Science. 32: 9-31.
Sweller, J., van Merrienboer, J., & Pass, F. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review. 10(3): 251-296.
Tuovinen, J. E. & Paas, F. (2004). Exploring multidimensional approaches to the efficiency of instructional conditions. Instructional Science. 32: 133-152.
Upshaw, J. T. (1994). The Effect of the Calculator-Based, Graph-Exploration Method of Instruction on Advanced Placement Calculus Achievement. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of South Carolina. Dissertation Abstracts International, 54, 4023A.
Van Merrienboer, J. J. G & Ayres, P. (2005). Research on cognitive load theory and its design implications for e-learning. Educational Technology Research and Development. 53(3): 5 – 13.
Waits, B. & Demana, F. (2000a). Calculators in mathematics teaching and learning: Past, present and future. In M. J. Burke & F. R. Curcio. Learning Mathematics for a New Century: 2000 Yearbook (pp. 52-66). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Waits, B. & Demana, F. (2000b). The role of graphing calculators in mathematics reform. In Edward. D. Laughbaum. Hand-Held Technology in Mathematics and Science Education: A Collection of Papers. Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University.
Wheatley, C. L. (1980) Calculator use and problem-solving performance. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education. 80(7): 620-624.
Wilson, M. R. & Krapfl, C. M. (1994). The impact of graphics calculators on students‟ understanding of functions. Journal of Mathematics and Computer Education. 27(3). 198-202.
Wilson, W. S. & Naiman, D. Q. (2004). K-12 Calculator usage and college grades. Educational Studies in Mathematics. 56: 119-122. |
| This material may be protected under Copyright Act which governs the making of photocopies or reproductions of copyrighted materials. You may use the digitized material for private study, scholarship, or research. |