UPSI Digital Repository (UDRep)
|
UPSI Digital Repository (UDRep)
|
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||
| Abstract : Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris |
| The aim of this study is to understand the effectiveness of Improvised Low-cost Wiimote InteractiveWhiteboards (Iw-IWB) as educational technology learning tool for Teaching Chinese as Second Language (TCSL) for lower primary pupils in government schools in Malaysia settings. This study are to design and develop an improvised Wiimote IWBs and to identify how far the new innovation leaning tool, the improvised version of interactive whiteboards, could improve pupils’ achievement and their learning motivation in learning Chinese as a Second Language (TCSL). A total number of 46 lower primary pupils study in government schools have involved in this study. The participants were split into two groups (treatment and control). The treatment group used the new developed improvised low-cost Wiimote interactive whiteboards (IWBs) to teach and learn Chinese characters, while the control group used traditional pedagogy. In this study, researchers have design and develop the improvised version of interactive whiteboard and thereafter using pre-test and post-test to identify the effectiveness of the new developed learning tool to enhanced pupils achievement and learning motivation in learning TCSL. The outcomes of the study showed that there has no difference in the students’ achievement and level of motivation between the classes with and without the use of improvised low-cost Wiimote IWB. However, the students’ achievement did show significant improvement before and after the use of Wiimote interactive whiteboard. Implication, improvised low-cost Wiimote IWB is a low-cost alternative which has potential to replace the expensive interactive whiteboard that many schools and teachers could not afford.
|
| References |
1. Boyce, C. J., Mishra, C., Halverson, K. L., & Thomas, A. K. (2014). Getting students outside: Using technology as a way to stimulate engagement. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 23(6), 815-826. 2. Dell, A. G., Newton, D. A., & Petroff, J. G. (2016). Assistive technology in the classroom: Enhancing the school experiences of students with disabilities. Pearson. 3. Rosen, L., Carrier, L. M., & Cheever, N. A. (2010). Rewired. Understanding the i Generation an the Way They Learn, Nowy Jork. 4. Ting, K. Y. (2014). Multimodal Resources to Facilitate Language Learning for Students with Special Needs. International Education Studies, 7(8), 85. 5. Eriksson, T., & Axelsson, M. (2014). Implementing interactive whiteboards into teaching practice at University of Gothenburg. 6. Xu, H.L. and Moloney, R. (2011). Perceptions of interactive whiteboard pedagogy in the teaching of Chinese language. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 27(2), 307-325. 7. Levy, P. (2002). Interactive whiteboards in learning and teaching in two Sheffield schools: a developmental study. University of Sheffield. 8. BECTA (British Educational Communications and Technology Agency). (2004). Getting the most from your interactive whiteboard: A guide for primary schools. Coventry: BECTA. 9. Smith, S. M., & Chen, C. (2015). MSLQ: Instrument Validation of Motivation And Learning Strategies For Acquiring Computer Software Application Skills. Issues in Information Systems, 16(3). 10. Al-Faki, I. M., & Khamis, A. H. A. (2014). Difficulties Facing Teachers in Using Interactive Whiteboards in Their Classes. American International Journal of Social Science, 3(2), 136–158. 11. Blau, I. (2011). Teachers for" Smart Classrooms": The Extent of Implementation of an Interactive Whiteboard-based Professional Development Program on Elementary Teachers' Instructional Practices. Interdisciplinary Journal Of E-Learning & Learning Objects, 7. 12. Türel, Y. K., & Johnson, T. E. (2012). Teachers' belief and use of interactive whiteboards for teaching and learning. Educational Technology & Society, 15(1), 381-394. 13. Hennessy, S., Deaney, R., Ruthven, K. & Winterbottom, M. (2007). Pedagogical strategies for using the interactive whiteboard to foster learner participation in school science. Learning, Media and Technology, 3(32), 283-301. 14. Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A., & McKeachie, W. J. (1989). A manual for the use of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire (MSLQ). Ann Arbor, Michigan: The University of Michigan, National Center for Research to Improve Postsecondary Teaching and Learning. 15. Bybee, R. W., Taylor, J. A, Gardner, A., Van, P., Powell, J. C., Westbrook, A., Landes, N. (2006). The BSCS 5E Instructional Model: Origins, Effectiveness, and Applications. Bscs, 1–19. 16. Eccles, J. S. (1983). Expectancies, values, and academic behaviors. 17. Schunk, D. H., Meece, J. R., & Pintrich, P. R. (2012). Motivation in education: Theory, research, and applications. Pearson Higher Ed. 18. Liebert, R. M., & Morris, L. W. (1967). Cognitive and emotional components of test anxiety: A distinction and some initial data. Psychological reports, 20(3), 975-978. 19. Wong, K., Teo, T., Swee, P., & Goh, C. (2014). Development of the Interactive Whiteboard Acceptance Scale (IWBAS): An Initial Study. Educational Technology & Society, 17(4), 268–277. 20. Wong, K.-T., Russo, S., & McDowall, J. (2013). Understanding early childhood student teachers’ acceptance and use of interactive whiteboard. Campus-Wide Information Systems, 30(1), 4-16. 21. Wong, K. T., Teo, T., & Russo, S. (2013). Interactive Whiteboard Acceptance: Applicability of the UTAUT Model to Student Teachers. Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 22(1), 1-10. 22. Wong, K.T., Rosma Osman, Goh, S. C., Mohd Khairezan Rahmat. (2013). Understanding Student Teachers’ Behavioural Intention to Use Technology: Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) Validation and Testing. International Journal of Instruction, 6(1), 90-102.
|
| 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. |