View
46
Download
5
Category
Tags:
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
HCI – NYGH IP Ed Seminar 2011. EFFECT OF USING WEB 2.0 IN TEACHING ON STUDENTS’ INTRINSIC MOTIVATION IN LEARNING MATHEMATICS. Rong Yifei Hwa Chong Institution. About the Author. Mathematics Teacher 4 th Year in HCI iSpark Consortium – SBGE 2011 – Sec 32010 – Sec 2 - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
EFFECT OF USING WEB 2.0 IN TEACHING ON STUDENTS’ INTRINSIC MOTIVATION IN LEARNING MATHEMATICS
Rong Yifei
Hwa Chong Institution
HCI – NYGH IP Ed Seminar 2011
About the Author
Mathematics Teacher4th Year in HCIiSpark Consortium – SBGE2011 – Sec 3 2010 – Sec 2Projects Day – Category ManagerFuture SchoolMaster in Education
HCI – NYGH IP Ed Seminar 2011
Background of Research
Jeong & Kim (2009)21st Century
Information-Oriented Society Increasing Open Knowledge Rapid-Changing Ed Environment New Learning Methods
HCI – NYGH IP Ed Seminar 2011
Background of Research
Masterplan III for IT in Education 2009FutureSchools@HCI
Borderless & Diverse Climate Learning Anytime, Anywhere IT Technology Pedagogy
HCI – NYGH IP Ed Seminar 2011
Background of Research
Web 2.0 E.g. Blogging, Podcast, Vodcast, etc Virtual Interaction Virtual Classroom Explore Build and Share Knowledge
HCI – NYGH IP Ed Seminar 2011
Background of Research
UWA Masters – Major Paper2010 – Sec 2FutureSchools@HCI
Piloting in Secondary Two Evaluation, Reflection
HCI – NYGH IP Ed Seminar 2011
Research Area
Assess the Learning EffectivenessSwan (2009)
Students learn as much online as in traditional classrooms
Test scores show not significant difference from traditional teaching
Scores vs PassionMotivation
HCI – NYGH IP Ed Seminar 2011
Research Area
Motivation Middleton and Spanias (1999) reasons individuals have for behaving in a given
situation Bomia (1997) a student’s willingness, need, desire and
compulsion to participate in, and be successful in learning process
Ames (1992) part of one’s goal structures, one’s beliefs about
what is important and it determines whether or not one will engage in a given pursuit
HCI – NYGH IP Ed Seminar 2011
Research Area
Motivation Hermitt (2007) Few things are more important in educating a child
than motivation Gagné & Driscoll (1988) reason for remaining engaged in learning turns to
"incentive motivation," wherein the individual strives to achieve a pre-established goal or target for which they perceive a reward for fulfilling their intended goal
HCI – NYGH IP Ed Seminar 2011
Research Purpose
To study empirically the impact of using Web 2.0 in teaching of Mathematics on the intrinsic motivation of the learners towards the subject
HCI – NYGH IP Ed Seminar 2011
What is Intrinsic Motivation?
Deci & Ryan (1985) non-drive-based
Malone and Lepper (1987) what people will do without external
inducement Viadero (1999)
a genuine interest or desire to learn on the part of the student
Extrinsic – Rewards / Punishment
HCI – NYGH IP Ed Seminar 2011
Why Intrinsic Motivation?
Affects Learning OutcomesMore Effective in the Long Run
Real InterestCsikszentmihalyi & Larson (1984)
students rarely say that they find studying to be intrinsically rewarding
Observation
HCI – NYGH IP Ed Seminar 2011
Literature Review – E-Learning
Detya (2000) The integration of information and
communication technology (ICT) into school educational practice is seen as being crucial to prepare “young people to participate in and contribute to an information society that requires high levels of literacy, numeracy, technological competence and a spirit of creativity and enterprise”
HCI – NYGH IP Ed Seminar 2011
Literature Review – E-Learning
Theroux (1994) Educators widely believe that computers and
technology intrigue students and lead to higher quality work
Pegrum (2008) Educators are responsible to influence the evolution
of E-learning in the directions beneficial to the students
Online technology is just a medium Educators determine the methodology and
pedagogy to be used
HCI – NYGH IP Ed Seminar 2011
Literature Review – Motivation
Yunus & Ali (2009) students’ motivation in solving mathematical
problems in Malaysia establish relationship between levels of
motivation and students’ mathematics achievement
Result: high motivation – high level of efforts – better achievement
Literature Review – Motivation
Deaney, Ruthven, and Hennessy (2003) computer-based lessons as having a more
relaxed atmosphere and being more interesting
the positive effects of computer-based lessons could lessen as the novelty fades
Literature Review – Instrument
Ryan (1982) Intrinsic Motivation Inventory multidimensional measurement device six subscale scores
interest/enjoyment (*) perceived competence Effort value/usefulness felt pressure and tension perceived choice
HCI – NYGH IP Ed Seminar 2011
Literature Review – Instrument
Shia (1998) Academic Intrinsic Motivation Inventory 7-point Likert scale both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation designed for University students Not appropriate
HCI – NYGH IP Ed Seminar 2011
Research Question
General Question To what extent, can the use of IT technology in
teaching increase the students’ level of motivation in learning?
Specific Question To what extend, does the use of Web2.0
(Wetpaint) in teaching Mathematics, increase the level of intrinsic motivation in learning the subject, for Secondary Two students in Hwa Chong Institution?
HCI – NYGH IP Ed Seminar 2011
Methodology - Participants
Two Secondary Two ClassesFrom iSpark
Similar education profile & academic background25 students each
50% of the consortium12.5% of the total cohort
HCI – NYGH IP Ed Seminar 2011
Methodology - Design
Quantitative ApproachComparison groups – two classes
Future class – Teaching with Web2.0 Non-Future class – Traditional Teaching
Pre & Post Questionnaires on Levels of Intrinsic Motivation
Online Platform – WetpaintDuration – One Month
Methodology - Design
Quantitative Approach the independent variable was the use of
Web 2.0 in teaching dependent variable was the level of intrinsic
motivation
Methodology - Instrument
The Intrinsic Motivation Inventory (IMI) 21 Items:1. While I was learning Mathematics I was thinking about how
much I enjoyed it. 5. I found Mathematics very interesting.8. Learning mathematics was fun.10. I enjoyed learning Mathematics very much.13. I thought learning Mathematics was very boring. (R)16. I thought learning Mathematics was very interesting.19. I would describe learning Mathematics as very enjoyable. 7-point Likert Scale:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
not at all true
somewhat true
very true
HCI – NYGH IP Ed Seminar 2011
Methodology - Procedures
Prior ExperimentConsent forms
Both Students & Parents Agree and SignPre experiment questionnaire given to both
classes
HCI – NYGH IP Ed Seminar 2011
Methodology - Procedures
ExperimentOne month teaching and learning
Traditional classroom teachingWeb2.0 enabled teaching
HCI – NYGH IP Ed Seminar 2011
Methodology - Procedures
Post ExperimentPost experiment questionnaire given to both
classes
HCI – NYGH IP Ed Seminar 2011
Findings – Pre Experiment
Relatively close levels of intrinsic motivation Future class – 5.14 Higher Non Future class – 4.60 Lower
Pre-test Intrinsic Motivation Levels of Two Classes - Mean Score
5.144.60
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
Classes
Mean ScoreWetppaint
Trad
HCI – NYGH IP Ed Seminar 2011
Findings – Pre Experiment
Higher than average levels of intrinsic motivation for both classes
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
Mean Score
Q1 Q5 Q8 Q10 Q13 Q16 Q19
Question Number
Pre-test Intrinsic Motivation Levels of Two Classes - Individual Mean Score
Wetppaint
Trad
HCI – NYGH IP Ed Seminar 2011HCI – NYGH IP Ed Seminar 2011
Findings – Pre Experiment
“found Mathematics very interesting” Future class – 72% Non Future class – 60%
Q5 I found Mathematics very interesting.
0% 8%
4%
16%
24%
24%
24%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Not at all true
Somewhat true
Very true
Q5 I found Mathematics very interesting.
0%
0%
8%
32%
36%
12%
12%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Not at all true
Somewhat true
Very true
HCI – NYGH IP Ed Seminar 2011
Findings – Pre Experiment
“enjoyed learning Mathematics very much” Future class – 64% Non Future class – 52%
Q10 I enjoyed learning Mathematics very much.
0%
4%
12%
20%
28%
20%
16%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Not at all true
Somewhat true
Very true
Q10 I enjoyed learning Mathematics very much.
0% 4%
16%
28%
24%
24%
4% 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Not at all true
Somewhat true
Very true
HCI – NYGH IP Ed Seminar 2011
Findings – Post Experiment
Relatively close levels of intrinsic motivation Future class – 5.22 Higher Non Future class – 4.57 Lower
Post-test Intrinsic Motivation Levels of Two Classes - Mean Score
5.224.57
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
Classes
Mean ScoreWetpaint
Trad
HCI – NYGH IP Ed Seminar 2011
Findings – Pre Experiment
Higher than average levels of intrinsic motivation for both classes
Post-test Intrinsict Motivation Levels of Two Classes - Individual Mean Score
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
Q1 Q5 Q8 Q10 Q13 Q16 Q19
Question Number
Mean ScoreWetpaint
Trad
HCI – NYGH IP Ed Seminar 2011
Findings – Post Experiment
“found Mathematics very interesting” Future class – 80% Non Future class – 64%
Q5 I found Mathematics very interesting.
0% 8%
4%
8%
28%36%
16% 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Not at all true
Somewhat true
Very true
Q5 I found mathematics very interesting.
0%
0%
20%
16%
24%
32%
8%1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Not at all true
Somewhat true
Very true
HCI – NYGH IP Ed Seminar 2011
Findings – Post Experiment
“enjoyed learning Mathematics very much” Future class – 80% Non Future class – 48%
Q10 I enjoyed learning mathematics very much.0%
0%
12%
8%
32%
36%
12% 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Not at all true
Somewhat true
Very true
Q10 I enjoyed learning Mathematics very much.
0% 4%
16%
32%24%
20%
4% 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Not at all true
Somewhat true
Very true
HCI – NYGH IP Ed Seminar 2011
Findings – Future Class
a slight increase in level of intrinsic motivation
Intrinsic Motivation Levels Shown in Pre & Post-test Questionnaires - Wetpaint Class
5.27
5.14
5.05
5.10
5.15
5.20
5.25
5.30
Pre-test Post-test
Mean ScorePre-test
Post-test
HCI – NYGH IP Ed Seminar 2011
Findings – Future Class
Percentage change in responses in different questions: interest in the subject of Mathematics changed little motivation towards learning the subject has
improved
HCI – NYGH IP Ed Seminar 2011
Findings – Future ClassIntrinsic Motivation Levels Shown in Pre & Post-test
Questionnaires - Wetpaint Class
4.00
4.50
5.00
5.50
6.00
Q1 Q5 Q8 Q10 Q13 Q16 Q19
Questions
Individual Mean Score
Pre-test
Post-test
Percentage Change in Intrinsic Motivation Levels of Wetpaint Class - Individual Mean Score
5.22%
0.76%
2.29%
6.45%
1.44%
0.00%
2.34%
0.00%
1.00%
2.00%
3.00%
4.00%
5.00%
6.00%
7.00%
Q1 Q5 Q8 Q10 Q13 Q16 Q19
Questions
Percen
tag
e C
han
ge
HCI – NYGH IP Ed Seminar 2011
Findings – Non Future Class
a slight decrease in level of intrinsic motivation
Intrinsic Motivation Levels Shown in Pre & Post-test Survey - Traditional Class
4.60 4.57
4.00
4.10
4.20
4.30
4.40
4.50
4.60
4.70
Pre-test Post-test
Mean CorePre-test
Post-test
HCI – NYGH IP Ed Seminar 2011
Findings – Non Future Class
Percentage change in responses in different questions: interest in the subject of Mathematics maintained motivation towards learning the subject not
improved Could be due to lack of variety in traditional teaching
HCI – NYGH IP Ed Seminar 2011
Findings – Non Future Class
Percentage Change in Intrinsic Motivation Levels of Traditional Class - Individual Mean Score
-3.67%
0.82%
3.54%
-1.74%
0.81%
-2.70%-1.79%
-4.00%
-3.00%
-2.00%
-1.00%
0.00%
1.00%
2.00%
3.00%
4.00%
Q1 Q5 Q8 Q10 Q13 Q16 Q19
Percentage Change
Qu
estio
ns
Percentage Change
Intrinsic Motivation Levels Shown in Pre & Post-test Survey - Traditional Class
4.00
4.25
4.50
4.75
5.00
5.25
Q1 Q5 Q8 Q10 Q13 Q16 Q19
Individual Mean Score
Pre-test
Post-test
HCI – NYGH IP Ed Seminar 2011
Findings – Discussions
Web2.0 technology To Students
Variety More interaction More cooperation More time to think Easy access of resources More participation More time on task
HCI – NYGH IP Ed Seminar 2011
Findings – Discussions
Web2.0 technology To Teacher
Variety Tools for differentiation Ways of engaging students Challenge
Planning Scaffolding Time
HCI – NYGH IP Ed Seminar 2011
Findings – Discussions
Web2.0 technology To Parents
Variety – alternative way to check Challenge
Control On task? Time
HCI – NYGH IP Ed Seminar 2011
Conclusions
Using Web2.0 in teaching has positive effect in intrinsic motivation in students in learning mathematics Interest in the subject maintained Interest / enjoyment in learning the subject
improved
Opportunities + Challenges
HCI – NYGH IP Ed Seminar 2011
Reflections
Pedagogy, Pedagogy, Pedagogy Key - Engaging Students Duration of research
HCI – NYGH IP Ed Seminar 2011
Acknowledgement
HCI Colleagues Prof. Steven Houghton My dear students
HCI – NYGH IP Ed Seminar 2011
HCI – NYGH IP Ed Seminar 2011
Recommended