comparative and non comparative study g

20
Done by: Ameera Ba-Omar

Upload: amira-squ

Post on 24-May-2015

294 views

Category:

Education


1 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Comparative and non comparative  study g

Done by:Ameera Ba-Omar

Page 2: Comparative and non comparative  study g

A comparative study of the effect of use of information and communication

technology in varied teaching approaches on achievement and

retention of students of mathematics

ALYAS QADEER TAHIRA Dissertation

submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the

degree of Doctor of Philosophy in hducat.onInstitute of Education and Research

Gomal UniversityD.I.Khan

2005http://prr.hec.gov.pk/Thesis/743.pdf

Page 3: Comparative and non comparative  study g

Perception and Performance study

Page 4: Comparative and non comparative  study g

They note that the students suffer of the way that they study mathematic subjects, so they try to determine the best approach that is effective and appropriate for students to learn math in easy way. As a result, they compare between three approaches which are: CBI, CBL, TC

Page 5: Comparative and non comparative  study g

The purpose of this study was to investigate and compare the effects of use of Information and Communication Technology in Computer-Based Instruction (CBI), Computer-Based Learning (CBL) and traditional Teacher Centered (TC) approaches on achievement and retention of secondary school students of mathematics in Pakistan

Page 6: Comparative and non comparative  study g

I - To compare the effects of use of Information and Communication Technology using CBI, CBL and TC approaches on achievement of students of secondary school mathematics.

2. To compare the effects of use of Information and Communication Technology using CBI, CBL and T C approaches on retention of students of secondary school mathematics.

Page 7: Comparative and non comparative  study g

3. To find out more effective approach of teaching mathematics from CBI, CBL and TC approaches for the secondary schools students.

Page 8: Comparative and non comparative  study g

63 students and was heterogeneous to provide representation across ability level and gender.

The population of the study included the students from two different schools.

The sample of this study was heterogeneous to provide representation across ability level and gender.

The 63 students selected for this study were divided into three groups separately the boys and girl's sections imo treatment group 1 and treatment 2 and reference group.

Page 9: Comparative and non comparative  study g

posttest and the delayed-posttestThe achievement and retention instruments were in the forms of the posttest.

Page 10: Comparative and non comparative  study g

There was no significant difference among score of the students taught mathematics through CBI, CBL and TC approaches on achievement. The main effects of the groups and ability did not meet the 0.05 level of significance.

However, the main effects comparison of gender was significant at 0.047. There was a significant difference among the group's retention of the students taught mathematics through CBI, CBL and TC approaches. The main effect of the ability did meet the 0.05 level of significance on delayed-posttest. The main effect comparison of groups was also significant at 0.023.

Page 11: Comparative and non comparative  study g

It was concluded that the use of CBL approach in teaching of mathematics at secondary level in Pakistan can be encouraged for better achievement and retention of the subject which is one of the objective of teaching of mathematics at this stage.

Page 12: Comparative and non comparative  study g

Educational TechnologyEducational TechnologyAt Omani Higher At Omani Higher

Education InstitutionsEducation InstitutionsPresented by:

Dr Ali Sharaf Al MusawiDr Hamoud Nasser Al Hashmi

Curriculum and Teaching Methods Dept., College of Education

Center for Educational TechnologySultan Qaboos University

2004

Page 13: Comparative and non comparative  study g

to address the current and prospective views on educational technology (ET) in order to discover the difficulties and develop its utilization in Omani higher education.

Page 14: Comparative and non comparative  study g

1. To assess the current status of ET in order to discover the difficulties and develop its utilization in Omani higher education.

2. To determine indicators which help to formulate a future strategic plan for Omani higher education ET.

Page 15: Comparative and non comparative  study g

1. What are the current quantitative levels of technical and technological equipment/facilities?

2. To what extent is the effectiveness of the current design, production and use of instructional software/equipment?

3. What are the future equipment/facilities/software requirements in relation to the increase in students’ intake?

Page 16: Comparative and non comparative  study g

4. To what extent are the human, financial, and training resources available at present?

5. What are the needs for future human, financial, and training resources and university programs in ET field?

6. To what extent are ET research funds and mechanisms available?

Page 17: Comparative and non comparative  study g

The participants were (159) ET specialists,

administrators, and ET and learning resources

centers’ (LRCs) staff representing all educational

technologists who have been with the public and

private Omani higher education institutions.

Page 18: Comparative and non comparative  study g

two questionnaires: the faculty members‘ questionnaire, and the technical/administrative staff questionnaire

interviews were conducted to verify some areas of the effectiveness of instructional software/equipment use

Page 19: Comparative and non comparative  study g

No significant differences between the participants' views in relation to three variables (job, qualification, and type of institution) in terms of their abilities to use instructional equipment/facilities.

No significant differences between the participants' views in regard to: the impediments of use, and evaluation of instructional technology in relation to two variables (qualification, and type of institution)

Page 20: Comparative and non comparative  study g

No significant differences in regard to: the frequency of use in relation to two variables (job and type of institution).

No significant differences between the participants' views in regard to: the frequency of use, and ability to use instructional software in relation to two variables (job and type of institution).

Significant differences in favor of faculty members in terms of instructional software design/production experience, and in favor of PhD holders in terms of the ability to use instructional software.