Group C: Traditional Board and Projector with

Graphing Tools

Malaysia: Rohani Ahmad TarmiziPhilippines: Soledad A. UkepThailand:

Members:

TWO QUESTIONS

How do you use blackboards and projector technology in your country?

How can we innovate our teaching approaches in the teaching of mathematics?

1. HOW DO YOU USE BLACKBOARDS IN YOUR COUNTRY?

Main source of communication with the students for explanation of content or demonstration of mathematics problem solving

Students also utilize the board for demonstrating task assigned in the classroom- explaining, presenting, demonstrating, etc

Used to paste cards, mahjong paper, students work, flash cards, etc

To communicate important or basic information – short important note/list/reminder of homework

2. HOW DO YOU USE ICT IN YOUR COUNTRY?

Although use of technology is one of Malaysia’s emphases in teaching mathematics, sparse used of ICT was observed. Among the tools and software being used are Graphing calculators, Autograph, Geometer’s Sketchpad, e-transformation, Geogebra, Mathematica, Matlab, Cabri have been widely used both at secondary and tertiary level.

Likewise in the Phlippines, GSP and Geogebra have been used ocasionally.

While in Thailand the use of GSP in secondary schools was observed specifically in the 20 Lesson Study schools.

HOW CAN WE INNOVATE OUR TEACHING APPROACHES IN TEACHING

MATHEMATICS?1. Improve quality of Teacher Education

Training and School Delivery System

To impart the necessary skills to raise the ability of teachers to improvise and innovate in new teaching methods, including activity-based learning methodology and real life examples

Make learning of mathematics fun and interestingEnhance using web-based and online teaching and

learning methodEnlist help from NGOs to support innovative and creative

projects in schoolsIncrease organizing more activities outside classroom

and introduce more real life applications with adequate equipment for hands-on practical and projects

HOW CAN WE INNOVATE OUR TEACHING APPROACHES IN TEACHING

MATHEMATICS?1. Improve quality of Teacher Education Training and School Delivery System

Regular maintenance and upgrade of hardwareStrengthen ICT support by schools and MOE for

teachers to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of their delivery

Explore synergy between ICT technology and teaching materials improvisation

Establish “Teacher Support System”

1. Improve quality of Teacher Education Training and School Delivery System

Improve opportunities for hands-on and problem solving

Improve contents and methods of teacher training courses especially in universities

Collaborate with universities to promote practical ICT activities in school incorporating research results concerning educational content and the HOW TO...

HOW CAN WE INNOVATE OUR TEACHING APPROACHES IN TEACHING MATHEMATICS?

1. Improve quality of Teacher Education Training and School Delivery System

Invest in science, maths, technology teacher education and teacher professional development

Study high performance countries such as – Japan, Hong Kong-China, Chinese –Taipei, Slovenia, Macao-China as well as Finland

HOW CAN WE INNOVATE OUR TEACHING APPROACHES IN TEACHING MATHEMATICS?

HOW CAN WE INNOVATE OUR TEACHING APPROACHES WITH

TEACHERS?2. Change Role of the Teacher

From Restricted Professional to Extended Professional

From Curriculum Implementer to Reflective Practitioner

From Purveyor of Information to Facilitator of Thinking

From Focus on Mathematics to Focus on Students

HOW CAN WE INNOVATE OUR TEACHING APPROACHES WITH

TEACHERS?3. Experiential Learning

Emphasize on experience – students’ experience and continuing process of learning.

Some experiential methods: problem-based learning, case studies, role play, simulations, internships, project-based, inquiry-based, experiments, explorations.

Model gradually becomes more

formally mathematical

Informal model/strategies

developed

model/strategies developed

model/strategies developed

FormalMathematic

s

Context 1

Context 2

Context 3

Context used to help pupils make decision and make sense, gradually become more formally mathematical.

HOW CAN WE INNOVATE OUR TEACHING APPROACHES WITH

TEACHERS?4. Innovations in Pedagogy

Teachers are now expected to model and foster in their students a wide range of skills:critical thinking, self-regulated learning, knowledge of self and others and lifelong learning.

University teacher educators must re-evaluate their curricula and emphasise more on realistic pedagogical skills.

These skills should be based on the philosophy of inquiry and actively learning and process approach.

http://timssandpirls.bc.edu/TIMSS2007/PDF/TIMSS2007_InternationalMathematicsReport.pdf

Windows or Cases-Learning Mathematics Through

Utilization of Technology

• When technology and appropriate teaching methods are integrated in teaching and learning, positive impact maybe observe on both cognitive and affective domain of learning.

• Technology as a tool or a support for communicating with others, allows learners to play active role in the classrooms.

Graphing Calculator GroupGraphing Calculator Group

Autograph GroupAutograph Group

Introduction to the technological tools

Induction set phase Learning and

assessment phase Test phase

Learning to use the technological tools

• Concept development - important concepts learnt were emphasized

EXPERIMENTAL

GROUPS

CONTROL

GROUP

Using GCUsing AutographUsing GSPUsing GeogebraUsing e-Transformation

Traditional whole-class instruction

Beginning of a lesson - to induce in students an appropriate set of behavior and to spur students to attack their work enthusiastically and diligently.

EXPERIMENTAL GROUPS: Students were required to solve the given problems using paper-pencil

CONTROL GROUP: Students were given problems to solve using paper-pencil

Measures of Impact

1. Mathematics Achievement Test (MAT)

2. Paas Mental Effort Rating Scale

The MAT was designed by the researchers to

measure students’ understanding of the Quadratic Function

topic. It comprised of three questions based on

the learning outcomes covered in the learning

phase. The time allocated to do the test is

30 minutes.

PAAS MENTAL EFFORT RATING SCALE

For each problem, please rate your mental effort used in solving the problem.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

LOW HIGH

Table 3: Comparison on instructional efficiency index

planned comparison test showed that the mean for GC group was significantly higher than conventional group followed by Autograph group

This suggests that learning by integrating the use of GC was more efficient than using conventional strategy and Autograph group.

Variable Group N M SD SE

2-D instructional

efficiency

GC 38 .3844 .8802 .1428

Autograph 35 -.5125 1.2261 .2072

Control 28 .1613 1.0214 .1930

2-D Instructional Efficiency

RESULTS

Table 1: Comparison of Mathematics Achievements

RESULTS

Variable Group N M SD

MAT score GSP 45 11.78 4.10

control 47 13.03 3.65

• Overall mean of MAT scores showed that there was no significant difference between mean perfomance scores of the control group compared to scores for the GSP group.• In fact, the mean score of the control group is higher than the result of the experimental group.

…RESULTS

Table 2: Comparisons of selected variables

Variables Group N M SD SE

No. of problem solved

GSP

Control

45

47

5.98

6.28

1.29

1.08

.19

.16

Total score of conceptual knowledge

GSP

Control

45

47

5.99

7.28

4.67

3.63

.70

.53

Total score of procedural knowledge

GSP

Control

45

47

18.4

18.06

1.39

1.36

.21

.19

Total score of the test

GSP

Control

45

47

24.01

25.34

4.74

3.78

.71

.55

…RESULTS

Table 2 (con’t): Comparisons of selected variables

Variables Group N M SD SE

No. of errors committed

GSP

Control

45

47

1.95

1.52

1.54

.898

.23

.13

Mental Load GSP

Control

45

47

5.61

4.46

2.03

1.48

.30

.28

2D Efficiency GSP

Control

45

47

- 0.28

0.43

1.22

0.95

.181

.178

3D Efficiency GSP

Control

45

47

- 0.56

0.61

1.24

0.87

.216

.198

…RESULTS

Table 3: Mean and SD of students’ attitutes towards the teaching and learning approaches.Levels

Control GSP

Mean SD Mean SD

Enthuasiasm 3.29 0.612 3.52 0.526

Enjoyment 3.28 0.610 3.40 0.565

Anxiety 1.87 0.386 1.93 0.474

Avoidance 1.77 0.612 1.69 0.526

CONCLUSION Further studies need to be done, especially

on time needed for students to explore and learning using GSP in learning mathematics.

Furthermore, research also need to be conducted in normal classroom settings in Malaysian school in order to explore further in utilizing GSP in mathematics learning.

However, findings from this study can elicit ideas to teachers and researchers on the needs using ICT technology in teaching and learning mathematics.

GeoGebra is an open source software under General Public License (GPL) and freely available at www.geogebra.org.

This software combines geometry, algebra and calculus into a single ease-to-use package for teaching and learning mathematics from elementary to university level

GeoGebra

What is GeoGebra?Dynamic Mathematics

SoftwareFor Learning and Teaching

Mathematicsin Schools

This software was developed by Markus Hohenwarter in 2001 at the University of Salsburg

Has been translated to 48 languages. Use in 190 countries.

Geometry, Algebra , Calculus and Statistics.

Freely available fromwww.geogebra.org

It was designed to combine features of dynamic geometry software (e.g. Cabri

Geometry, Geometer’s Sketchpad)computer algebra systems (e.g. Derive,

Maple)and easy to-use system for teaching and learning mathematics ( Hohenwarter & Preiner, 2007).

High technical portabilityruns on Windows, Linux,

Solaris, MacOS Xdynamic worksheets (html)

GeoGebra is Innovative

GeoGebra

e-Transformation (e-Transform) is a courseware developed by a group of researchers, based on students’ difficulties.

e-transform

e-transform

e-transform

ResultsA. Effects of GeoGebra on Performance score for

pre and post test.For the group that used GeoGebra, the analysis on

the performance scores for pre and post tests were by using Wilcoxon T.

Research findings indicated that there was significant difference in performance scores for the post test (Mdn = 31.00) compared to the pre test (Mdn = 25.00), z = - 2.85, p =.004 <.05, r = -0.45).

The results showed that students who learned transformation using GeoGebra showed increase in their performance after they used it.

the effect size was medium

B. Effects of e-transformation on Performance score for pre and post test.

For the second hyphotesis, analysis using Wilcoxon T showed that there were significant differences in post test performance scores (Mdn = 25.00) compared to the pre test scores (Mdn = 20.00), z = - 2.76, p = .006 < .05, r = -0.50).

This showed that the e-Transformation could help students to increase their performance.

the effect size was big.

Results

Students who used the GeoGebra software and e-transformation shows improvement in performance when comparing the results of the pre and post tests scores of both groups.

This shows that the use of technology can have a positive effect on student achievements.

The findings did not show any significant difference between students who used the GeoGebra software compared to the e-transformation group.

Conclusion

Group N Mean Standard

Deviation

t DF Significant

Control Group

26 54.7 15.660

2.259 51 0.028GeoGebra Group

27 65.23 19.202

Significant difference between mean performance scores of the control group (M=54.7, SD= 15.660) compared to GeoGebra group (M= 65.23, SD= 19.202; t(51) = 2.259, p = .028 < .05) The effect size (eta squared, 2) is approximately 0.09, which is considered to be a moderate effect (Cohen, 1988). Students who had learned Coordinate Geometry using GeoGebra was significantly better in their achievement compared to students who underwent the traditional learning.

Group N Mean Standard

Deviation

t DF Significant

Control Group

12 61.667

13.793

0.953 22 0.351GeoGebra Group

12 67.583

16.489

No significant difference between mean performance scores of the control group (M=61.667, SD= 13.793) compared to GeoGebra group (M= 67.583, SD= 16.489; t(22) = 0.953, p = .351> .05) However, the mean score of the HV students in GeoGebra group is higher than the result of the HV students in Control Group

Group N Mean Standard

Deviation

t DF Significant

Control Group

14 48.786

15.106

2.222 27 0.036GeoGebra Group

15 64.067

21.569

Significant difference between mean performance scores of the control group (M=48.786, SD= 15.106) compared to GeoGebra group (M= 64.067, SD= 21.569; t(27) = 2.222, p = .036< .05) The effect size (eta squared, 2) is approximately 0.15, which is considered to be a very large effect (Cohen, 1988) LV students who had undergone learning Coordinate Geometry using GeoGebra was significantly better in their achievement rather than students underwent the traditional learning. GeoGebra software enhanced the LV students in their mathematics performance.

Significant difference between mean performance scores of the control group (M=48.786, SD= 15.106) compared to GeoGebra group (M= 64.067, SD= 21.569; t(27) = 2.222, p = .036< .05) The effect size (eta squared, 2) is approximately 0.15, which is considered to be a very large effect (Cohen, 1988) LV students who had undergone learning Coordinate Geometry using GeoGebra was significantly better in their achievement rather than students underwent the traditional learning. GeoGebra software enhanced the LV students in their mathematics performance.