research 2012 recovered]

8/2/2019 Research 2012 Recovered]

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/research-2012-recovered 1/18



INTRODUCTION

• Recently, there is a rapid growth of computing technology,the applications and uses of computers have grown at astaggering rate.

• Integrating technology in teaching has been a challenge to

teachers since they need to make effective use of it in orderto develop student's independent learning skills andenhance learning.

• By using technology into teaching, teacher helps student'sincrease their creativity which also promotes self-

confidence.• There is a growing global interest in extending the field of

study from stand alone learning environment tocollaborative learning environment.



Problem Statement

• Many journals either in the field of computer science or educationhave rigorously discussed the use of Computer In Education (CIE).Some of the researchers from both fields work together to enhancethe existing teaching and learning methods andproduce suitablecoursewa re. In Malaysia, many researchers from many universities

have conducted many studies in CIE. Nevertheless, not manypublications highlighted the potential use of Computer-SupportedCollaborative Learning (CSCL) application in school [3].

• Community Colleges under the Ministry of Higher Education(MoHE) are technical educations institution that is responsible for

producing semi skilled professionals for many technical disciplinessuch as information technology. Many of lectures use computer intheir teaching and learning process. But none of them use thecomputer technology within collaborative learning environment.



Project Objective

The objectives of this paper are:

• To develop a System Networking InteractiveMultimedia Courseware for collaborative learning

environment.• To help enhance student learning using

developed Interactive Multimedia Coursewarewithin collaborative learning environment

• To improve learning effectiveness usingdeveloped Interactive Multimedia Coursewarewithin collaborative learning environment



LITERATURE REVIEW

• Collaborative learning differs from traditional teachingapproaches because students work together rather thancompete with each other individually. [Gerlach, 1994]

• Think-pair-share is a relatively low-risk and short

collaborative learning technique, and is ideally suited forinstructors and students who are new to collaborativelearning. [Wisc, 2006]

• Computer-supported collaborative learning is one of themost promising ideas to improve teaching and learning

with the help of modern information and communicationtechnology. [Zanariah Kasirun & Siti Salwa Halim, 2004]



METHODOLOGY

• The target population of the study is InformationTechnology students in Community College inMalaysia. The samples are 30 respondents amongsemester 4 of Certificates of Information

Technology students of Masjid Tanah CommunityCollege. They were expected to be representativeof the whole populations of IT students inMalaysia as institutions are under one governing

body. I assumed my subjects are all IT-literate andwould be able to carry those tasks that I haveassigned to them. Most important, they havetheir own personal computer at home.



Research Tools and Materials

• Five research tools were used in this study, an interactive multimediacourseware, peer evaluation form, questionnaire, a pre-test, and a posttest. The interactive multimedia courseware was written in Englishdeveloped using the ADDIE instructional model that consist of five phase;analysis phase, design phase, development phase, implementation phaseand evaluation phase. Its content was limited to Computer Network

subject, topic (Computer Networking Installation) only.

• There are four modules in the CD called Objective, Notes, Practical andTest. Peer Evaluation Form was administered to all participants in groupwork to evaluate the think pair share technique. Questionnaire wasconducted to evaluate if courseware improve student learning

effectiveness were distributed to the target users which are experimentalstudents. The Pre Test and Post Test instruments consisted of 10 questionsin each test to evaluate student score gain.



Research Tools and Materials

E-MODULES

NETWORKING SYSTEM

Prepared by:

MOHD HAFIEZ BIN AHMAD /SHARIFAH NADIYAH BINTI RAZALI

Pre Test Post Test

Peer EvaluationForm

content was limited to

Computer Network subject

evaluate the think pair share technique

evaluate if courseware improve student learning effectiveness

evaluate student score gain

to measure student basic knowledge to measure student’s achievement



Research Procedure

quasi-experimental

Control group Experimental group

Group 1: Pre Test > treatment 1 > Post TestGroup 2: Pre Test > treatment 2 > Post Test

Research Design and Procedure

Peer Evaluation

Form



RESULT PRE TEST AND POST TEST (CONTROLGROUP)

NOPRE

TEST%

POST

TEST%

LEARNING

GAIN (%)

1 7 23 15 50 27

2 21 70 30 100 30

3 12 40 18 60 20

4 11 37 17 57 20

5 10 33 17 57 23

6 17 57 26 87 30

7 9 30 15 50 20

8 10 33 18 60 27

9 8 27 16 53 27

10 11 37 16 53 17

11 11 37 15 50 13

12 21 70 30 100 30

13 13 43 21 70 27

14 19 63 28 93 30

15 10 33 16 53 20

RESULT PRE TEST AND POST TEST (EXPERIMENTALGROUP)

NOPRE

TEST%

POST

TEST%

LEARNING

GAIN (%)

1 13 43 27 90 47

2 9 30 25 83 53

3 11 37 27 90 53

4 9 30 20 67 37

5 12 40 25 83 43

6 12 40 26 87 47

7 3 10 20 67 57

8 14 47 28 93 47

9 10 33 25 83 50

10 4 13 16 53 40

11 7 23 19 63 40

12 11 37 28 93 57

13 9 30 23 77 47

14 9 30 26 87 57

15 11 37 28 93 57

learning score (%) for experimental group is higher compare to control group

students learning are enhancing using developed interactive multimedia courseware within collaborative learning

environment



PEER EVALUATION

NOTHINK

SESSION

PAIR

SESSION

SHARE

SESSION

WORK

COMPLETIO

N

INTERESTE

D LEVELMEAN

LEARNING

SCORE GAIN

(%)

1 2 3 3 4 3 3 47

2 3 4 4 4 4 4 53

3 3 4 4 4 4 4 53

4 2 2 2 2 2 2 37

5 2 3 3 3 2 3 43

6 2 3 3 4 3 3 47

7 4 4 4 4 4 4 57

8 2 3 3 4 3 3 47

9 3 3 3 4 4 3 50

10 2 3 3 3 3 3 40

11 2 3 3 3 3 3 40

12 3 4 4 4 4 4 57

13 2 3 3 4 3 3 47

14 4 4 4 4 4 4 57

15 4 4 4 4 4 4 57

those students who are strongly implemented Think Pair Share technique increase their learning score gain higher

than those students are not

IN-CLASS EVALUATION

NO INFORMATION CONFIDENCE TEAMWORK AVERAGE

LEARNING

SCORE GAIN

(%)

1 7 7 6 7 47

2 8 8 8 8 53

3 8 8 8 8 53

4 5 5 5 5 37

5 6 7 7 7 43

6 7 7 7 7 47

7 9 8 7 8 57

8 8 6 7 7 47

9 7 7 7 7 50

10 5 5 5 5 40

11 5 5 5 5 40

12 9 8 7 8 57

13 7 7 6 7 47

14 8 8 7 8 57

15 8 8 7 8 57



•the mean ranged from 4.33 to

4.53

•overall means for courseware

content is 4.43

•most of the students agreed that

the courseware content is

suitable, structured are clear and

did not confuse students.

Courseware Content N SUM MEAN SD

1 Objectives are clearly stated 30 136 4.53 0.47

2 The content is structured in a clear and understandable

manner. 30 134 4.47 0.53

3 Main menu clearly identifies the course layout. 30 130 4.33 0.67

4 Presentation did not confuse students. 30 132 4.40 0.60

Courseware Navigation N SUM MEAN SD

5 The using button make me easy to control the

courseware 30 134 4.47 0.53

6 The instruction given in the courseware is clear and easy

to understand 30 134 4.47 0.53

7 The structure allows learners to move around freely in

different units. 30 134 4.47 0.53

8 High degree of user control. 30 124 4.13 0.87

•the mean ranged from 4.13 to

4.47

•overall means for courseware

content is 4.38

•most of the students agreed that

the courseware navigation is easy

to control; the instruction is clear

and easy to move around.



mean ranged from 4.13 to 4.53.

overall means for courseware

content is 4.37

most of the students agreed that

the courseware interactivity is

good.

Courseware Interactivity N SUM MEAN SD

9 The interactivity of this multimedia courseware is according

to the maturity of the students. 30 136 4.53 0.47

10 This multimedia courseware provides opportunities for

interaction with standardized icons. 30 134 4.47 0.53

11 This multimedia courseware allows learners to discover

information through active exploration. 30 130 4.33 0.67

12 High degree of interactivity. 30 124 4.13 0.87

Courseware Screen Design N SUM MEAN SD

13 Screens designed in a clear and understandable manner. 30 132 4.40 0.60

14 The use of text follows the principles of readability. 30 134 4.47 0.53

15 The colour of the text follows the principles of readability. 30 132 4.40 0.60

16 The quality of the text, images, graphics and video is

good. 30 134 4.47 0.53

17 Presented pictures are relevant to the information

included in the text. 30 134 4.47 0.53

18 The video enhances the presentation of information. 30 120 4.00 1.00

19 The sound is of good quality and enhances the

presentation of information. 30 120 4.00 1.00

20 Screen design and layout affects my ability to use the

courseware 30 132 4.40 0.60

the mean ranged from 4.00 to 4.47

overall means for courseware content is 4.33.

most of the students agreed that the courseware

screen design is follow the standard screen

design and enhanced learning.



mean ranged from 4.20 to 4.40overall means for courseware content is 4.33

most of the students agreed that the courseware is easy to use.

Ease of use N SUM MEAN SD

21 Easy for target audience to operate independently 30 132 4.40 0.60

22 User can navigate the program without difficulty 30 132 4.40 0.60

23 Menus and other features make the program user friendly 30 132 4.40 0.60

24 Directions are clear and easy to follow. 30 126 4.20 0.80

25 Functions of buttons are easily identified 30 126 4.20 0.80

26 Location of where you are in the course is easily identified

(notes/tutorial/quiz/activity). 30 132 4.40 0.60



Collaborative and Think-pair-share technique N SUM MEAN SD

27 I learn best interacting with others 30 136 4.53 0.47

28 I enjoy informal chat and serious discussion 30 138 4.60 0.40

29 I value relationships more than ideas or accomplishments 30 130 4.33 0.67

30 Study groups are very productive for me 30 130 4.33 0.67

31 I am a “team player” 30 136 4.53 0.47

32When I have problems, I prefer to seek help from other people

rather than work it out alone

30 134 4.47 0.53

33I like the challenge of teaching other people what I know how to

do30 130 4.33 0.67

34 In team, I co-operate and build ideas of others 30 132 4.40 0.60

35 Courseware promotes collaborative learning 30 134 4.47 0.53

36“Think” session give me time to get the idea before discuss with

my partner 30 132 4.40 0.60

37“Pair” session give me a confident when reporting to the whole

class30 136 4.53 0.47

38 “Share” session give student take ownership of their learning thanrely on teacher’s authority

30 138 4.60 0.40

39The think , pair , share strategy increase personal

communications30 138 4.60 0.40

40 The think pair share technique encourage active learning 30 130 4.33 0.67

41The think pair share technique encourage student to work

together 30 136 4.53 0.47

42Courseware contains assignments that can be executed by a

group of learners30 134 4.47 0.53

43Courseware contains activities encourages discussion and

collaboration among learners

30 130 4.33 0.67

44Courseware is easy to learn; the user can quickly get some

work done with it30 134 4.47 0.53

45 Collaborating with other learners enhances learning 30 132 4.40 0.60

46 Does the think pair share technique encourage active learning 30 136 4.53 0.47

47The think pair share technique encourage student to work

together 30 132 4.40 0.60

48

Learning system networking courseware with think pair share

technique provides interesting learning environment compare

to using textbooks.

30 136 4.53 0.47

mean ranged from 4.33 to 4.53

overall means for think pair share technique is 4.46

most of the students agreed that the applied technique (think

pair share) is enhancing student learning.



• The analysis was carried out that the learning score (%) forexperimental group is higher compare to control group.

• It means that students learning are enhancing usingdeveloped interactive multimedia courseware withincollaborative learning environment.

• Those students who are strongly implemented Think PairShare technique increase their learning score gain higherthan those students are not.

• The mean scores for the six elements are high.

• The learner who used the courseware in learning process,strongly believe in the effectiveness of the coursewarethrough think pair share technique in improving theirachievement.



• This study was written with the intention to fulfil the three objectives which can be obtained from Section 1.2 in Chapter 1. Below are the outcomesof the achievement for each objective:

•

• Objective 1: To develop a System Networking Interactive Multimedia Courseware for collaborative learning environment.

• This objective 1 has been achieved in which a interactive multimedia courseware for Collaborative Environment for Teaching and Learning SystemNetworking has been developed by using ADDIE methodology.

•

• Objective 2: To help enhance student learning using developed Interactive Multimedia Courseware within collaborative learning environment

• This objective 2 has been achieved as discuss in section 4.1. A pre test was given before both groups learn the topic and the post test was given afterall student finish their learning. From the analysis, students learning are enhancing using developed courseware within collaborative learningenvironment. The T test shows that, those students in experimental group show higher mean score. An as discuss in section 4.2, those students who

are strongly implemented Think Pair Share technique increase their learning score gain higher than those students are not.•

• Objective 3: To improve learning effectiveness using developed Interactive Multimedia Courseware within collaborative learning environment

• After all experimental student finis using the courseware and take the post test, a questionnaire was distributed to experimental group to evaluatethe courseware effectiveness. As discussed in Section 4.3, the questions were focused on courseware content, navigation, interactivity, screendesign, ease of use and think pair share technique. The analysis show that the students agree:

– the courseware content is suitable, structured are clear and did not confuse students

– the courseware navigation is easy to control; the instruction is clear and easy to move around

– courseware interactivity is good

– courseware screen design is follow the standard screen design and enhanced learning

– courseware is easy to use

– applied technique (think pair share) is enhancing student learning

•

• The achievement of students using interactive multimedia courseware within collaborative group is better than students in control group. This resultsupport that student learning is enhance when they have many opportunities to elaborate on idea through talk (Pressley 1992). This research foundthat the interactive multimedia courseware within collaborative learning environment helps student to improve their learning effectiveness.



• Further work includes the improvement of thecourseware for better scope and performance.Future research possibilities include using thecourseware for a system networking class to

emphasize that collaborative activities do notonly support the subject, but any other subjectsas well. Also make it work to online.

•

• So far the courseware just covered topic C insystem networking module. That why, we have todevelop full content courseware.

research 2012 recovered]

Documents