ASSISTIVE E-MATH TOOLS: BOON OR BANE?
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.61841/sjq8bj21Keywords:
Assistive E-math Tools, Level of Performance, Learning OutcomesAbstract
This study reinforced the use of handheld gadgets and applications designed to increase level of proficiency by making them more educational, that is, students and teachers integrate assistive electronic or e- math tools in deepening and elaborating discussions in Basic Calculus. Some of these tools composed of Geogebra, Mathway, and Photomath which made the instructions more interactive and comprehensive. Furthermore, it sought to find answers to the following (a). students’ level of proficiency in the first grading period before using the assistive e-math tools, (b) the students’ level of proficiency in the second grading period after using the assistive e- math tools, (c) significant difference between the students’ level of proficiency before and after using the assistive e-math tools and (d) effect size of the difference of using the assistive e-math tools to the students’ level of proficiency.Quantitative research design was employed particularly one-group pretest-posttest design wherein a pretest observation of the dependent variables is made before implementation of the treatment to the selected group, the treatment is administered, & finally a posttest observation of dependent variables is carried out to assess the effect of treatment on the group. One-hundred Nineteen (119) Grade 11 students for school year 2018-2019 formed the respondents of the study. Frequency, Percentage, and mean for descriptive analysis while ANOVA for single group likewise eta squared and Cohen’s Guidelines were used for the interpretation of inferential question. Findings revealed that integrating the assistive e-math tools in the instructional delivery or in the teaching and learning process produced a moderate effect or difference. Students who were exposed to this intervention improved its academic performance or level of proficiency; thus, assistive e-math tools are considered Boon not Bane. This study finally concludes that teachers must positively use the available tools or technologies that students have in order to optimize learning outcomes.
Downloads
References
1. Dick, T. P., & Hollebrands, K. F. (2011). Focus in high school mathematics: Technology to support reasoning and sense making. Reston, VA: NCTM.
2. Gadanidis, G., & Geiger, V. (2010). A social perspective on technology enhanced mathematical learning—from collaboration to performance. ZDM, 42(1), 91–104.
3. International Society for Technology in Education. (2008). National educational technology standards for teachers. Retrieved from http://www.iste.org/standards/nets-for-teachers.aspx
4. Kastberg, S., & Leatham, K. (2005). Research on graphing calculators at the secondary level: Implications for mathematics teacher education. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 5(1), 25– 37.
5. King-Sears, M. (2009). Universal design for learning: Technology and pedagogy. Learning Disability Quarterly, 32(4), 199–201.
6. Nelson, J., Christopher, A., & Mims, C. (2009). TPACK and web 2.0: Transformation of teaching and learning. Tech Trends, 53(5), 80–85.
7. Pierce, R., & Stacey, K. (2010). Mapping pedagogical opportunities provided by mathematics analysis software. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning. 15(1), 1–20.
8. Project Tomorrow (2011). The new 3 E's of education: Enabled, engaged, empowered. How today's students are leveraging emerging technologies for learning. Retrieved from http://www.tomorrow.org/speakup/pdfs/SU10_3EofEducation(Students).pdf
9. Roschelle, J., Rafanan, K., Bhanot, R., Estrella, G., Penuel, W. R., Nussbaum, M., Claro, S. (2009). Scaffolding group explanation and feedback with handheld technology: Impact on students' mathematics learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58, 399–419.
10. Roschelle, J., Shechtman, N., Tatar, D., Hegedus, S., Hopkins, B., Empson, S., Knudsen, J., & Gallagher,
L. (2010). Integration of technology, curriculum, and professional development for advancing middle school mathematics: Three large-scale studies. American Educational Research Journal, 47(4), 833–878.
11. Suh J., & Moyer, P. S. (2007). Developing students' representational fluency using virtual and physical algebra balances. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 26(2), 155–173.
12. Suh, J. M. (2010). Tech-knowledgy for diverse learners [Technology Focus Issue]. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 15(8), 440–447
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
You are free to:
- Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format for any purpose, even commercially.
- Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
- The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.
Under the following terms:
- Attribution — You must give appropriate credit , provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made . You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
- No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
Notices:
You do not have to comply with the license for elements of the material in the public domain or where your use is permitted by an applicable exception or limitation .
No warranties are given. The license may not give you all of the permissions necessary for your intended use. For example, other rights such as publicity, privacy, or moral rights may limit how you use the material.
