EFFECT OF USING WEB 2.0 IN TEACHING ON STUDENTS’ INTRINSIC MOTIVATION IN LEARNING MATHEMATICS

1. 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

2. About the Author • Mathematics Teacher • 4th Year in HCI • iSpark Consortium – SBGE • 2011 – Sec 3 2010 – Sec 2 • Projects Day – Category Manager • Future School • Master in Education HCI – NYGH IP Ed Seminar 2011

3. 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

4. Background of Research • Masterplan III for IT in Education 2009 • FutureSchools@HCI • Borderless & Diverse Climate • Learning Anytime, Anywhere • IT Technology • Pedagogy HCI – NYGH IP Ed Seminar 2011

5. 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

6. Background of Research • UWA Masters – Major Paper • 2010 – Sec 2 • FutureSchools@HCI • Piloting in Secondary Two • Evaluation, Reflection HCI – NYGH IP Ed Seminar 2011

7. Research Area • Assess the Learning Effectiveness • Swan (2009) • Students learn as much online as in traditional classrooms • Test scores show not significant difference from traditional teaching • Scores vs Passion • Motivation HCI – NYGH IP Ed Seminar 2011

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

12. Why Intrinsic Motivation? • Affects Learning Outcomes • More Effective in the Long Run • Real Interest • Csikszentmihalyi & Larson (1984) • students rarely say that they find studying to be intrinsically rewarding • Observation HCI – NYGH IP Ed Seminar 2011

13. 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

14. 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

15. 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

16. 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

17. 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

18. 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

19. 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

20. Methodology - Participants • Two Secondary Two Classes • From iSpark • Similar education profile & academic background • 25 students each • 50% of the consortium • 12.5% of the total cohort HCI – NYGH IP Ed Seminar 2011

21. Methodology - Design • Quantitative Approach • Comparison groups – two classes • Future class – Teaching with Web2.0 • Non-Future class – Traditional Teaching • Pre & Post Questionnaires on Levels of Intrinsic Motivation • Online Platform – Wetpaint • Duration – One Month

22. Methodology - Design • Quantitative Approach • the independent variable was the use of Web 2.0 in teaching • dependent variable was the level of intrinsic motivation

23. 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

24. Methodology - Procedures • Prior Experiment • Consent forms • Both Students & Parents Agree and Sign • Pre experiment questionnaire given to both classes HCI – NYGH IP Ed Seminar 2011

25. Methodology - Procedures • Experiment • One month teaching and learning • Traditional classroom teaching • Web2.0 enabled teaching HCI – NYGH IP Ed Seminar 2011

26. Methodology - Procedures • Post Experiment • Post experiment questionnaire given to both classes HCI – NYGH IP Ed Seminar 2011

27. Findings – Pre Experiment • Relatively close levels of intrinsic motivation • Future class – 5.14 Higher • Non Future class – 4.60 Lower HCI – NYGH IP Ed Seminar 2011

28. Findings – Pre Experiment • Higher than average levels of intrinsic motivation for both classes HCI – NYGH IP Ed Seminar 2011 HCI – NYGH IP Ed Seminar 2011

29. Findings – Pre Experiment • “found Mathematics very interesting” • Future class – 72% • Non Future class – 60% HCI – NYGH IP Ed Seminar 2011

30. Findings – Pre Experiment • “enjoyed learning Mathematics very much” • Future class – 64% • Non Future class – 52% HCI – NYGH IP Ed Seminar 2011

31. Findings – Post Experiment • Relatively close levels of intrinsic motivation • Future class – 5.22 Higher • Non Future class – 4.57 Lower HCI – NYGH IP Ed Seminar 2011

32. Findings – Pre Experiment • Higher than average levels of intrinsic motivation for both classes HCI – NYGH IP Ed Seminar 2011

33. Findings – Post Experiment • “found Mathematics very interesting” • Future class – 80% • Non Future class – 64% HCI – NYGH IP Ed Seminar 2011

34. Findings – Post Experiment • “enjoyed learning Mathematics very much” • Future class – 80% • Non Future class – 48% HCI – NYGH IP Ed Seminar 2011

35. Findings – Future Class • a slight increase in level of intrinsic motivation HCI – NYGH IP Ed Seminar 2011

36. 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

37. Findings – Future Class HCI – NYGH IP Ed Seminar 2011

38. Findings – Non Future Class • a slight decrease in level of intrinsic motivation HCI – NYGH IP Ed Seminar 2011

39. 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

40. Findings – Non Future Class HCI – NYGH IP Ed Seminar 2011

41. 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

42. 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

43. Findings – Discussions • Web2.0 technology • To Parents • Variety – alternative way to check • Challenge • Control • On task? • Time HCI – NYGH IP Ed Seminar 2011

44. 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

45. Reflections • Pedagogy, Pedagogy, Pedagogy • Key - Engaging Students • Duration of research HCI – NYGH IP Ed Seminar 2011

46. Acknowledgement • HCI • Colleagues • Prof. Steven Houghton • My dear students HCI – NYGH IP Ed Seminar 2011

47. Q & A Thank you! HCI – NYGH IP Ed Seminar 2011