Research Article

Can Electronic Board Increase the Motivation of Students to Study Mathematics?

Yuval Ben Abu 1 * , Renana Kribushi 2
More Detail
1 Department of Physics and Project Unit, Sapir Academic College, ISRAEL2 Department of Science Education & Technology, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, ISRAEL* Corresponding Author
Contemporary Educational Technology, 14(3), July 2022, ep364, https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/11807
Published: 26 February 2022
OPEN ACCESS   2257 Views   1503 Downloads
Download Full Text (PDF)

ABSTRACT

During the junior high and high school years, there is a dramatic decrease in motivation for math studies, which has been found to play a major role in learning processes. Many attempts have been made to mitigate this decrease in motivation and to encourage mathematics studies in higher grades. One way that researchers have proposed to stimulate students’ curiosity and their perceived ability in math is to integrate technology into teaching. Such technology includes technological tools, digital educational activities, learning support software. Using tablet in class has significant potential to improve learning but the issue of how to effectively integrate digital technology into teaching and learning practices becomes critical. According to that knowledge we examined the impact of the use of a digital writing board (similar to tablet) by the lecturer during frontal lectures in mathematics on students’ learning motivation in an engineering academic preparatory program, following motivational constructs: self-efficacy, implicit theory of ability, value beliefs, and learning climate. The results showed that the technological tool positively affected two important motivational constructs that influence general motivation for mathematics studies.
Keywords: motivation, teaching using technological tools, digital writing board, teaching mathematics, pre-academic preparatory program

CITATION (APA)

Ben Abu, Y., & Kribushi, R. (2022). Can Electronic Board Increase the Motivation of Students to Study Mathematics?. Contemporary Educational Technology, 14(3), ep364. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/11807

REFERENCES

  1. Adelman, C. (2006). The toolbox revisited: Paths to degree completion from high school through college. US Department of Education. https://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/research/pubs/toolboxrevisit/toolbox.pdf
  2. Ames, C., & Archer, J. (1988). Achievement goals in the classroom: Students’ learning strategies and motivation processes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(3), 260. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.80.3.260
  3. Bakar, K. A., Ayub, A. F. M., Luan, W. S., & Tarmizi, R. A. (2010). Exploring secondary school students’ motivation using technologies in teaching and learning mathematics. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 4650-4654. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.744
  4. Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy. In V. S. Ramachaudran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human behaviour (pp. 71-81). Academic Press.
  5. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W H Freeman/Times Books/ Henry Holt & Co.
  6. Bandura, A., & National Inst of Mental Health. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice-Hall, Inc.
  7. Bates, A. T. (2018). Teaching in a digital age: Guidelines for designing teaching and learning. Tony Bates Associates Ltd.
  8. Billman, A., Harding, A., & Engelbrecht, J. (2018). Does the chalkboard still hold its own against modern technology in teaching mathematics? A case study. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 49(6), 809-823.‏ https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2018.1431852
  9. Blackwell, L. S., Trzesniewski, K. H., & Dweck, C. S. (2007). Implicit theories of intelligence predict achievement across an adolescent transition: A longitudinal study and an intervention. Child Development, 78(1), 246-263. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.00995.x
  10. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). How people learn. National Academy Press.‏
  11. Brooks, M. G., & Brooks, J. G. (1999, November 1). The courage to be constructivist. https://www.ascd.org/el/articles/the-courage-to-be-constructivist
  12. Carr, J. M. (2012). Does math achievement “h’APP’en” when iPads and game-based learning are incorporated into fifth-grade mathematics instruction? Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 11, 269-286.‏ https://doi.org/10.28945/1725
  13. Chao, T., Chen, J., Star, J. R., & Dede, C. (2016). Using digital resources for motivation and engagement in learning mathematics: Reflections from teachers and students. Digital Experiences in Mathematics Education, 2(3), 253-277. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40751-016-0024-6
  14. Ciccone, P. A., & Freibeg, J. A. (2013). School climate and the national school climate standards. National School Climate Center. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED573677.pdf
  15. Cilliers, E. J. (2017). The challenge of teaching generation Z. PEOPLE: International Journal of Social Sciences, 3(1), 188-198. https://doi.org/10.20319/pijss.2017.31.188198
  16. Creemers, B. P. (2005). Combining different ways of learning and teaching in a dynamic model of educational effectiveness. Lecture for the Lee Hysan Lecture Series, Hong Kong, 30. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.555.8031&rep=rep1&type=pdf
  17. Dweck, C. S. (2008). Brainology: Transforming students’ motivation to learn. Independent School, 67(2), 110-119.
  18. Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95(2), 256.‏ https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.95.2.256
  19. Eccles, J. (1983). Expectancies, values and academic behaviors. In J. T. Spence (Ed.), Achievement and achievement motives: Psychological and sociological approaches (pp. 75-146). Free Man.
  20. Elliot, A. J., & McGregor, H. A. (2001). A 2×2 achievement goal framework. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(3), 501-519. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.80.3.501
  21. Fogarty, G., Cretchley, P., Harman, C., Ellerton, N., & Konki, N. (2001). Validation of a questionnaire to measure mathematics confidence, computer confidence, and attitudes towards the use of technology for learning mathematics. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 13(2), 154-160. https://doi.org/10.1037/t06811-000
  22. Francis, J. (2017). The effects of technology on student motivation and engagement in classroom-based learning.‏ All Theses and Dissertations, 121. https://dune.une.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1120&context=theses
  23. Fraser, B. J., & Tobin, K. (1991). Combining qualitative and quantitative methods in classroom environment research. In B. J. Fraser, & H. J. Walberg (Eds.), Educational environments: Evaluation, antecedents and consequences (pp. 271-292). Pergamon.
  24. Galligan, L., Loch, B., McDonald, C., & Taylor, J. A. (2010). The use of tablet and related technologies in mathematics teaching. Australian Senior Mathematics Journal, 24(1), 38-51.‏
  25. Gee, J. P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. Computers in Entertainment, 1(1), 20-20. https://doi.org/10.1145/950566.950595
  26. Gero, A., & Abraham, G. (2016). Motivational factors for studying science and engineering in beginning students: The case of academic preparatory programmes. Global Journal of Engineering Education, 18(2), 72-76.
  27. Gherasim, L. R., Butnaru, S., & Iacob, L. (2011). The motivation, learning environment and school achievement. The International Journal of Learning Annual Review, 17(12). 353-364.
  28. Harpaz, Y. (2005). Teaching and learning in a community of thinking. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 20(2), 136-157.
  29. Kaplan, A., & Maehr, M. L. (2002). Adolescents’ achievement goals: Situating motivation in sociocultural contexts. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED471685
  30. Karweit, N. (1987). Diversity, equity, and classroom processes. In L. V. Hedges, & B. Schneider (Eds.), The social organization of schools (pp. 71-102). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-0468-3_4
  31. Lazowski, R. A., & Hulleman, C. S. (2016). Motivation interventions in education: A meta-analytic review. Review of Educational Research, 86(2), 602-640. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315617832
  32. Liu, M., Horton, L., Olmanson, J., & Toprac, P. (2011). A study of learning and motivation in a new media enriched environment for middle school science. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59(2), 249-265. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-011-9192-7
  33. Lüdtke, O., Robitzsch, A., Trautwein, U., & Kunter, M. (2009). Assessing the impact of learning environments: How to use student ratings of classroom or school characteristics in multilevel modeling. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34(2), 120-131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2008.12.001
  34. Maclaren, P. (2014). The new chalkboard: The role of digital pen technologies in tertiary mathematics teaching. Teaching Mathematics and Its Applications: International Journal of the IMA, 33(1), 16-26. https://doi.org/10.1093/teamat/hru001
  35. Maclaren, P., Wilson, D. I., & Klymchuk, S. (2018). Making the point: The place of gesture and annotation in teaching STEM subjects using pen-enabled tablet PCs. Teaching Mathematics and its Applications: An International Journal of the IMA, 37(1), 17-36. https://doi.org/10.1093/teamat/hrx002
  36. Moos, D. C., & Marroquin, E. (2010). Multimedia, hypermedia, and hypertext: Motivation considered and reconsidered. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(3), 265-276. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2009.11.004
  37. Moos, R. H. (1976). The human context: Environmental determinants of behavior. Wiley.
  38. National Academy of Sciences. (2011). Expanding underrepresented minority participation: America’s science and technology talent at the crossroads. National Academies Press.
  39. Perkins, D. (1999). The many faces of constructivism. Educational Leadership, 57(3), 6-11.‏
  40. Phillips, D. C. (1995). The good, the bad, and the ugly: The many faces of constructivism. Educational Researcher, 24(7), 5-12. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X024007005
  41. Raines, J. M., & Clark, L. M. (2011). A brief overview on using technology to engage students in mathematics. Current Issues in Education, 14(2), 1-8.‏
  42. Rattan, A., Good, C., & Dweck, C. S. (2012). “It’s ok—Not everyone can be good at math”: Instructors with an entity theory comfort (and demotivate) students. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(3), 731-737.‏ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2011.12.012
  43. Reimers, F., Schleicher, A., Saavedra, J., & Tuominen, S. (2020). Supporting the continuation of teaching and learning during the COVID-19 pandemic. OECD, 1(1), 1-38.
  44. Rothman, D. (2016). A tsunami of learners called generation Z. http://www.mdle.net/Journal/A_Tsunami_of_Learners_Called_Generation_Z.pdf
  45. Schunk, D. H., Pintrich, P. R., & Meece, J. L. (2008). Motivation in education. Upper Saddle River.
  46. Serin, H. (2015). The role of technology in whole-class teaching. International Journal of Social Sciences & Educational Studies, 2(1), 25-27.
  47. Serin, H., & Oz, Y. (2017). Technology-integrated mathematics education at the secondary school level. International Journal of Social Sciences & Educational Studies, 3(4), 148. https://doi.org/10.23918/ijsses.v3i4p148
  48. Star, J. R., Chen, J. A., Taylor, M. W., Durkin, K., Dede, C., & Chao, T. (2014). Studying technology-based strategies for enhancing motivation in mathematics. International Journal of STEM Education, 1(1), 7. https://doi.org/10.1186/2196-7822-1-7
  49. Svela, A., Nouri, J., Viberg, O., & Zhang, L. (2019). A systematic review of tablet technology in mathematics education. International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies, 13(8), 139-158. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijim.v13i08.10795
  50. Timmins, S. J. (2004, October). Tablet PC: Blackboard to the web. In Proceedings of the 32nd Annual ACM SIGUCCS Conference on User Services (pp. 296-300). https://doi.org/10.1145/1027802.1027870
  51. Tingir, S., Cavlazoglu, B., Caliskan, O., Koklu, O., & Intepe‐Tingir, S. (2017). Effects of mobile devices on K-12 students’ achievement: A meta‐analysis. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 33(4), 355-369. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12184
  52. Viberg, O., Grönlund, Å., & Andersson, A. (2020). Integrating digital technology in mathematics education: A Swedish case study. Interactive Learning Environments, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2020.1770801
  53. Wallace-Spurgin, M. (2019). Measuring student cognitive engagement when using technology. I. Sahin, & V. Akerson (Eds), ISTES Organization.
  54. Weigand, H. G. (2017, July 3-6). Competencies and digital technologies-Reflections on a complex relationship. In Technology in Mathematics Teaching.