The effectiveness of the computer-aided instruction and the computer-aided-instruction plus as drill and reinforcement strategies in studying graphs of circular functions

• Main Author: Lim, Enya Cortez
• Format: text
• Language: English
• Published: Animo Repository 1992
• Subjects: Trigonometrical functions—Computer-assisted instruction; Computer-assisted instruction; Science and Mathematics Education
• Online Access: https://animorepository.dlsu.edu.ph/etd_masteral/1494; https://animorepository.dlsu.edu.ph/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=8332&context=etd_masteral
• Institution: De La Salle University

The purpose of this study is to determine the effectiveness of a Computer-Aided-Instruction and Computer-Aided-Instruction Plus as drill and reinforcement strategies in studying graphs of circular functions which will be taught in Mathematics IV under the new Secondary Education Development Program (SEDP) Curriculum. Procedure. The experimental research was conducted at San Francisco High School with fourth year Trigonometry students as the subjects, under the researcher herself. The posttest-only, equivalent-groups design was employed by the researcher. The subjects were randomly assigned to the experimental and control treatments. Thirty lower average, thirty middle average and thirty upper average students were considered for the experiment and were given the Otis-Lennon Mental Ability Test. Each of the three IQ levels was equally divided into three and were randomly assigned to the CAI group, CAI-Plus group and the control or the Traditional group. The CAI-Plus group received informal instructions on the use of the software GRAPH in a microcomputer. Traditional classroom instruction was employed in the control group. The CAI group also received regular classroom instruction but instead of plotting point and sketching graphs of circular functions, these graphs were shown on a microcomputer installed in the classroom, through the CAI software GRAPH. Characteristics of the graphs generated by the computer software were studied and discussed by the students following guide questions asked by the teacher. Changes that occurred in the graphs were carefully noted and students were given enough time to discover relationships and patterns, then make and test conjectures. After these they were encouraged to generalize based on observed patterns. The CAI-plus group received the same treatment as the CAI group, except that after the class discussion, it was subdivided into smaller groups of 6 who were assigned to the five computers available at the computer room. An extra 20 minutes were given to them to do the worksheets/activity sheets provided for reinforcement purposes. Ten out of twenty teachers of the school's Mathematics Department observed classed at various times to detect biases on the part of the researcher. A teacher-made test was prepared, validated and evaluated. This served as the posttest for the two experimental groups and the control group at the conclusion of the experiment. To ensure the full cooperation of all the respondents, the posttest replaced the fourth periodical test which constituted 20 percent of their fourth quarterly grade. The software GRAPH was evaluated favorably by three of four of the National Capital Region's SEDP Mathematics IV trainors and one Mathematics Education Specialist of UP-ISMED. Randomly selected students under the CAI and CAI-PLUS groups were asked to fill up the questionnaire to determine their responses/reactions toward computer-aided instructions in Mathematics. The statistical means and standard deviations of the posttest of the three groups were compared to determine which group achieved significantly. The t-test was employed to determine the significant difference between the achievements of students belonging to the same IQ level exposed to the strategies CAI and CAI-PLUS to CAI and TRADITIONAL to CAI-PLUS and to the TRADITIONAL.