THE EFFECT OF THE COLLABORATIVE TECHNOLOGY-ENHANCED ACTIVITIES ON STUDENTS’ MOTIVATION
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.20319/pijss.2020.61.209221Keywords:
Activities, Collaboration, Communication, Motivation, Technology-enhancedAbstract
The collaborative technology-enhanced activities developed for Algorithm Calculation course in Medical engineering subject-discipline and Computer Workshop courses in two Computer and IT engineering subject-disciplines in two consecutive semesters. Mixed-method research design was used in this study .Content of each course was used in order to develop the activities. Motivational Strategies for Leaning Questionnaire (MSLQ) was utilized for collecting quantitative data while qualitative data was collected using interview protocol for further investigation. The analyses showed that the “intrinsic value” was the category with the higher mean score for all students with three different subject-disciplines which is followed by cognitive strategy use. Moreover, the results showed that the students’ level of anxiety decreased after using the activities. Analysis of interview data showed that the students emphasized on the role of activities in terms of increasing their “collaboration” with their peers and instructor. Moreover, they perceived that the activities make the course more interesting for them. They also explained that using computerized devices especially mobile ones facilitated their communication and material-sharing.References
Algwil, K., (2019). The application of the communicative language teaching method in the Libyan Class at a UK university: lesson plan, rationale and evaluation. PUPIL: International Journal of Teaching, Education and Learning, 3(1), 245 – 257. https://doi.org/10.20319/pijtel.2019.31.245257
Alioon, Y., & Delialioglu, O. (2017). The effect of the authentic m-learning activities on student engagement and motivation. British Journal of Educational Technology. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12559
Alvarez, C., Brown, C., & Nussbaum, M. (2011). Comparative study of netbooks and tablet PCs for fostering face-to-face collaborative learning. Computer in Human Behavior, 27(2), 834-844. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.11.008
Amini-Philips , C. (2019). Classroom management strategies for effective teaching and learning in universities in Rivers State, Nigeria. PEOPLE: International Journal of Social Sciences, 5(3), 491 – 513. https://doi.org/10.20319/pijss.2019.53.491513
Association for Educational Communications and Technology. (2001). The Definition of Educational Technology. Retrieved August 20, 2016 from http://ocw.metu.edu.tr/file.php/118/molenda_definition.pdf
Ciampa, K. (2013). Learning in a mobile age: an investigation of student motivation. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 30 (1), 82-96. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12036
Devilliers, J.G. (2011). Asynchronous web-based technologies to support learning. Unpublished thesis. University of Pretoria, South Africa.
Duffy, T.M & Jonassen, D.H. (1999). Constructivism: New applications for instructional technology? Educational Technology, 31 (5), 7-12.
Fox, E. (2005). Tracking U.S. trends: There is now almost no difference in the availability of Internet access between poor schools and wealthy ones. Education Week, 24(35), 40–42.
Gil, D., & Pettersson, O. (2010). Providing flexibility in learning activities system by exploiting the multiple roles of mobile devices. The 6th IEEE international conference on wireless and ubiquitous technologies in education. https://doi.org/10.1109/WMUTE.2010.49
Herrington, J., Parker, J., (2013). Emerging technologies as cognitive tools for authentic learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44 (4), 607-615. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12048
Hsu, Y. C & Ching, Y.H. (2013). Mobile computer-supported collaborative learning. British Journal of Educational Technology.44 (5), E111-E114. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12002
Huang, Wen-Hao., Huang, Wen-Yeh., Tschopp. J. (2010). Sustaining iterative game playing processes in DGBL: The relationship between motivational processing and outcome processing. Computer& Education, 55 (2), 789-797. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.03.011
Jonassen, D. (1999). Designing Constructivist Learning Environment. In In Reigeluth, C. M & Carr-Chellman, A. A (Eds.), Instructional-Design Theories and Models, Building a common knowledge base, (215-239). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Jones, C., A., Scanlon, E., & Clough, G. (2013). Mobile learning: Two case studies of supporting inquiry learning in informal and semiformal settings. Computer & Education, 61, 21–32.
Keller, J.M. (2008). First principles of motivation to learn and e3learning. Distance education, 29 (2), 175-185. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587910802154970
Keller. J., Suzuki, K. (1988). Use of the ARCS motivation model in courseware design. Hillsdale, NJ: Earlbaum.
Koschmann,T.(1996). Paradigm shifts and instructional technology: An introduction. In. D.Koschmann (Ed.), CSCL: Theory and practice of an emerging paradigm (pp.1-23). Mahwah, N.J.: Erlbaum Associates.
Kramarski, B., & Feldman, Y. (2000). Internet in the classroom: Effects on reading comprehension, motivation and metacognitive awareness. Education Media International, 37 (3), 149-155. https://doi.org/10.1080/09523980050184709
Laurillard, D. (2009). The pedagogical challenges to collaborative technologies. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 4(1), 5–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-008-9056-2
Liu, T., & Chu, Y. (2010). Using ubiquitous games in an English listening and speaking course: Impact on learning outcomes and motivation. Computer & Education, 55(2), 630-643. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.02.023
Lu, J., P.Lajoie, S., Wiseman, J. (2010). Scaffolding problem-based learning with CSCL tool. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 5, 282-298. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-010-9092-6
Nelson, L.M. (1999).Collaborative Problem Solving. In Reigeluth, C. M & Carr-Chellman, A. A (Eds.), Instructional-Design Theories and Models, Building a common knowledge base, (241-267). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Norman, D.A. (1993). Things that make us smart: Defining human attributes in the age of the machine. Addison-Welsey, New York, US.
Pew, S. (2007). Andragogy and pedagogy as foundational theory for student motivation in higher education. Student Motivation, 2(1), 14-25.
Pintrich, P. R. & De Groot, E.V. (1990). Motivational and Self-Regulated Learning Components of Classroom Academic Performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82 (1), 33-40. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.82.1.33
Reigeluth, C. M. (2009). Instructional Theory for Education in the Information Age. In: Reigeluth, C. M & Carr-Chellman, A. A (Eds.), Instructional-Design Theories and Models, Building a common knowledge base, (387-399). New York: Taylor &Francis. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203872130
Stahl, G., Koschmann, T. & Suthers, D. (2006). Computer-supported collaborative learning: an historical perspective. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 409–426). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-006-9004-y
Sung, H., & Hwang, G. (2013). A collaborative game-based learning approach to improving students‟ learning performance in science courses. Computer &Education, 63(2015), 43-51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.11.019
Wang, H.C, P.Rose.C, & Chang, C.Y (2011). Agent-based dynamic support for learning from collaborative brainstorming in scientific inquiry. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 6(3), 371-395. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-011-9124-x
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2021 Yasaman Alioon
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
