Effects of Computer-Assisted Instruction (CAI) in Mathematical Induction on Achievement Mathematics
III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
In this research, it is shown that the effects of using the computer-assisted instruction in learning proof by mathematical induction. The following results were presented in the study:
In the test hypotheses Ho(i), there were two types of data collected: pretest and posttest exam. Each type was collected on 30 students. We compared the learning mathematical induction achievement (knowledge, comprehension, and application levels) between before and after learning by the computer assisted instruction of the simple group students. From Table 1, we see that the total achievement posttest average score of students is 25.41 that is much higher than the total achievement pretest average as 13.82 score. It was found that the total mathematical achievement after learning is higher than before learning at 0.05 in a statistical significance. Moreover, the knowledge, comprehension, and application achievements of student posttest average scores were statistically significant higher than the pretest average scores at 0.05 levels.
Table 1: Student’s Learning Achievement Comparison Result between before and after Learning
Achievement Mathematic
Total Score
N Pretest Posttest t
P-value ̅ S.D. ̅ S.D.
Knowledge 9 30 1.57 3.22 8.20 2.03 20.51 0.00*
Comprehension 9 30 1.93 5.58 8.53 1.77 14.46 0.00*
Application 12 30 1.37 8.03 11.17 5.39 14.74 0.00*
Total 30 30 4.87 41.71 27.90 22.30 17.45 0.00*
*A statistical significant value .05
Table 2: Results t-test on Comparison of Student’s Learning Achievement scores by Gender
Achievement Gender N Mean S.D. t P-value
Total Male 15 29.13 0.98 1.46 0.17*
Female 15 26.67 41.95
Knowledge Male 15 8.53 7.87 1.30 0.21*
Female 15 0.41 3.55
Comprehension Male 15 8.87 0.12 1.39 0.18*
Female 15 8.20 3.31
Application Male 15 11.73 0.50 1.36 0.19*
Female 15 10.60 9.97
*No significant at .05
According to Table 2, in the test hypotheses Ho(ii), when the posttest total achievement means of male and female are compared, there is no significant difference between the achievement of male and female students in mathematical induction after use of computer assisted instruction. Furthermore, we compared the posttest achievements average scores at knowledge, comprehension, and application between males and females of the simple group students. It was found that there is no significant difference between the achievement of male and female students at knowledge, comprehension, and application.
The following are the summary of the research results:
(i) Students’ achievement after learning were higher than before learning at 0.05 in a statistical significance.
(ii) There is no significant difference between the achievement of male and female students in mathematical induction after use of computer assisted instruction.
CONCLUSION
In this study we have investigated the effects of computer-assisted instruction in mathematical induction on achievements mathematics of undergraduate students. The students’ achievements after learning were higher than before learning at 0.05 in a statistical significance. Also, no significant difference existed in the mathematics achievement of male and female students exposed to computer-assisted instruction in mathematical induction.
In the future we may develop a computer assisted instruction in proof by mathematical induction of undergraduate students, which will have given a better performance than the
computer assisted instruction proposed here. Moreover, we might lead to search on methods to design the computer assisted instruction in other method proofs.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors express their sincere appreciation to the Institute of Research and Development, Valaya Alongkorn Rajabhat University under Royal Patronage for financial support of the study.
REFERENCES
Akinsola, M. K., & Animasahun, I. A. (2007). The effect of simulation-games environment on students achievement in and attitudes to mathematics in secondary schools. The Turkish Online Educational Technology, 6(3), Article 11.
Retrieved from http://www.tojet.net/articles/6311.htm.
Ash, J. (2005). The effects of computer-assisted instruction on middle school mathematics achievement Ed.D. dissertation. Tennessee, United States: Tennessee State University.
Retrieved December 4, 2007, from proquest digital dissertations database (Publication no. AAT 3187584).
As¸ kar, P. (1986). The development of the attitude towards mathematics lesson Likert-type scale. Education and Science, 62, 31–36.
Avital, S. & Libeskind, S. (1978). Mathematical induction in the classroom: Didactical and mathematical issues. Educational Studies in Mathematics 9, 429-438.
Baki, A., & Güveli, E. (2008). Evaluation of a web based mathematics teaching material on the subject of functions. Computers & Education, 51(2), 854–863.
Bas¸ türk, R. (2005). The effectiveness of computer-assisted instruction in teaching introductory statistics. Educational Technology and Society, 8(2), 170–178.
Burns, P.K. and Boseman, W.C. (1981). Computer assisted instruction and mathematics achievement: Is there a relationship. Educational Technology, 2(1), 32-39.
Cankoy, O., & Tut, M. A. (2002). Challenging and easy mathematical tasks for fourth graders in Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. In Paper Presented at the first international educational conference, Famagusta, May 8–10, North Cyprus.
Cengage Learning (2006). Computer-Assisted Instruction (CAI). Retrieved from
https://www.questia.com/library/science-and-technology/computers-and-the-internet/
computer-assisted-instruction
Chundang, U., & Setteechaichana, P. (2009). Causal affecting towards the achievement of learning principle of mathematics for the students in Mathematics Department.
Proceeding of the 47th Kasetsart University Annual Conference: Education (Vol.10., pp. 9-16). March 17-20, Bangkok, Thailand.
Chundang, U. & Setteechaichana, P. (2012). Case Study: Using VDO or CAI in Studying Methods of Proof, US-China Education Review A 1, p48-56, 2012. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED530684
Cotton,K.(2001).Computer-assisted instruction. Retrieved from http://www.nwrel.org/scpd/sirs/.5/cu10.html.
David B. (2015). Why are indruction proofs so challenging for students?, 27 NOV 2015.
Retrieved from http://matheducators.stackexchange.com/questions/10021/why-are-induction-proofs-so-challenging-for-students
Edwards, M. T., & Quesada, A. (2007). Dueling (Dualing) solids: enhancing student and teacher geometrical understanding with CABRI 3D. In Proceedings of the nineteenth annual International Conference on Technology in Collegiate Mathematics (ICTCM), February 15-18, 2007. Boston, MA.
Emin A.(2005). The Use of Computers in Mathematics Education: A Paradigm Shift From Computer Assisted Instruction Towards student programming: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology – TOJET April 2005 ISSN: 1303-6521 volume 4 Issue 2 Article 427
Franklin, J.; A. Daoud (2011). Proof in Mathematics: An Introduction. Sydney: Kew Books. ISBN 0-646-54509-4. (Ch. 8.)
Funkhouser, C. (2003). The effects of computer-augmented geometry instructional on student performance and attitudes. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 35(2), 1–
11.
Furner, J. M., & Marinas, C. A. (2007). Geometry sketching software for elementary children: easy as 1, 2, 3. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 3(1), 83–91.
Gila R. & Tommy D. The Use of Models in Teaching Proof by Mathematical Induction. Tel Aviv University, Israel.
Glonggrathoke A. (2011). CAI Development in Mathematics about Basic of Analytic Geometry and Conic Section by Using Geometer’s Sketchpad (GSP) for Fourth Level of Secondary Students. 16th Mathematics Conference.
Gürbüz, R., & Birgin, O. (2012). The effect of computer assisted teaching on remedying misconceptions: the case of the subject “probability”. Computers & Education, 58, 831–841.
Hazewinkel, Michiel, ed. (2001), "Mathematical induction", Encyclopedia of Mathematics, Springer, ISBN 978-1-55608-010-4
Hermes, Hans (1973). Introduction to Mathematical Logic. Hochschultext. London: Springer.
ISBN 3540058192. ISSN 1431-4657.
Hunter, A.E.(2012). The effects of computer assisted instruction and structured curriculum on struggling mathematics students. Ph.D. thesis, University of Louisville, USA.
Knuth, Donald E. (1997). The Art of Computer Programming, Volume 1: Fundamental Algorithms (3rd ed.). Addison-Wesley. ISBN 0-201-89683-4. (Section 1.2.1:
Mathematical Induction, pp. 11–21.)
Kolmogorov, Andrey N.; Sergei V. Fomin (1975). Introductory Real Analysis. Silverman, R.
A. (trans., ed.). New York: Dover. ISBN 0-486-61226-0. (Section 3.8: Transfinite induction, pp. 28–29.)
Kulik, J.A.; Bangert, R.L. and Williams, G.W. (1983). The effects of computer assisted instruction on student achievement: a meat analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75(1), 19-26.
Lane A. (2007). Reasons Why Students Have Difficulties with Mathematical Induction.
Online Submission, 2007 – ERIC.
Movshovitz-Hadar, N. (1993a). The false coin problem, mathematical induction and knowledge fragility. Journal of Mathematical Behavior 12, 253-268.
Movshovitz-Hadar, N. (1993b). Mathematical induction: A focus on conceptual framework.
School Science and Mathematics 8, 408-417.
Patrick S. (1979). Current Trends in Computer-Assisted Instruction Original Research Article: Advances in Computers, Volume 18, 1979, Pages 173-229.
Sawananount, T. (1993). Computer for education. Bangkok: Kurusapa Printing.
Spradlin, K. D.&Ackerman, B. (2010). The Effectiveness of Computer- Assisted Instruction in Developmental Mathematics, Faculty Publications and Presentations. Paper 195.
Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/educ_fac_pubs/195
Tienken, Christopher H. & Wilson, Michael J.(2007). The Impact Of Computer Assisted Instruction On Seventh-Grade Students' Mathematics Achievement. Planning And Changing, V38 N3-4 P181-190 2007.