Share This Article:

Influence of E-Learning Environment Program on Pupils’ Instructional Approaches in Physics Measurement Lessons in Kenyan Secondary Schools

Abstract Full-Text HTML Download Download as PDF (Size:130KB) PP. 244-251
DOI: 10.4236/ce.2011.23033    5,887 Downloads   10,160 Views   Citations
Author(s)    Leave a comment

ABSTRACT

This article explores the pupils’ approaches and development of measurement concepts in an innovation that involved an e-learning environment in school physics conducted in a developing country, namely Kenya. A total of 118 randomly pupils enrolled in schools that could be visited conveniently in Nakuru district, Kenya were exposed to an e-learning environment program (ELEP) in physics for a period of six weeks. The ELEP physics module was developed from a physics course dealing with the concept of measurement. It was chosen because the majority of teachers viewed it as a topic that is difficult to teach through the regular method. The content was based on the Kenya Institute of Education (KIE) approved syllabus for science education, science textbooks and other relevant materials. Part of the investigation was to gain insight on the pupils’ approaches and reactions to having to learn measurement concepts through ELEP. In order to achieve this, they were interviewed and other information captured during the physics course to understand what really transpired when they were learning measurement concepts using the ELEP lessonware. The participants’ classroom behaviors were captured using the Physics Practical Lessons Analysis System (PPLAS) and Classroom Practical Work Assessment (CPWA). A selected group of pupils’ were also interviewed to gain insight into their own expressions using the Pupils’ Interview Guide (PIG). The results showed effective approaches and reactions that the pupils exposed to the computer-augmented lessons used to learn physics that differed remarkably from those denied this program. For, the pupils in the experimental condition depended more on their peers and the program while their counterparts in the traditional class were solely dependent on the teacher. The study concludes that the use of ELEP to support conventional physics instruction can have substantial advantages over other instructional methods. Moreover, it proved that the use of ELEP enabled the learners not only to actively participate in the learning process and to engage fully in the instructional process but to under build a deeper understanding of measurement and procedural skills.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Cite this paper

Kiboss, J. (2011) Influence of E-Learning Environment Program on Pupils’ Instructional Approaches in Physics Measurement Lessons in Kenyan Secondary Schools. Creative Education, 2, 244-251. doi: 10.4236/ce.2011.23033.

References

[1] Andre, T., & Veldhuis, G. H. (1991). Use of computers by physics and physical science teachers. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 18, 113-117.
[2] BenJacob, M. G., Levin, D. S., & BenJacob, T. K. (2000). The learning environment of the 21st century. Educational Technology Review, 13, 812.
[3] Duggan, S., & Gott, R. (1995) The place of investigations in practical work in the UK National Curriculum for Science. International Journal of Science Education, 17, 137-147. doi:10.1080/0950069950170201
[4] Hudson, B. (1997). Group work with multi-media in mathematics: The role of the technology and of the teacher. British Journal of Educational Technology, 28, 257-270. doi:10.1111/1467-8535.00033
[5] Jonassen, D. H., Peck, K. L., & Wilson, B. G. (1999). Learning with computer technology: A constructivist approach. Princeton, New Jersey: Merrill.
[6] Keller, C. (2005). Virtual learning environment: Three implementation perspectives. Learning, media and technology, 30, 299-311.
[7] Kiboss, J. K. (2000). An evaluation of teacher/student verbal and non-verbal behaviors in computer-augmented physics laboratory classrooms in Kenya. Journal of Information Technology and Teacher Education, 9, 199-213.
[8] Kiboss, J. K. (2010). Pupils’ perceptions of the teacher’s changing role in e-learning physics classroom instruction. Creative Education, 1, 33-38. doi:10.4236/ce.2010.11006
[9] Kiboss, J. K., & Ogunniyi, M. B. (2003). Influence of a computer-based intervention on students’ conceptions of measurement in secondary school physics. Themes in Education, 4, 203-217.
[10] Kiboss, J. K., & Ogunniyi, M. B. (2005). Learning outcomes of first year secondary students in a computer-augmented physics program on measurement. Learning, Media and Technology, 30, 313-326.
[11] Kenya Institute of Education [KIE] (1992) Ministry of Education secondary education syllabus (Vol. 7). Nairobi: Kenya Literature Bureau.
[12] Kenya Institute of Education [KIE] (1999). Formative evaluation of the secondary education curriculum. Research Report Series, 22, 27.
[13] Lemke, J. L. (1995). Textual politics:discourse and social dynamics. London: Taylor and Francis Ltd.
[14] Linder, C. (1992). Is teacher-reflected epistemology a source of conceptual difficulty in Physics? International Journal of Science Education, 14, 11-121. doi:10.1080/0950069920140110
[15] Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38, 43-52. doi:10.1207/S15326985EP3801_6
[16] Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1984). Qualitative data analysis. London: Sage.
[17] Ndirangu, M. (2000). A study of the perception of the influence of teaching practice projects on the teaching of science in selected secondary schools in Kenya. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Njoro, Kenya: Egerton University.
[18] Ndirangu, M., Kathuri, N. J., & Mungai, C. (2003). Improvisation as a strategy for providing science teaching resources: An experience from Kenya. International Journal of Education Development, 23, 75-84. doi:10.1016/S0738-0593(01)00054-2
[19] Ogunniyi, M. B. (1992). Understanding research in social science. Ibadan: University Press.
[20] Okere, M. I. O. (1988). Meanings and measures of creativity for physics education. Kenya Journal of Education, 4, 162-168.
[21] Park, O. C., & Hopkins, R. (1993). Instructional conditions for using dynamic visual displays: A review. Instructional Science, 21, 427- 449. doi:10.1007/BF00118557
[22] Patton, M. Q. (1991). Qualitative evaluation methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
[23] Robinson, H. A. (1994). The Ethnography of empowerment: The transformative power of classroom interaction. Bristol: The Palmer Press.
[24] Roth, W. M., & Roychoudhury, A. (1992). The social construction of scientific concepts or the concept map as a conscription device and tool for the social thinking in high school science. Science Education, 76, 531-557. doi:10.1002/sce.3730760507
[25] Schar, G. S., & Kruefler, H. (2000). Empirical research on the effect of dynamic media for information presentation. Zurich: Swiss Federal Institute of Technology.
[26] Smith, C., Carey, S., & Wiser, M. (1985). On differentiation: A case study of the development of the concepts of size, weight, and density. Cognition, 21, 177-237. doi:10.1016/0010-0277(85)90025-3
[27] Talsma, V. L. (1997). How can we measure student understandings in science? Ann Arbor, MI: School of Education, University of Michigan.
[28] Wekesa, E. (2003). Effects of a computer-based instruction simulation module on students’ achievement, perception of the classroom environment and attitude towards school biology in Nakuru district, Kenya. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Njoro: Egerton University.
[29] Wekesa, E., Kiboss, J. K., & Ndirangu, M. (2006). Improving students’ understanding and perception of cell theory in School Biology using a computer-based instruction simulation program. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 15, 397-410.
[30] White, R., & Gunstone R. (1992). Probing understanding. New York: The Falmer Press.
[31] Wragg, E. C. (2000). An introduction to classroom observation. London: Routledge.
[32] Zumbach, J. (2006). Cognitive overhead in hypertext learning reexamined. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 15, 411- 432.

  
comments powered by Disqus

Copyright © 2019 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

Creative Commons License

This work and the related PDF file are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.