EDUCATIONAL IMPLICATIONS OF E-LEARNING MATERIALS IN SECONDARY MATHEMATICS AND SCIENCE EDUCATION CHAN Ka Wing, LAM Chung Man and YEUNG Yau Yeun Department of Science and Environmental Studies, The Hong Kong Institute of Education

1. SELF INTRODUCTIONS Name: Mr. CHAN Ka Wing Position: Doctorate Students (EdD)(Science Education), Research Assistant. Institute: Department of Science & Environmental Studies, The Hong Kong Institute of Education.

2. OBJECTIVES To assess the feasibility and find out the difficulties of implementing e-learning in secondary schools. To study the effect of e-learning on students’ self- regulated learning (SRL).

3. BACKGROUNDS E-learning materials: Web-based learning objects (LOs) with multiple choices questions (MCQs) tests. Usage: for students’ pre-lesson self-regulated learning (SRL) Subject: Senior form Maths, Physics, Chemistry, Biology. Date of data collection: August 2011 to August 2012 Total number of participants: about 412 Total number of secondary schools in Hong Kong involved: 5

3. BACKGROUNDS Total number of learning objects (LOs) for the 4 subjects we investigated = 73 Subject Number of LOs Mathematics 19 Physics 18 Chemistry 20 Biology 16 Total 73

3. BACKGROUNDS

3. BACKGROUNDS

3. BACKGROUNDS

3. BACKGROUNDS

4. METHODOLOGY Multiple choices questions (MCQ) Test (for students): 10 questions for each LO, 3 versions for each question, i.e. maximum 3 chances for each question to obtain marks ≧ 80 (attain the required standard 達標). Pre and post lessons questionnaire surveys (for students) Interview (for teachers and students)

5. OUTCOMES OF THE MCQ TESTS The attainment (obtained at least 80 marks) rate of the whole period: (全期測試達標人數百分點) (18 August, 2011 to 17 August, 2012)

6. TEACHERS’ AND STUDENTS’ VERBAL COMMENTS ON E-LEARNING Examples of favorable views (from Teacher (s) and/or student(s)) (T =teacher(s), S = student(s)) 1. The learning environment was interactive. (S) 2. Most computer simulation programmes, animations, flash, movies were useful and interesting for the students. (T, S) 3. They could usually get in-depth explanations for a particular study topic or question. (S)

6. TEACHERS’ AND STUDENTS’ VERBAL COMMENTS ON E-LEARNING Examples of favorable views (from Teacher (s) and/or student(s)) (T =teacher (s), S = student (s)) 4. The students could effectively obtain the required information from the web in order to complete the tests. (T) 5. E-learning materials were new to the students. They had feeling of freshness for the materials. (T, S) 6. They could work and learn at their own paces without affecting the other learners. (T, S)

6. TEACHERS’ AND STUDENTS’ VERBAL COMMENTS ON E-LEARNING Examples of favorable views (from Teacher (s) and/or student(s)) (T =teacher (s), S = student (s)) 7. They could have better foundational knowledge for the study topic before the lesson. (T, S) 8. They could watch the subtitles (字幕) of the movies repeatedly in details, for the purpose of understanding them completely. (S) 9. Their learning was not limited by time and location. (S)

6. TEACHERS’ AND STUDENTS’ VERBAL COMMENTS ON E-LEARNING Examples of favorable views (from Teacher (s) and/or student(s)) (T =teacher (s), S = student (s)) 10. It was not necessary for them to go to the library, as they could obtain the useful information from the web. (S) 11. They needed not to bring too many books to the school. (S) 12. It was more environmental-friendly as less paper consumption. (S)

6. TEACHERS’ AND STUDENTS’ VERBAL COMMENTS ON E-LEARNING Examples of unfavorable views (from Teacher (s) and/or student(s)) (T = teacher(s), S = student(s) 1. The learning environment was not interactive, as they could not ask question. (S) 2. Emotional exchange among human beings is important. Thus, most students preferred a learning environment with a teacher presented. (T) 3. There were too many words for them to read and study, and it was difficult for them to remember. (S)

6. TEACHERS’ AND STUDENTS’ VERBAL COMMENTS ON E-LEARNING Examples of unfavorable views (from Teacher (s) and/or student(s)) (T = teacher (s), S = student (s) 4. They would lose their concentration on working alone, as they might surf on the web. (S)   5. For low achievers, they were likely to stop and withdrew from learning. (T) 6. It was hard for a teacher to clarify a student’s misconceptions. Suitable functions for facilitating this should be included in the materials. Communications between a teacher and a student was important for doing so. (T)

6. TEACHERS’ AND STUDENTS’ VERBAL COMMENTS ON E-LEARNING Examples of unfavorable views (from Teacher (s) and/or student(s)) (T = teacher(s), S = student(s) 7. The learning atmosphere inside the classroom was not as good as that of traditional learning method. E-learning was more boring than traditional learning method. (S) 8. Looking at the computer screen for a long period of time would cause physical discomfort to them, and their eyes might get short-sighted easily. (S) 9. They could randomly guess for the correct answers, as only MCQs were included in the tests. (T, S)

6. TEACHERS’ AND STUDENTS’ VERBAL COMMENTS ON E-LEARNING Examples of unfavorable views (from Teacher(s) and/or student(s)) (T = teacher(s), S = student(s) 10. The students might need to read many words in order to understand the contents. (S) 11. E-learning materials were not as “real” as books in paper forms. (S) 12. By repeatedly working on different versions of a question (3 versions were available), the students’ memory to the contents could be strengthen. (T)

7. EDUCATIONAL IMPLICATIONS Clues to successful implementation of self-regulated learning (SRL) with the e-learning materials 1. Contents of the LOs: Do: Use more computer simulation programmes, animations, flash, movies, sound effects, etc. Give clear explanations for the questions from different ways including the internet. Don’t: Use too many words.

7. EDUCATIONAL IMPLICATIONS Clues to successful implementation of self-regulated learning (SRL) with the e-learning materials 2. Student Support “One area of e-learning that is markedly different from the traditional classroom delivery method” (Govindasamy, 2002) “Many of them did not seem to believe interacting with their peers online was necessary.” “Very few students are skilled at regulating their learning to optimize self-directed learning”(Azevedo & Cromley, 2004) Students can communicate with the instructor immediately when they are in need.

7. EDUCATIONAL IMPLICATIONS Clues to successful implementation of self-regulated learning (SRL) with the e-learning materials 3. Assessment Not just MCQ, include also short and structured questions.

7. EDUCATIONAL IMPLICATIONS Clues to successful implementation of self-regulated learning (SRL) with the e-learning materials 4. Students’ Profile Available in this e-learning material. Instructor can know the students marks, ranks, time needed to complete the tests.

7. EDUCATIONAL IMPLICATIONS Clues to successful implementation of self-regulated learning (SRL) with the e-learning materials 5. Classroom management Identify off-tasks students, especially for those surfing on the web.

8. REFERENCES Azevedo R. & Cromley J.G. (2004) Does training of selfregulated learning facilitate student’s learning with hypermedia? Journal of Educational Psychology 96,523–535. B. Kramarski & M. Gutman (2006). How can self-regulated learning be supported in mathematical E-learning environments? Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Thavamalar Govindasamy (2002). Successful implementation of e- Learning Pedagogical considerations. Internet and Higher Education, 4 287–299. Wayne Journell (2010). Perceptions of e‐learning in secondary education: a viable alternative to classroom instruction or a way to bypass engaged learning? Educational Media International, 01 Apr.

9. Q&A