Using the Multiage Classroom Environment to Improve Student’s Social Behavior

¹Ehsan Qadir Malik

²Muhammad Irfan Qadir
³Jam Sajjad Hussain

⁴Yasir Javed Cheema

Abstract

The trend toward technology enhanced classrooms has escalated quickly during the past five years as students have become increasingly tech-savvy. Classrooms across the nation have become “wired” and textbook publishers now offer a wide variety of computerized teaching supplements.

Introduction:

The trend toward technology enhanced classrooms has escalated quickly during the past five years as students have become increasingly tech-savvy. Classrooms across the nation have become “wired” and textbook publishers now offer a wide variety of computerized teaching supplements. In fact, some may argue that technology is now expected in the college classroom. The objective of this research is to examine whether the use of technology in university or college classes impacts student behavior and student perceptions of instructional quality. This report is summarizes the results of a survey administered to students. The results suggest that adding technology in courses where it is not currently used is likely to have a positive impact on student perceptions of the instructor and on student behavior. However, removing technology from courses that already use it would not appear to have a negative impact on all aspects of student behavior. Overall there are certain aspects of student behavior (the amount of time that students study, the quantity of notes they take, their attendance, and their interaction with the instructor) which appear to be technology neutral. In contrast, technology tends to have a meaningful impact on student preparation for class, attentiveness, quality of notes taken, student participation in class, student learning, desire to take additional classes from the instructor or in the subject matter, and the overall evaluation of the course and the instructor. Technology, it seems, is everywhere these days.  Technology supported collaborative learning settings facilitate long lasting learning of students in computer and internet supported situations with collaborative workings among them. The aim of this study is to find out whether technology supported collaborative learning settings affect the behavior of students towards the discipline of Mathematics or not.

Review of Related literature

As computers have become more commonplace, the use of information technology has become pervasive in most everyone’s lives.  For most of us, it is hard to image daily life without the influence of technological devices, be it handheld video games, personal digital assistants, cell phones or any number of computers. This is especially true for younger generations. In academia, we have likely reached the point where the use of technology is expected, by both students and their parents (Christensen, 1999).  The trend toward technology enhanced classes has escalated quickly during the past five years as students have become increasingly tech-savvy, classrooms across the nation have become “wired” and textbook publishers now offer a wide variety of computerized teaching supplements.

            According to Roblyer (2003), technology may enable the learner to be more actively involved in his or her own learning. While technology may enhance the classroom and engage today’s student more effectively, most do not believe it replaces the need for a structured, content-driving learning process that is grounded in theory. To be effective, technology-based tools must accompany appropriate pedagogy (Laurillard, 2002). That said, a 2001 national study showed that 87% of faculty believe computer technology enhances student learning (Epper and Bates, 2001).  Despite this widespread belief that the use of technology in the classroom is generally good, such may not always be the case. Burbules and Callister (2000) suggest technology can be used well or poorly, and thus its effectiveness is dependent on how it used, by whom and for what purpose. Instructors use varying amounts of technology in their classes. For example, some professors utilize PowerPoint slides or similar technology extensively or moderately throughout a course, while others seldom or never use technology. There may be several reasons why instructors ultimately adopt technology for classroom use. For some, it may help them to create better organized, more focused lectures. For others, they believe that the use of technology benefits students by engaging them more in the classroom and allowing them to listen more closely without transcribing every word that is spoken. Some professors may choose technology because writing on whiteboards or blackboards hinders their ability to interact with students. Still other instructors may adopt technology as a time saving device because it is readily available today, provided by the publishers who are eager to convince faculty to adopt their textbooks. Although the motivation may differ, theoretically the overall expectation is that technology will improve the course, engage the students and enable them to learn more. There may also be at least the implicit hope by the faculty member that teaching evaluations will improve.  The study of what makes a college teacher effective is ongoing.

Sayre (1998) concluded that the use of technology adds to the instructor’s credibility. Lecturers can manage class time more efficiently as less time is spent writing on whiteboards or changing transparencies (Daniels, 1999, Mantei, 2000), and thus lectures may flow better. Overall, Apperson et al (2006) believe that the use of technology in classrooms causes students to have a more favorable attitude toward their education, and benefits accrue to instructors who utilize it in their classes. However, technology usage does not necessarily result in better teaching evaluations for faculty. Lowerison et al found no significant relationship between actual computer use and perceived effective computer usage on course evaluations (2006). Several explanations were offered for this unexpected outcome, including the fact that students may now expect technology to be used in the classroom and no longer see it as a unique class feature that enhances their learning. These findings are consistent with the Christensen (1999) study mentioned earlier. It may also be the case that technology is not being used in an appropriate manner, that is, as a transformative, student-centered tool for learning, a concern expressed by Burbules and Callister  (2000). Computer technology may also better support diverse needs and capacities of students, providing the potential for deeper processing and understanding of information (McCombs, 2000). While the technology may enhance the classroom and engage today’s student more effectively, most do not believe it replaces the need for a structured, content-driving learning process that is grounded in theory. To be effective, technology-based tools must accompany appropriate pedagogy (Laurillard, 2002). As McFarlane states, “computer use alone, without clear objectives and well-designed tasks, is of little intrinsic value (1997). This paper continues the inquiry into the impact of technology on student perceptions of their own learning as well as their academic behavior.

Procedure of the Study

Total 80 respondents have been taken from the school and colleges of shahpur sadar.  A well-structured questionnaire was prepared for data collection. Convenient sampling techniques have been used for data collection.

Hypotheses of the Study

• It is more likely that Student’s improvements due to classroom multiage.
• It is more likely that teacher’s behavior affected the student’s personality.
• It is more likely that Positive impact of Technology on students

Conclusion

As universities invest more heavily in developing their online infrastructure in order to enhance flexible learning options and the overall student learning experience, there is clearly the potential for unobtrusive modes of surveillance to impact on the teaching and learning experience. This study offers a preliminary investigation into the im pact of particular modes of surveillance on student user- behavior and indicates that students unaware of the specific surveillance measures enacted by the institution undertake a high level of self- regulation. Surveyed students indicate that their browsing behaviors, the range of topics discussed and the writing style of their contributions made to asynchronous discussion forums are influenced by the degree to which such activities are perceived to be surveyed by both the institution and teaching staff.  T he implications of this new mode of governance for teaching and learning relate specifically to ensuring students are cognizant of surveillance techniques, the boundaries in which the policies operate and in the manner asynchronous discussion forums are integrated within the pedagogical framework designed by teaching staff. New virtual spaces such as the discussion forum successfully bring together disparate entities within localities that are removed from the traditional singular time and space dimension  of the classroom. This paper has argued that such spaces radically alter the manner in which educational governance is played out. The paper suggests that as teaching staff in the Higher Education sector increasingly use a variety of technologies to better understand the student populations, more attention must be given to the manner in which online discussion forums efficiently construct new subjects that are both ‘productive’ and ‘docile’. This study demonstrates that despite the elimination of established disciplinary mechanisms of educational governance occurring within traditional teaching environments, the discussion forum increasingly serves as an effective alternative mechanism of producing the known student subject. investigation is called for in relation to comparisons of student contributions to discussion forums implemented without the academic approval process, and the impact of other forms of online technologies such as email, chat rooms (with and without logged transcripts) and participation in collaborative tasks facilitated through integration of online resources.

 References

• Apperson, J., Laws, E., and Scepansky, J. (2006). The Impact of Presentation Graphics    on Students’ Experience in the Classroom.  Computers and Education, 47(1),      116-126.
• Atkins-Sayre, W., Hopkins, S., Mohundro, S. and Sayre, W. (1998). Rewards and Liabilities of  Presentation Software as an Ancillary Tool: Prisonor Paradise?        Paper presented at the  National Communication Association Eighty Fourth   Annual Conference, New York, NY.
• Burbules, N. and Callister, T., Jr. (2000). Watch IT: The Promises and Risk of New          Information Technologies for Education. Boulder, CO: Westview Press
• Christensen, K. (1999). A Comparison of Student Performance in Human Development Classes Using Three Different Modes of Delivery: Online, Face-to-Face, and        Ed.D.  Dissertation, Department of Education, Drake University.
• Daniels, L. (1999). Introducing Technology in the Classroom: PowerPoint as a First Step. Journal of Computing in Higher Education,10, 42-56
• Epper, R. and Bates, A. (2001). Teaching Faculty How to Use Technology. American      Council on Education. Oryx Press
• Laurillard, D. (2002). Rethinking University Teaching: A Framework for the Effective Use of  Educational Technology (2 nd ed.). London: Routledge
• McCombs,   (2000).  Assessing  the  Role  of  Educational  Technology  in  the              Teaching  and  Learning  Process:  A  Learner-Centered  Perspective.   The             Secretary’s  Conference  on  Educational  Technology 2000.       www.ed.gov/Technology/techconf/2000/mccombs_paper.html.
• McFarlane, A. (1997). What Are We and How Did We Get Here? In A. McFarlane (ED.), Information Technology and Authentic Learning: Realizing the Potential            of Computers in the Primary Classroom. London, England: Routledge.
• Roblyer, M. (2003). Integrating Educational Technology into Teaching. (3 Rd ed.)           Upper Saddle              River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.