1. Group C: Traditional Board and Projector with Graphing Tools Malaysia: Rohani Ahmad Tarmizi Philippines: Soledad A. Ukep Thailand: Members:

2. TWO QUESTIONS  How do you use blackboards and projector technology in your country?  How can we innovate our teaching approaches in the teaching of mathematics?

3. 1. HOW DO YOU USE BLACKBOARDS IN YOUR COUNTRY? Main source of communication with the students for explanation of content or demonstration of mathematics problem solving Students also utilize the board for demonstrating task assigned in the classroom- explaining, presenting, demonstrating, etc Used to paste cards, mahjong paper, students work, flash cards, etc To communicate important or basic information – short important note/list/reminder of homework

4. 2. HOW DO YOU USE ICT IN YOUR COUNTRY? Although use of technology is one of Malaysia’s emphases in teaching mathematics, sparse used of ICT was observed. Among the tools and software being used are Graphing calculators, Autograph, Geometer’s Sketchpad, e-transformation, Geogebra, Mathematica, Matlab, Cabri have been widely used both at secondary and tertiary level. Likewise in the Phlippines, GSP and Geogebra have been used ocasionally. While in Thailand the use of GSP in secondary schools was observed specifically in the 20 Lesson Study schools.

5. HOW CAN WE INNOVATE OUR TEACHING APPROACHES IN TEACHING MATHEMATICS? 1. Improve quality of Teacher Education Training and School Delivery System To impart the necessary skills to raise the ability of teachers to improvise and innovate in new teaching methods, including activity-based learning methodology and real life examples Make learning of mathematics fun and interesting Enhance using web-based and online teaching and learning method Enlist help from NGOs to support innovative and creative projects in schools Increase organizing more activities outside classroom and introduce more real life applications with adequate equipment for hands-on practical and projects

6. HOW CAN WE INNOVATE OUR TEACHING APPROACHES IN TEACHING MATHEMATICS? 1. Improve quality of Teacher Education Training and School Delivery System Regular maintenance and upgrade of hardware Strengthen ICT support by schools and MOE for teachers to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of their delivery Explore synergy between ICT technology and teaching materials improvisation Establish “Teacher Support System”

7. 1. Improve quality of Teacher Education Training and School Delivery System Improve opportunities for hands-on and problem solving Improve contents and methods of teacher training courses especially in universities Collaborate with universities to promote practical ICT activities in school incorporating research results concerning educational content and the HOW TO... HOW CAN WE INNOVATE OUR TEACHING APPROACHES IN TEACHING MATHEMATICS?

8. 1. Improve quality of Teacher Education Training and School Delivery System Invest in science, maths, technology teacher education and teacher professional development Study high performance countries such as – Japan, Hong Kong-China, Chinese –Taipei, Slovenia, Macao- China as well as Finland HOW CAN WE INNOVATE OUR TEACHING APPROACHES IN TEACHING MATHEMATICS?

9. HOW CAN WE INNOVATE OUR TEACHING APPROACHES WITH TEACHERS? 2. Change Role of the Teacher From Restricted Professional to Extended Professional From Curriculum Implementer to Reflective Practitioner From Purveyor of Information to Facilitator of Thinking From Focus on Mathematics to Focus on Students

12. HOW CAN WE INNOVATE OUR TEACHING APPROACHES WITH TEACHERS? 3. E xperiential Learning Emphasize on experience – students’ experience and continuing process of learning. Some experiential methods: problem-based learning, case studies, role play, simulations, internships, project-based, inquiry-based, experiments, explorations.

13. Model gradually becomes more formally mathematical Informal model/strategies developed model/strategies developed Formal Mathematics Formal Mathematics Context 1 Context 2 Context 3 Context used to help pupils make decision and make sense, gradually become more formally mathematical.

14. HOW CAN WE INNOVATE OUR TEACHING APPROACHES WITH TEACHERS? 4. Innovations in Pedagogy Teachers are now expected to model and foster in their students a wide range of skills: critical thinking, self-regulated learning, knowledge of self and others and lifelong learning. University teacher educators must re-evaluate their curricula and emphasise more on realistic pedagogical skills. These skills should be based on the philosophy of inquiry and actively learning and process approach.

16. http://timssandpirls.bc.edu/TIMSS2007/PDF/TIMSS2007_InternationalMathematicsReport.pdf

19. Windows or Cases- Learning Mathematics Through Utilization of Technology When technology and appropriate teaching methods are integrated in teaching and learning, positive impact maybe observe on both cognitive and affective domain of learning. Technology as a tool or a support for communicating with others, allows learners to play active role in the classrooms.

20. Graphing Calculator Group

21. Autograph Group

22. Introduction to the technological tools Induction set phase Learning and assessment phase Test phase Learning to use the technological tools Concept development - important concepts learnt were emphasized EXPERIMENTAL GROUPS CONTROL GROUP Using GC Using Autograph Using GSP Using Geogebra Using e-Transformation Traditional whole-class instruction Beginning of a lesson - to induce in students an appropriate set of behavior and to spur students to attack their work enthusiastically and diligently. EXPERIMENTAL GROUPS: Students were required to solve the given problems using paper-pencil CONTROL GROUP: Students were given problems to solve using paper-pencil

23. Measures of Impact 1.Mathematics Achievement Test (MAT) 2.Paas Mental Effort Rating Scale The MAT was designed by the researchers to measure students’ understanding of the Quadratic Function topic. It comprised of three questions based on the learning outcomes covered in the learning phase. The time allocated to do the test is 30 minutes.

24. PAAS MENTAL EFFORT RATING SCALE For each problem, please rate your mental effort used in solving the problem. 1 2 3 4 5 6 78 9 LOWHIGH

25. Table 3: Comparison on instructional efficiency index planned comparison test showed that the mean for GC group was significantly higher than conventional group followed by Autograph group This suggests that learning by integrating the use of GC was more efficient than using conventional strategy and Autograph group. VariableGroupNMSDSE 2-D instructional efficiency GC38.3844.8802.1428 Autograph35-.51251.2261.2072 Control28.16131.0214.1930 2-D Instructional Efficiency RESULTS

26. Table 1: Comparison of Mathematics Achievements RESULTS VariableGroupNMSD MAT scoreGSP4511.784.10 control4713.033.65 Overall mean of MAT scores showed that there was no significant difference between mean perfomance scores of the control group compared to scores for the GSP group. In fact, the mean score of the control group is higher than the result of the experimental group.

27. …RESULTS Table 2: Comparisons of selected variables VariablesGroupNMSDSE No. of problem solved GSP Control 45 47 5.98 6.28 1.29 1.08.19.16 Total score of conceptual knowledge GSP Control 45 47 5.99 7.28 4.67 3.63.70.53 Total score of procedural knowledge GSP Control 45 47 18.4 18.06 1.39 1.36.21.19 Total score of the test GSP Control 45 47 24.01 25.34 4.74 3.78.71.55

28. …RESULTS Table 2 (con’t): Comparisons of selected variables VariablesGroupNMSDSE No. of errors committed GSP Control 45 47 1.95 1.52 1.54.898.23.13 Mental LoadGSP Control 45 47 5.61 4.46 2.03 1.48.30.28 2D EfficiencyGSP Control 45 47 - 0.28 0.43 1.22 0.95.181.178 3D EfficiencyGSP Control 45 47 - 0.56 0.61 1.24 0.87.216.198

29. …RESULTS Table 3: Mean and SD of students’ attitutes towards the teaching and learning approaches. Levels ControlGSP MeanSDMeanSD Enthuasiasm3.290.6123.520.526 Enjoyment3.280.6103.400.565 Anxiety1.870.3861.930.474 Avoidance1.770.6121.690.526

30. CONCLUSION Further studies need to be done, especially on time needed for students to explore and learning using GSP in learning mathematics. Furthermore, research also need to be conducted in normal classroom settings in Malaysian school in order to explore further in utilizing GSP in mathematics learning. However, findings from this study can elicit ideas to teachers and researchers on the needs using ICT technology in teaching and learning mathematics.

31. GeoGebra is an open source software under General Public License (GPL) and freely available at www.geogebra.org. www.geogebra.org This software combines geometry, algebra and calculus into a single ease-to-use package for teaching and learning mathematics from elementary to university level GeoGebra

32. What is GeoGebra? Dynamic Mathematics Software For Learning and Teaching Mathematics in Schools This software was developed by Markus Hohenwarter in 2001 at the University of Salsburg Has been translated to 48 languages. Use in 190 countries. Geometry, Algebra, Calculus and Statistics. Freely available from www.geogebra.org www.geogebra.org

33. It was designed to combine features of dynamic geometry software (e.g. Cabri Geometry, Geometer’s Sketchpad) computer algebra systems (e.g. Derive, Maple) and easy to-use system for teaching and learning mathematics ( Hohenwarter & Preiner, 2007). High technical portability runs on Windows, Linux, Solaris, MacOS X dynamic worksheets (html) GeoGebra is Innovative

34. GeoGebra

35. e-Transformation (e-Transform) is a courseware developed by a group of researchers, based on students’ difficulties. e-transform

38. Results A. Effects of GeoGebra on Performance score for pre and post test. For the group that used GeoGebra, the analysis on the performance scores for pre and post tests were by using Wilcoxon T. Research findings indicated that there was significant difference in performance scores for the post test (Mdn = 31.00) compared to the pre test (Mdn = 25.00), z = - 2.85, p =.004 <.05, r = -0.45). The results showed that students who learned transformation using GeoGebra showed increase in their performance after they used it. the effect size was medium

39. B. Effects of e-transformation on Performance score for pre and post test. For the second hyphotesis, analysis using Wilcoxon T showed that there were significant differences in post test performance scores (Mdn = 25.00) compared to the pre test scores (Mdn = 20.00), z = - 2.76, p =.006 <.05, r = -0.50). This showed that the e-Transformation could help students to increase their performance. the effect size was big. Results

40. Students who used the GeoGebra software and e- transformation shows improvement in performance when comparing the results of the pre and post tests scores of both groups. This shows that the use of technology can have a positive effect on student achievements. The findings did not show any significant difference between students who used the GeoGebra software compared to the e-transformation group. Conclusion

42. GroupNMeanStandard Deviatio n tDFSignifican t Control Group2654.715.660 2.259510.028 GeoGebra Group 2765.2319.202 Significant difference between mean performance scores of the control group (M=54.7, SD= 15.660) compared to GeoGebra group (M= 65.23, SD= 19.202; t(51) = 2.259, p =.028 <.05) The effect size (eta squared,  2 ) is approximately 0.09, which is considered to be a moderate effect (Cohen, 1988). Students who had learned Coordinate Geometry using GeoGebra was significantly better in their achievement compared to students who underwent the traditional learning.

43. GroupNMeanStandard Deviatio n tDFSignifican t Control Group1261.66713.793 0.953220.351 GeoGebra Group 1267.58316.489 No significant difference between mean performance scores of the control group (M=61.667, SD= 13.793) compared to GeoGebra group (M= 67.583, SD= 16.489; t(22) = 0.953, p =.351>.05) However, the mean score of the HV students in GeoGebra group is higher than the result of the HV students in Control Group No significant difference between mean performance scores of the control group (M=61.667, SD= 13.793) compared to GeoGebra group (M= 67.583, SD= 16.489; t(22) = 0.953, p =.351>.05) However, the mean score of the HV students in GeoGebra group is higher than the result of the HV students in Control Group

44. GroupNMeanStandard Deviatio n tDFSignifican t Control Group1448.78615.106 2.222270.036 GeoGebra Group 1564.06721.569 Significant difference between mean performance scores of the control group (M=48.786, SD= 15.106) compared to GeoGebra group (M= 64.067, SD= 21.569; t(27) = 2.222, p =.036<.05) The effect size (eta squared,  2 ) is approximately 0.15, which is considered to be a very large effect (Cohen, 1988) LV students who had undergone learning Coordinate Geometry using GeoGebra was significantly better in their achievement rather than students underwent the traditional learning. GeoGebra software enhanced the LV students in their mathematics performance. Significant difference between mean performance scores of the control group (M=48.786, SD= 15.106) compared to GeoGebra group (M= 64.067, SD= 21.569; t(27) = 2.222, p =.036<.05) The effect size (eta squared,  2 ) is approximately 0.15, which is considered to be a very large effect (Cohen, 1988) LV students who had undergone learning Coordinate Geometry using GeoGebra was significantly better in their achievement rather than students underwent the traditional learning. GeoGebra software enhanced the LV students in their mathematics performance.