The Impact of Designed TPACK- Object Based Game on the Performance of JSS 2 Students in Mathematics

Olatoye Mukaila. A^1, and Nleya Paul. T²

¹University of Botswana, Gaborone

²Department of Educational Technology

Cite this paper:
Olatoye Mukaila. A and Nleya Paul. T. The Impact of Designed TPACK- Object Based Game on the Performance of JSS 2 Students in Mathematics. American Journal of Educational Research. 2014; 2(8):674-682. doi: 10.12691/education-2-8-17

Abstract

This paper sees to the design of Instructional Object Based Game (IOBG) using Technological Pedagogical and Content Knowledge (TPACK) framework and it imparts on the performance of students learning in mathematics as investigated from two sets of subjects. The sample consists of 200 Junior Secondary School 2 (JSS 2) students selected from 20 co- educational schools within Lagos Island and Eti-Osa educational Zones of Lagos State, Nigeria. Multi stage stratified random sampling was used to avoid interclass mixed. 50% proportionate on each zone and stratified simple random sampling technique was adopted to give non mixed schools within the zones equal chance of being taken. The first sets of subjects were learning in relation to game and performance, while the other set (control group) was treated with Mathematics Achievement Test (MAT) (conventional method). Lessons of 40 minutes on substitution were conducted for the two groups for two weeks, twice per week, which was conducted in each school for 4 weeks in the whole of the two zones. After the lessons the groups were treated with MAT and IOBG, control and experimental groups respectively. A quasi-experimental control group design with repeated measures analysis of covariance was adopted. Two separate summary results of ANCOVA showed that F (1,199) = 12.88 @ p = 0.013 and F(1,193) = 13.00 @ p = 0.00 implied that the use of OBG (game) in teaching and learning had significant effect on the performance of learners in mathematics. Calculated mean scores and 2-way ANCOVA result showed that gender has no significant influence on the performance of learners in either with the used of OBG or MAT.

Keywords:
instructional game object based game TPACK conventional method performance achievement and gender

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

References:

[1]	AACTE Committee on Innovation and Technology (Ed.). (2008). Handbook of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK) for educators. New York: Routledge.
[2]	Agosto, D.E. (2009). Girls and Gaming: a summary of the research with implications for practice. Teacher Librarian, 31 (3), 8-14.
[3]	Amory, A. (2007). Game object model version II: A theoretical framework for educational game development. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 55 (1), 51-77.
[4]	Amory, A., Naicker, K., Vincent, J. & Adams, C. (1999).The use of computer games as an educational tool: 1, identification of appropriate game type and game element. British Journal of educational Technology systems, 24, 195-205.
[5]	Bloom, B. S. (1959): Taxonomy of Educational objectives, Handbook cognitive New York David. Domain, Mckay Group Inc.
[6]	Booker, G. (2004). Playing to win: using games for motivation and the development of mathematical thinking. In A. Rogerson (Ed.). The mathematics education into the the 21st century project: Proceedings of the international conference: The future of mathematics education. Pod Tezniami, Ciechocinek, Poland.
[7]	Chandra, V. & Lioyd, M. (2008). The methodological nettle: ICT and Student Achievement. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39, (6) 1089-98.
[8]	Condie, R. & Munro, R. (2007). The impact of ICT in schools-a landscape review; Coventry, Becta. Retrieved April 10, 2013 from http://webarchieve.nationalarchivs.gov.uk/2010110210364/publications.becta.org.uk.//display.cfm?resID=28221.
[9]	Cox, S. (2008). A conceptual analysis of technological pedagogical content knowledge. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Brigham Young University.
[10]	Geddis, A. N. (1993). Transforming Content Knowledge: Learning to Teach about Isotopes. Science Education, 77, 575-591.
[11]	Hartmann, T., & Klimmt, C.(2010). Gender and Computer Games: Exploring females’ dislikes. Journal of computer-mediated communication, 11 (4), 910-931.
[12]	Hoon, T. S., Chong, T. S. & Bintin Ngah, N. A. (2010). Effect of an interactive social game environment. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38, 3, 455-464.
[13]	Hughes, J. E. (2010). Technology learning principles for preservice and in-service teacher education. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education [Online serial], 4 (3). Retrieved from http://www.citejournal.org/vol4/iss3/general/article2.cfm
[14]	Koehler, M.J., Mishra, P., & Yahya, K. (2007). Tracing the development of teacher knowledge in a design seminar: Integrating content, pedagogy, and technology. Computers and Education, 49 (3), 740-762.
[15]	Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2010). Introducing TPCK, AACTE committee on Innovation and Technology (Ed.).The handbook of technological pedagogical content knowledge for educators. 3-29.
[16]	Kinzie, M. & Joseph, D. (2008).Gender differences in game activity preferences of middle school children: implications for educational game design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 56 (5), 643-663.
[17]	Mehlinger, H. D., & Powers, S. M. (2002). Technology and teacher education: A guide for educators and policy makers. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
[18]	Miller, D. J. & Robertson, D.P. (2010). Using a games console in the primary classroom: Effects of “Brain Training” Programme on computation and self-esteem. British Journal of Education Technology, 41, (2) 242-255.
[19]	Mishra, P. & Koehler, M.J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108 (6), 1017-1054.
[20]	Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2007). Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK): Confronting the wicked problems of teaching with technology. In C. Crawford et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference 2007 (pp. 2214-2226). Chesapeake, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computers in Education.
[21]	Onwioduokit, F. A & Akinbobola, A. O. (2005). Effects of pictorial and written advance organizers on students’ achievement in senior secondary school physics. JSTAN 40 (1 & 2) 109-116.
[22]	Prensky, M. (2001). Digital game-based learning. New York: McGraw-Hill.
[23]	Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. EducationalResearcher, 15 (2), 4-14.
[24]	Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and Teaching: Foundations of the New Reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57 (1), 1-22.
[25]	Shulman, L., & Grossman, P. (1988). The intern teacher casebook. San Francisco, CA: Far West Laboratory for Educational Research and Development.
[26]	Sutherland, L. M., Shin, N. & McCall, K. L. (2010). Integrating Science inquiry, literacy, technology and universal design for learning to enhance middle school students’ opportunities to learn science. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching. Philadelphia PA
[27]	Swan, K. O., & Hofer, M. (2008). Technology and social studies. In L. S. Levstik & C. A. Tyson (Eds.), Handbook of research in social studies education (pp. 307-326). New York: Routledge
[28]	Thompson, A., & Mishra, P. (Winter 2007-2008). Breaking news: TPCK becomes TPACK! Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 24 (2). Retrieved from http://www.iste.org/Content/NavigationMenu/Membership/SIGsSIGTETeacherEducators/JCTE/PastIssues/Volume24/Number2Winter20072008/jcte-24-2-038-tho.pdf
[29]	Vogel, J.J., Vogel, D. S., Cannon-Bowers, J., Bowers, C. A., Muse, K., & Wright, M. (2006). Computer gaming and interactive simulations for learning: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational computing Research, 34 (3), 229-243.
[30]	Wilson, S. M., Shulman, L.S., & Richert A. E. (1987). '150 different ways' of knowing: Representations of knowledge in teaching. In J. Calderhead (Ed.), Exploring teachers' thinking. (pp. 104-124). London: Cassell.