IVIC 2017: Advances in Visual Informatics pp 433-444 | Cite as

Integrating Learning Techniques into iCAL4LA-Bijak Matematik Courseware to Motivate Low Achieving Children in Learning

Conference paper
First Online:
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10645)

Abstract

Children with learning difficulties require support during teaching and learning process. This study looks into the solution of learning difficulties confronted by the low achieving (LA) children who particularly have problems in literacy (reading) and numeracy (calculating). This study proposed the suitable learning techniques integrated into a learning courseware in order to ensure the children are engaged during the learning process as well as able to accomplish the whole learning content. The main objective is achieved through three research activities, which are (i) learning techniques selection, (ii) design and development of courseware, and (iii) user experience testing. As the result, this study initially found three learning techniques that are suitable for LA children. They are deployed into a courseware, iCAL4LA-Bijak Matematik in motivating the LA children to learn mathematics. The user experience testing revealed that it was motivating the LA children with percentage of mean, 97% as the ability in accomplishing overall sub-modules, as they can choose specific learning technique based on their preference.

Keywords

Low achieving Learning techniques User experience 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. 1.
    Nandhini, K., Balasundaram, S.R.: Math word question generation for training the students with learning difficulties. In: Proceedings of the International Conference & Workshop on Emerging Trends in Technology - ICWET 2011, pp. 206–211 (2011)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hock, T.T., Chang, W.S., Muhamad Rais, A.: Clinical diagnosis and non-verbal ability of primary-one school children with LD. Int. J. Public Health Res. 33–40 (2011). Special Issue 2011Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Compton, D.L., Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., Lambert, W., Hamlett, C.: The cognitive and academic profiles of reading and mathematics learning disabilities. J. Learn. Disabil. 45(1), 79–95 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Adam, T., Tatnall, A.: Use of ICT to assist students with learning difficulties: an actor-network analysis. In: Reynolds, N., Turcsányi-Szabó, M. (eds.) KCKS 2010. IAICT, vol. 324, pp. 1–11. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-15378-5_1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Norwich, B., Ylonen, A., Gwernan-Jones, R.: Moderate learning difficulties: searching for clarity and understanding. Res. Pap. Educ. 29(1), 1–19 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Siti Zulaiha, A., Ariffin, A.M.: Exploring computer assisted learning for low achieving children: a comparative analysis study. J. Teknologi 77(29), 1–7 (2015)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dunn, R., Honigsfeld, A.: Learning styles: what we know and what we need. Educ. Forum 77(2), 225–232 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K.A., Marsh, E.J., Nathan, M.J., Willingham, D.T.: Improving students’ learning with effective learning techniques: promising directions from cognitive and educational psychology. Psychol. Sci. Public Interest 14(1), 4–58 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Byram, M.: Flashcard. In: Encyclopedia of Language Teaching & Learning, pp. 217–218. Routledge, Abingdon (2000)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bryson, D.: Using flashcards to support your learning. J. Vis. Commun. Med. 35(1), 25–29 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Srithar, U.: Learning at your own pace: M-learning solution for school students. Int. J. Inf. Electron. Eng. 5(3), 216–224 (2015)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kornell, N., Bjork, R.A.: Optimising self-regulated study: the benefits - and costs - of dropping flashcards. Memory 16(2), 125–136 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Skarr, A., Williams, R.L., Mclaughlin, T.F.: The effects of direct instruction flashcard and math racetrack procedures on mastery of basic multiplication facts by three elementary school students. Educ. Treat. Child. 37(1), 77–93 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Browder, D.M., Roberts, M.L.: Guidelines for flash card instruction. J. Behav. Educ. 3(3), 235–245 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wissman, K.T., Rawson, K.A., Pyc, M.A.: How and when do students use flashcards? Memory 20(6), 568–579 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Aryati, B., Nor Hawaniah, Z., Siti Nazirah, M.Z., AbuSafia, A.H.: A conceptual model of Al-Furqan courseware using persuasive system design for early learning childhood. In: 8th Malaysian Software Engineering Conference, Langkawi, pp. 336–341. IEEE (2014)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Saatz, I., Kienle, A.: Learning with e-flashcards – does it matter? In: Hernández-Leo, D., Ley, T., Klamma, R., Harrer, A. (eds.) EC-TEL 2013. LNCS, vol. 8095, pp. 629–630. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-40814-4_85 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Schmidmaier, R., Ebersbach, R., Schiller, M., Hege, I., Holzer, M., Fischer, M.R.: Using electronic flashcards to promote learning in medical students: retesting versus restudying. Med. Educ. 45(11), 1101–1110 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ashcraft, M.H.: The development of mental arithmetic: a chronometric approach. Dev. Rev. 2(3), 213–236 (1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hitch, G.J.: The role of short-term working memory in mental arithmetic. Cogn. Psychol. 10(3), 302–323 (1978)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Price, G.R., Mazzocco, M.M.M., Ansari, D.: Why mental arithmetic counts: brain activation during single digit arithmetic predicts high school math scores. J. Neurosci. 33(1), 156–163 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wu, S.S., Meyer, M.L., Maeda, U., Salimpoor, V., Tomiyama, S., Geary, D.C., Menon, V.: Standardized assessment of strategy use and working memory in early mental arithmetic performance. Dev. Neuropsychol. 33(3), 365–393 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Klein, E., Moeller, K., Willmes, K., Nuerk, H.C., Domahs, F.: The influence of implicit hand-based representations on mental arithmetic. Front. Psychol. 2, 1–7 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Scarborough, V., Brady, S.: Toward a common terminology for talking about speech and reading: a glossary of the ‘Phon’ words and some related terms. J. Lit. Res. 34(3), 299–336 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Wyse, D., Goswami, U.: Synthetic phonics and the teaching of reading. Br. Edu. Res. J. 34(6), 691–710 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Davis, A.: To read or not to read: decoding synthetic phonics. Impact 2013(20), 1–38 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ahmad, S.Z., Nik Ludin, N.A.A., Ekhsan, H.M., Rosmani, A.F.: Bijak Membaca - applying phonic reading technique and multisensory approach with interactive multimedia for dyslexia children. In: IEEE Colloquium on Humanities, Science & Engineering Research (CHUSER 2012), Kota Kinabalu, pp. 554–559. IEEE (2012)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ismail, S.S., Mohd Mahidin, E.M., Umar, I.R., Mohd Yusoff, M.Z.: E-Z-disleksia for dyslexic children. In: Proceedings of Regional Conference on Knowledge Integration in ICT, pp. 435–444. KUIS, Selangor (2010)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Sidhu, M.S., Manzura, E.: An effective conceptual multisensory multimedia model to support dyslexic children in learning. Int. Inf. Commun. Technol. Educ. 7(3), 34–50 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Stahl, S.A.: Teaching children with reading problems to decode: phonics and ‘not-phonics’ instruction. Read. Writ. Q. 14(2), 165–188 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Chard, D.J., Osborn, J.: Phonics and word recognition instruction in early reading programs: guidelines for accessibility. Learn. Disabil. Res. Pract. 14(2), 107–117 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Hornery, S., Seaton, M., Tracey, D., Craven, R.G., Yeung, A.S.: Enhancing reading skills and reading self-concept of children with reading difficulties: adopting a dual approach intervention. Aust. J. Educ. Dev. Psychol. 14(2014), 131–143 (2014)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Saine, N.L., Lerkkanen, M.K., Ahonen, T., Tolvanen, A., Lyytinen, H.: Computer-assisted remedial reading intervention for school beginners at risk for reading disability. Child. Dev. 82(3), 1013–1028 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Dai, D.Y., Sternberg, R.J.: Beyond cognitivism: toward an integrated understanding of intellectual functioning and development. In: Motivation, Emotion, and Cognition: Intergrative Perspectives on Intellectual Functioning and Development, Laawrence Erlbaum Associates, New Jersey (2004)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Hassenzahl, M., Tractinsky, N.: User experience - a research agenda. Behav. Inf. Technol. 25(2), 91–97 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Ariffin, A.M., Norshuhada, S.: Conceptual design model of reality learning media (RLM). In: Proceedings of IADIS International Conference e-Society 2009, pp. 353–360 (2009)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Mayer, R.E.: Incorporating motivation into multimedia learning. Learn. Instr. 29(2014), 171–173 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Lee, S.H., Boling, E.: Screen design guidelines for motivation in interactive multimedia instruction: a survey and framework for designers. Educ. Technol. 39(3), 19–26 (1999)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Attfield, S., Kazai, G.: Towards a science of user engagement. In: WSDM Workshop on User Modelling for Web Application. ACM (2011)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Chapman, P., Selvarajah, S., Webster, J.: Engagement in multimedia training systems. In: Proceeding of 32nd Annual Hawaii International Conference System Science, pp. 1–9 (1999)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Ronimus, M., Kujala, J., Tolvanen, A., Lyytinen, H.: Children’s engagement during digital game-based learning of reading: the effects of time, rewards, and challenge. Comput. Educ. 71(2014), 237–246 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Aznoora, O., Wan Ahmad, W.J., Aznan, C.A.: Educational multimedia app for dyslexia literacy intervention: a preliminary evaluation. Procedia – Soc. Behav. Sci. 176(2015), 405–411 (2015)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Said, S.N.: An engaging multimedia design model. In: Proceeding - Interaction Design and Children Building a Community, IDC 2004, pp. 169–172 (2004)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Siti Zulaiha, A., Ariffin, A.M.: Conceptual model of iCAL4LA: proposing the components using comparative analysis. In: AIP Conference Proceeding, vol. 1761 (2016)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Ulhq, H., Odlqh, D.Q.G.: What is user engagement? A conceptual framework for defining user engagement with technology. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 59(6), 1–37 (2008)Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Tullis, T., Albert, B.: Measuring the User Experience. Morgan Kaufmann, Burlington (2010)Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Spence, D., Usher, E.: Engagement with mathematics courseware in traditional and online remedial learning environments: relationship to self-efficacy and achievement. J. Educ. Comput. Res. 37(3), 267–288 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Universiti Teknologi MARA PerlisArauMalaysia
  2. 2.Universiti Utara MalaysiaSintokMalaysia

Personalised recommendations