Pupils’ Perceptions of the Teacher’s Changing Role in E-Learning Physics Classroom Instruction

Joel K.  Kiboss

doi:10.4236/ce.2010.11006

Journals by Subject

Journals by Title

CE Vol.1 No.1 , June 2010

Pupils’ Perceptions of the Teacher’s Changing Role in E-Learning Physics Classroom Instruction

Joel K. Kiboss

Abstract: This article explores the pupils’ view of the teacher’s changing role as a result of the implementation of an innovation that involved electronic learning measurement lessons in a developing country, namely Kenya. 118 randomly pupils enrolled in schools that could be visited conveniently in Nakuru district, Kenya were exposed to an electronic learning program (ELP) in physics. The ELP physics module was developed from a physics course dealing with the concept of measurement. The content was based on the Kenya Institute of Education (KIE) approved syllabus for science education, science textbooks and other relevant materials. Part of the investigation was to determine the effect of the ELP physics module on pupils’ perspectives of the teacher’s role during the physics course. The participants were interviewed at random using the Pupils’ Interview Guide (PIG). A selected group of pupils’ own expressions were also analyzed. The results showed that the conceptions of the pupils who were exposed to the e-learning program and those not so exposed differed remarkably. For, the pupils in the experimental condition depended more on their peers and the program while their counterparts in the traditional class were more dependent on the teacher. The study concludes that the use of ELP module to support conventional physics instruction can have substantial advantages over other approaches.

Keywords: Electronic Learning, Expository Teaching, Changing Role, Innovation

Cite this paper: nullKiboss, J. (2010). Pupils’ Perceptions of the Teacher’s Changing Role in E-Learning Physics Classroom Instruction. Creative Education, 1, 33-38. doi: 10.4236/ce.2010.11006.

References

[1] S. M. Allessi and S. R. Trollip, “Computer Based Instruc-tion: Methods and Development,” 2nd Ed., Englewood Cliffs, Prentice-Hall, NJ, 1991.

[2] R. E. Clark, “Media Will Never Influence Learning,” Educational Technology Research and Development, Vol. 42, No. 2, 1994, pp. 21-29.

[3] M. J. Gavora and M. Hannafin, “Perspectives on the De-sign of Human-Computer Interactions: Issues and Impli-cations,” Instructional Science, Vol. 22, No. 6, 1995, pp. 445-447.

[4] T. C. Reeves, “A Model of the Effective Dimensions of Interactive Learning,” In: P. M. Alexander, Ed., Comput-er-Assisted Education Training in Developing Countries, University of South Africa, Pretoria, 1995, pp. 221-227.

[5] J. K. Kiboss, “An Evaluation of Teacher/Student Verbal and Non-Verbal Behaviors in Computer-Augmented Physics Laboratory Classrooms in Kenya,” Journal of Information Technology and Teacher Education, Vol. 9, No. 3, 2000, pp. 199-213.

[6] R. L. Blomeyer, “Microcomputers in Foreign Language Teaching: A Case Study on Computer Aided Learning,” In: R. L. Blomeyer and C. D. Martin, Eds., Case Studies in Computer Aided Learning, The Falmer Press, London, 1991, pp. 115-149.

[7] C. D. Martin, “Stakeholder Perspectives on Implementa-tion of Micros in a School District,” In: R. L. Blomeyer and C. D. Martin, Eds., Case Studies in Computer-Aided Learning, The Falmer Press, London, 1991, pp. 169-221

[8] D. Neuman, “Opportunities for Research on Organization Impact of School Computers,” Education Researcher, Vol. 19, No. 3, 1990, pp. 8-13.

[9] M. B. Miles and A. M. Huberman, “Qualitative Data Analysis,” Sage, London, 1984.

[10] D. Neuman, “Naturalistic Inquiry and Computer-Based Instruction: Rationale, Procedures, and Potential,” Educa-tional Technology Research and Development, Vol. 37, No. 3, 1989, pp. 39-51.

[11] M. Q. Patton, “Qualitative Evaluation Methods,” Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, CA, 1991.

[12] M. D. Lecompte and J. Goetz, “Multiple Case Study,” In: D. M. Fetterman, Ed., Ethnography in Educational Eval-uation, Sage Publications, Beverly Hills CA, 1984, pp. 37-59.

[13] D. Lortie, “School Teacher: A Sociological Study,” Uni-versity of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1975.

[14] P. Freirie, “The Pedagogy of the Oppressed,” Continuum, New York, 1970.

[15] P. Freirie, “Education for Social Consciousness,” New York, Continuum, 1973.

[16] O. J. Jegede and P. A. Okebukola, “Differences in Soci-ocultural Environment Perceptions Associated with Gender in Science Classrooms,” Journal of Research in Science Teaching, Vol. 29, No. 7, 1992, pp. 637-647.

[17] A. L. Montoya, “Perceptions of School Climate and Stu-dent Achievement in Middle and Elementary School,” Kutztown University of Pennsylvania, ERIC ED 324111, 1990.

[18] H. A. Robinson, “The Ethnography of Empowerment: The Transformative Power of Classroom Interaction,” The Palmer Press, Bristol, PA, 1994.

[19] M. Ndirangu, J. K. Kiboss and E. Wekesa, “Reflections from a Computer Simulations Program on Cell Division in Selected Kenyan Secondary Schools,” The Science Education Review, Vol. 4, No. 4, 2005, pp. 117-124.

[20] E. K. Tanui, J. K. Kiboss, A. A. Walaba and D. Nassiuma, “Teachers’ Changing Roles in Computer Assisted Roles in Kenyan Secondary Schools,” Educational Research and Review, Vol. 3, No. 8, 2008, pp. 280-285.

[21] G. Underwood and J. D. M. Underwood, “Computers and Learning: Helping Children Acquire Thinking Skills,” Blackwell, Cambridge, U.S.A., 1994.

[22] D. Williams, L. Coles, A. Richardson, K. Wilson and J. Tuson, “Integrating Information and Communications Technology in Professional Practice: An Analysis of Teachers’ Needs Based on a Survey of Primary and Sec-ondary Teachers in Scottish Schools,” Journal of Infor-mation Technology and Teacher Education, Vol. 9, No. 2, 2000, pp. 167-182.