Abstract :

This study was to investigate the effect and explore students’ interest in using Xerte Toolkit in teaching and learning of Coordinate Geometry. In all, 50 pre-service teachers were involved in the study. The study adopted a mixed method approach. Semi – structured interviews as well as achievement test were the instruments used for data collection. The items in the achievement test were analyzed using statistical tools such as percentages, mean, standard deviation and t-test from Excel 2016 Analysis Tools. The descriptive statistics indicated that there was a significant difference between pretest and post test scores. The findings in this study posits that students’ interest in using Xerte Toolkits in teaching and learning Coordinate Geometry has increased and are ever ready to use Xerte Toolkit again in their studies.

---

Keywords :

Conceptual Understanding, Pre – Service Teachers, Xerte Toolkit

---

References :

1. Angrist, J., & Lavy, V. (2002). New Evidence on Classroom Computers and Pupil Learning. The Economic Journal, 112 (482), 735-765.
2. Campuzano, L., Dynarski, M., Agodini, R., & Rall, K., (2009), Effectiveness of reading and mathematics software products: Findings from two student cohorts. Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance.
3. Cavanagh, Michael & Mitchelmore, Michael. (2011). Learning to teach secondary mathematics using an online learning system. Mathematics Education Research Journal. 23. 417-435. 10.1007/s13394-011-0024-1.
4. Cheung, A. (2013). Effects of educational technology applications on student achievement for disadvantaged students: What forty years of research tells us. Cypriot Journal of Educational Sciences, 8(1), 19-33.
5. Cheung, A., & Slavin, R. (2013). The effectiveness of educational technology applications for enhancing mathematics achievement in K-12 classrooms: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 9, 88-113.
6. D. (2001), Teaching and Learning Geometry. In J. Kilparick (Ed), Research Companion to the NCTM Standards for Mathematics. Reston, VA: NCTM.
7. Cox, M.J., & Marshall, G. (2007). Effects of ICT: Do we know what we should know? Education and Information Technologies, 12(2), 59-70.
8. Hohenwarter, J., & Hohenwarter, M. (Writer) (2009). Introducing Dynamic Mathematics Software to Secondary School Teachers: The Case of GeoGebra [Article], Journal of Computers in Mathematics & Science Teaching: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.
9. Johnson, S. D., & Aragon, S. R. (2002). An instructional strategy framework for online learning environments. In T. M Egan & S. A. Lynham (Eds.), Proceedings of the Academy of Human Resource Development Annual Conference (41-1). Bowling Green, OH: Academy of Human Resource Development.
10. Jones, K. (2002), Issues in the Teaching and Learning of Geometry. In: Linda Haggarty (Ed), Aspects of Teaching Secondary Mathematics: perspectives on practice. London: Routledge Falmer. Chapter 8, pp 121-139. ISBN: 0-415-26641-6
11. Kulik, C. & Kulik, J. (1991). Effectiveness of computer-based instruction: An updated analysis. Computers in Human Behavior. 7. 75-94. 10.1016/0747-5632(91)90030-5.
12. Kulik, J. A. (2003). Effects of using instructional technology in elementary and secondary schools: What controlled evaluation studies say. SRI International Report.
13. Kumar, N., Rose, R. C., & D’Silva, J. L. (2008). Teachers’ Readiness to Use Technology in the Classroom: An Empirical Study. European Journal of Scientific Research, 21(4), 603-616.
14. Lei, J., & Zhao, Y. (2007). Technology uses and student achievement: A longitudinal study. Computers & Education, 49(2), 284-296.
15. Molina, A., & Cameron, R. (2010). The Application of Mixed Methods in Organisational Research: A Literature Review. The Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods vol. 8(2), 95-105.
16. NCTM (2008). The role of technology in the teaching and learning of mathematics: A position of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Retrieved from http://www.nctm.org.com
17. Pugliese, L. (2016). Adaptive learning systems: Surviving the storm. Educause Review.

http://er.educause.edu/articles/2016/10/adaptive-learning-systems-surviving-thestorm.

18. Slavin, R.E., Chueng, A., Groff, C., & Lake C. (2008). Effective reading programs for middle and high schools: A best‐evidence synthesis. Reading Research Quarterly, 43(3), 290-322.
19. Spiezia, V. (2010). Does computer use increase educational achievements? Student-level evidence from PISA. OECD Journal: Economic Studies, Volume 2010.
20. Stefan, D. (2013). Questionnaires. Retrieved from Research & Consultation Guidelines: http://www.kirklees.gov.uk/ community/yoursay/ questionnaires.pdf Computers & Education, 49(2), 284-296.
21. UCC (2018). Course Manuel for Geometry and Trigonometry for College of Education, University of Cape Coast, Cape Coast.
22. Venkatesh, V., Brown, S., & Bala, H. (2013). Bridging the Qualitative-Quantitative Divide: Guidelines for Conducting Mixed Methods. Research in Information Systems. MIS Quarterly Vol,37(1), 21- 54.
23. Williams, S. W. (2000). Towards a Framework for Teaching and Learning in an Online Environment: A review of the literature. In K. P. Kuchinke (Ed.), Proceedings of the Academy of Human Resource Development Annual Conference (1-2). Baton Rouge: Academy of Human Resource Development.