EFFECTIVENESS OF E-LEARNING MODULES ON CREATIVITY AND ACHIEVEMENT IN COMPUTER SCIENCE OF HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL STUDENTS
Keywords:
Effectiveness, Creativity, Achievement, Technology in Education, E-Learning, Conventional methodAbstract
The study investigated “Effectiveness of E-Learning modules on creativity and achievement in computer science of Higher Secondary School Students”. The objective of the study is to find out the effectiveness of E-Learning among the Higher Secondary School Students.
This study investigates the effectiveness of using E-Learning in teaching in tertiary institutions. In institutions of higher education, the issue of utilizing modern information and communication technologies for teaching and learning is very important. This study reviews literature and gives a scholarly background to the study by reviewing some contributions made by various researchers and institutions on the concept of E-Learning, particularly its usage in teaching and learning in higher educational institutions. It unveils some views that people and institutions have shared globally on the adoption and integration of E-Learning technologies in education through surveys and other observations. This paper tells us about what is E-learning, what is its impact on employee and student performance, what is its history, difference between E-learning and traditional learning, future of E-Learning and some facts about E-Learning that are collected from various websites of Internet are also included in this paper, fact show that it is growing in recent years.
A sample of 40 students from 2 higher secondary schools were selected in Trichy district for this research work using the random sampling techniques. The investigator collected the reviews that are conducted in India and in abroad.
The tool for “Effectiveness of E-Learning” was prepared by the investigator under the two categories “creativity” and “achievement”. Each item consists of 25 questions. The research findings show that the level of effectiveness of E-Learning among the Higher Secondary School Students was high when compared with conventional talk and chalk method.
References
I. Clancy, M., Stasko, J., Guzdial, M., Fincher, S. & Dale, N. (2001).Models and Areas for CS Education Research. Computer Science Education, 11(4), 323-341. doi:10.1076/csed.11.4.323.3827
II. Clear, T. (2004) Critical Enquiry on CS Education. In Fincher, S., &Petre, M. (Eds) Computer Science Education Research, London, UK: Taylor & Francis, 101-125.
III. Cornwell, L.W.: Crisis in computer science education at the precollege level. In: 13th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, SIGCSE Bulletin, vol. 14(1), pp. 28–30. ACM, New York (1982)
IV. Deek, F. P. & Kimmel, H. (1999). Status of Computer Science Education in Secondary Schools: One State's Perspective. Computer Science Education, 9(2), 89-113. doi:10.1076/csed.9.2.89.3808
V. DiSessa, A. (2001). Changing minds: Computers, learning, and literacy, The MIT Press.
VI. Ebby, C. B. (2000). Learning to Teach Mathematics Differently: The Interaction Between Course work and Fieldwork for Preservice Teachers, Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 3, 69-97. ebby_2000.pdf
VII. Glass, R. L., Ramesh, V., and Vessey, I. 2004.An analysis of research in computing disciplines.Commun. ACM 47, 6 (Jun. 2004), 89-94. DOI=http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/990680.990686
VIII. Lapidot, T. and Hazzan, O. (2004). Construction of a professional perception in the “Methods of Teaching Computer Science” course, Inroads, vol.36(2), pp. 57-61. Construction of professional perceptions
IX. Meisalo,V., Sutinen, E. &Torvinen, S. (2003) Choosing Appropriate Methods for Evaluating and Improving the Learning Process in Distance Programming Courses. In the proceedings of IEEE Frontiers in Education, Denver, CO, USA.
X. Nwana, H. (1997). The computer science education crisis: fact or illusion? Interacting with Computers, 9(1), 27- 45.
XI. Pears, A., Seidman, S., Eney, C., Kinnunen, P., and Malmi, L. 2005.Constructing a core literature for computing education research. SIGCSE Bull. 37, 4 (Dec. 2005), 152-161. DOI= http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1113847.1113893
XII. R. E. Mayer, (1988). Teaching and Learning Computer Programming. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
XIII. Robin,A., Rountree, J., &Rountree, N. (2003). Learning and teaching programming: A review and discussion. Computer Science Education, 13(2), 137-172.
XIV. Tucker, A., Deek, F., Jones, J., McCowan, D., Stephenson, C. and Verno, A. (2002). A Model Curriculum for K-12 Computer Science: Report of the ACM K-12 Education Task Force Computer Science Curriculum Committee
XV. Mohd.Sharif khan, 2004, Ashish Publishing house, New Delhi.
XVI. Mishara R.C. Exploring Education Research 2008 AP .H, New Delhi – P.7.
XVII. Nagarajan k, Srinivasan R and Mary Vijayakumar (1994), Rsearch Methodology in Education, Ram PublishersChennei.
XVIII. PathakR.p., Methodology of Educational Research 2008. Allantic, new Delhi.
XIX. Ravi parkash, 2005, fpr commonwealth Publishers New Delhi.
XX. Sampath k, Panneerselvam A and Santhanam S (1998), Educational Tecnology, Sterling Publications, New Delhi.
XXI. SwaroopSaxena N.P.(2005) “Information and Communication Technology in Teacher Education” Bhargava Book House, Agra-282004.
XXII. Sharma, R.N.(1975) Introductory sociology, Meerut college, Meerut.
XXIII. Aggarwal,J.C.,1995,Teacher and Education in a developing society, Vikas publishing house pvt.ltd.
XXIV. Crow Ritchie Crow, 1961, Education in secondary school, American book company.
Additional Files
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2021 International Education and Research Journal (IERJ)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.