Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, Issue 64, 2016, 247-264 Laboratory Control System’s Effects on Student Achievement and Attitudes1 Fatma Gozalan CICEK* Mehmet TASPINAR** Suggested Citation: Cicek, F. G, & Taspinar, M. (2016). Laboratory control system’s effects on student achievement and attitudes. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 64, 247-264 http://dx.doi.org/10.14689/ejer.2016.64.14 Abstract Problem Statement: The current study investigates whether the learning environment designed based on the laboratory control system affects the academic achievement, the attitude toward the learning-teaching process and the retention of the students in computer education. Purpose of Study: The study aims to identify the laboratory control system based learning environment’s effects on students’ academic success on computer education, the related attitudes in the learning-teaching process and the permanence of the information that is learned. Methods: The study was conducted with 66 10th grade students attending a state high school in Kayseri in the 2010-2011 school year. Out of 66 students, 33 were assigned to an experimental group and 33 were assigned to a control group. While the control group students were educated primarily based on lecturing and presentations reflected through a projector, the experimental group students were trained in an active learning environment that was designed based on the laboratory control system. Both of the groups were administered the “Scale of Attitudes towards Learning and Teaching Process” and the “Achievement Test” as a pretest and posttest. The Achievement test was applied again after five weeks to find out if the learning has permanence. Findings and Results: Findings show that the experiment/test group educated in an active learning environment created with the Laboratory Control System was more successful than the control group educated in a 1 This paper has been prepared from the author’s master thesis. * Corresponding author: Department of Curricula and Teaching Materials, DG for VET, MoNE, Ankara, Turkey. [email protected]. **Prof.Dr. Department of Education, Faculty of Education, Gazi University, Ankara, Turkey. [email protected]. 248 Fatma Gozalan Cicek, & Mehmet Taspinar conventional environment. Also, there was a significant difference in permenance points of the experiment/test and control group. These results show that learning environments designed according to the Laboratory Control System are more effective in computer education. In addition, the experiment group students’ attitudes about the learning process were more positive than control group students’ attitudes. Recommendations: In light of these results, creating an active learning environment using the Laboratory Control System is recommended. In this environment classes should be involved in the learning by giving students active missions like leadership. This can increase the students’ success, the permanence of the lessons learned and also improve the attitudes of the students toward the lesson. Keywords: Laboratory Control System, NetSupport school, active learning environment, student interaction, computer education. Introduction It is of great importance to educate individuals so that they can use technology, have access to information, produce new information from the information obtained and market this information. Some required and elective courses are offered in formal education for students to acquire information-related skills. One of these courses is Information and Communications Technologies (ICT) offered in elementary and secondary schools. The ICT course is required in Vocational and Technical high schools and is an elective in general high schools. In schools where the course is elective, computer laboratory facilities and application opportunities comprise an important factor affecting the success of the curriculum. In vocational and technical high schools, the computer laboratory facilities are better than those of the general high schools. In general high schools, one computer can be shared by two or three students, reducing the efficiency of teaching. Package programs such as Word, Excel, etc. are comprehensive programs requiring students to work individually and then discuss what they have learned with their peers. In this regard, the active learning environment designed for the experimental group allows students to be involved in the process. because of this, they can be more successful and one class hour can be spent more effectively. In instruction, it is better for students to see the teacher’s screen using a projector or TV screen. By looking at the teacher’s screen, students can better see the processes or the internet pages where information can be obtained about these processes. Projectors or screens can also be used to show students’ work. This allows students to evaluate themselves based on their peers’ work (Vural, 2004: 257). The more crowded classes are, the more difficult it becomes for students to see the screen. In this regard, ICT applications may offer some help. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research 249 As noted by Sulak (2007), teachers think that the main problems encountered in ICT courses are inadequate class hours and course content that is too comprehensive for the time allotted, a shortage of computers in laboratories, deficiencies in the infrastructure and the low number of projectors available. In this regard, necessary precautions should be taken to make better use of the limited resources and analyze the learning processes and related variables. Cüre and Özdener (2008) found a high level positive correlation between teachers’ success of ICT applications and attitudes toward ICT. Moreover, the teachers think that ICT facilitates learning, enhances the success of students and teachers, draws the interest of students, and are necessary for teaching to be effective. However, they believe that in crowded schools it can be quite difficult to make full use of ICT and that using ICT increases their responsibilities. In response to these problems, active learning environments can be created through an LCS in classes including computer applications in ICT laboratories. Thus, both students’ success can be enhanced and positive attitudes toward the learning-teaching process can be developed. In general, software programs enabling teachers to see the screens of students and to show their screens to the students can be called computer laboratory control (CLC) software. Examples of such programs include Netop School, Netop Remote Control, NetSupport School, iTALC, etc. (Altun, Kışla and Çobanoğlu, 2009: 413). Laboratory control systems (LCSs) allow students to conduct their class activities over a teacher-centered computer. The system facilitates communication and is cost- effective (Smaldino, Lowther and Russell, 2008: 343). The teacher can watch what students are doing and help when necessary without going to the students on their computers. Strategic use of educational technologies facilitates and fosters learning and teaching. Given the need for cooperation, communication and innovative pedagogic approaches will make more effective use of educational technologies (Webster and Murphy, 2008: 1). A network is needed for the remote control of the lessons in computer laboratories. LCS is a system having the potential to contribute to educational environments. Moreover, this system provides students with the following opportunities (Thai, 2008: 78): 1. A network is established 2. It fosters students’ problem solving skills through explanations supported by graphs and handwritings. 3. It fosters student interest in lessons and improves their interaction with each other. 4. It directs students to more enhanced production by allowing them to customize their multi-media notes and generating a platform for students to share their products. 5. It helps teachers to evaluate student behaviors and students to evaluate their learning styles more effectively. 250 Fatma Gozalan Cicek, & Mehmet Taspinar An LCS can provide help for teachers in classroom management in a computer laboratory. These systems help teachers to manage their classes or schools and assign certain students specific tasks. Such a system can also provide assistance in storing student information and developing class reports. The system offers alternative options to store student profiles and involve students in the platform (Duffy, J.L., McDonald, J.B. & Mizell, 2005: 157). An LCS can manage all computers and operations in these computers (Jelemenská, Koine and Čičák, 2010). NetSupport School was designed to improve the learning process by enabling users to watch and control their monitor screens (Hope, 2010: 233). In laboratory environments where the number of students can be high, it can be difficult and time-consuming to deal with students on a one-by-one basis. In an environment designed with an LCS, teachers can help their students by entering students’ computers over their own computers without moving around the classroom. An LCS also has chatting and messaging capabilities. The teachers and students can chat or communicate through written messages. They can find solutions to problems by means of written messages. Thilakarathna, Keppitiyagama, Zoysa, Jasinghe and Hansson (2010) conducted a study titled “Design and Evaluation of an Application Software for Informal Peer Group Learning.” In this work, informal cooperation was established by sending messages to each other over the LCS. It was also effective in nurturing cooperation. In some research studies, students were asked whether LCS contributes to informal cooperation and group discussions and positive responses were obtained. As well established, the main goal of education is not only to instill desired behaviors in students, but also to prevent undesired learning outcomes from occurring. Through an LCS, the teacher can see the incorrect operations of students and intervene immediately. In this way, possible erroneous learning can be corrected without delay. An LCS, for example in NetSupport, allows teacher to watch students’ classroom activities over a teacher-centered computer. The system facilitates the communication and is cost-effective (Smaldino, Lowther and Russell, 2008: 343). Teaching-learning environments designed based on LCS may have many contributions to education. International research on the educational environments designed based on an LCS system shows that LCS programs enhance student- student and student-teacher interaction, facilitate the remote control of students, and enable teachers to control and monitor their students individually (Communication News, 2001). In addition, LCS-based classroom environments are cost-effective and access to forbidden sites can be controlled (Briner, Roberts and Worthy: 2005; Simpson, Crews, Rydl and Roge: 2005). As Moor (2006) put it, in traditional laboratory environments, it may become very difficult for students to see the exercises shown on the projector. Jones, Peters and Shields (2007) reported that LCS programs such as NetSupport School provide students with opportunities to learn individually. Also, through this system, administration of online exams is very easy. In addition to the findings reported in the current study, it was found that the LCS is suitable for connecting a network system by Nicholson, Nicholson and Eurasian Journal of Educational Research 251 Valacich (2007) and that the LCS is useful in creating a cooperative laboratory environment (Sigle, Critcher and Agarwal (2007)). Moreover, it was reported that the LCS makes a positive contributions to learning how to learn (Business Wire, 2008), reduces the possibility of cheating, saves time and improves informal communication (Maharjan and Falla, 2009); Thilakarathna, Keppitiyagama, Zoysa, Jasinghe and Hansson (2010)). No research looking at the effects of using LCS in teaching-learning environments in different aspects was seen in the literature in Turkey. Therefore, the main purpose of the present study is to investigate the effect of learning environment designed based on LCS on student achievement and their attitudes towards learning-teaching process. For this purpose, several hypotheses were tested. Hypotheses related to the achievement test are as follows: 1. a. There is no significant difference between the pretest academic achievement mean scores of the groups. b. There is no significant difference between the posttest academic achievement mean scores of the groups. c. There is no significant difference between the achievement mean scores of the groups. d. There is no significant difference between the retention mean scores of the groups. 2. a. There is no significant difference between the pretest and posttest mean scores of the experimental group students learning in an environment where LCS is used. b. There is no significant difference between the posttest and retention mean scores of the experimental group students learning in an environment where LCS is used. 3. a. There is no significant difference between the pretest and posttest mean scores of the control group students learning in an environment where LCS is not used. b. There is no significant difference between the posttest and retention mean scores of the control group students learning in an environment where LCS is not used. Hypotheses related to Attitudes towards Learning-Teaching Process are as follows: 1. a. There is no significant difference between the pretest attitude mean scores of the experimental and control groups. 252 Fatma Gozalan Cicek, & Mehmet Taspinar b. There is no significant difference between the posttest attitude mean scores of the experimental and control groups. 2. There is no significant difference between the pretest and posttest attitude mean scores of the experimental group students. 3. There is no significant difference between the pretest and posttest attitude mean scores of the control group students. 4. There is no significant difference between the achievement attitude mean scores of the experimental group students and the control group students. Method Research Design In the present study, experimental design with pretest-posttest control group was employed. As can be seen in Table 1, the experimental group was taught in an environment created with LCS and the control group was taught without using LCS. Table 1. Operations Performed in the Study Before the Throughout At the end of 5 weeks after the application the application the application application (6 weeks) Experimental Pretest With LCS Posttest group Retention test Attitude scale Attitude scale Pretest Without LCS Posttest Control Retention test Attitude scale Attitude scale group Research Sample The study group of the current research consists of 66 10th grade students attending a state high school in Kayseri. Out of 66 participants, 33 were assigned to the experimental group and 33 were assigned to the control group. The experimental and control groups were determined by taking the students’ first term ICT course academic achievement mean scores and pretest academic achievement test mean scores through an unbiased assignment method. According to independent samples t test result, there is no significant difference found between the first term ICT course academic achievement mean scores of both groups (t = -1,256, p>0,05). This shows that the groups were at the same level before 64 Eurasian Journal of Educational Research 253 the application. There is also no significant difference between the pretest achievement mean scores of the experimental and control groups (t = -1,859, 64 p>0,05). This shows that both of the groups were at the same level in the field of Web design before the application. Research Instrument and Procedure In order to determine the academic achievement of the students in Web design, an achievement test consisting of 28 items was developed. While developing the test, opinions of the teachers giving Web Design course were sought and the validity of the test was established using expert opinions. Difficulty and discrimination levels of the test items were tested through a piloting conducted with 100 students attending the vocational high schools. The mean difficulty of the test was found to be 0.53 and hence, it is a moderately difficult test. In the present study, a 38-item attitude scale developed by Demirli (2007) was employed to determine the effect of learning process on student attitudes. Cronbach Alpha reliability coefficient was found to be 0.932. Teaching Environments The application was carried out in the second term of 2010–2011 school year for six weeks by using Dreamweaver CS4 program to teach web design. Groups were administered the pretest at the beginning of the application and the posttest at the end of the application. A retention test was administered five weeks after the completion of the study. While the control group students were taught by means of lecturing supported with projector presentations, the experimental group students were taught by installing NetSupport School Tutor Console on the computer of the instructor and NetSupport School Student on the computers of the students. Teaching methods such as lecturing, question-answer and role-play (assigning the role of a leader to the students) were used. Findings Results Related to the Achievement Test In relation to the achievement scores of the present study, it was investigated whether the Web design achievement scores of the experimental and control groups varied depending on the groups (experimental and control) and measurements (pretest and posttest). First, parametric test hypotheses were tested in order to determine the tests to be used to analyze the hypotheses. Thus, the Levene test was determined to be useful in comparing the independent samples, and the Kolmogrov Smirnov tests were determined to be useful in comparing the dependent samples and the distributions and homojenity of variances were found to be normal Hence, in testing all the hypotheses, dependent and independent samples t tests from parametric tests were used and the results are presented in Table 2. 254 Fatma Gozalan Cicek, & Mehmet Taspinar Table 2. t Test Results concerning the Achievement Test Scores of the Experimental and Control Groups Levene test** / t test Groups / Test N X SS sd KSZ*** F p t p There is no significant difference between the posttest academic achievement Hypothesis 1-b): mean scores of the experimental and control groups. Experimental group 33 85,51 8,06 posttest 64 0,006** 0,938 -2,978 0,004* Control group posttest 33 79,54 8,22 There is no significant difference between the achievement mean scores of the Hypothesis 1-c): experimental and control groups. Experimental group 33 77,93 8,65 achievement 64 0,890** 0,349 3,350 0,001* Control group 33 71,33 7,30 achievement There is no significant difference between the retention mean scores of the Hypothesis 1-d): experimental and control groups. Experimental group 33 78,51 8,20 retention 64 0,012** 0,912 -5,160 0,000* Control group retention 33 68,33 7,82 There is no significant difference between the pretest and posttest academic Hypothesis 2-a): achievement scores of the experimental group. Experimental group 33 9,69 6,48 pretest 32 0,779*** 0,579 -41,56 0,000* Experimental group 33 85,51 8,06 posttest There is no significant difference between the posttest and retention mean Hypothesis 2-b): scores of the experimental group. Experimental group 33 85,51 8,06 posttest 32 0,831*** 0,495 9,397 0,000* Experimental group 33 78,51 7,82 retention There is no difference between the pretest and posttest achievement mean Hypothesis 3-a): scores of the control group. Control Group Pretest 33 6,84 5,94 32 0,564*** 0,908 -55,26 0,000* Control Group Posttest 33 79,54 8,22 There is no significant difference between the posttest and retention mean Hypothesis 3-b): scores of the control group students Control group posttest 33 79,54 8,22 32 0,648*** 0,795 15,459 0,000* Control group retention 33 68,33 8,20 Eurasian Journal of Educational Research 255 *p<0.05 significant ** Levene test: Independent samples *** K.S.Z.Kolmogrov Smirnov test: Dependent samples A significant difference favoring the posttest mean scores of experimental group was found (t = -2,978, p<0.05). Thus, it can be argued that the learning (64) environment designed based on an LCS is more successful than the traditional learning environment. This favors hypothesis 1-c: There is a significant difference between the achievement mean scores of the experimental group and control group in favor of the experimental group (t = 3,350, p<0.05). Hence, it can be argued that (64) the learning environment designed based on LCS is more successful. The results establish Hypothesis 1-d: There is a significant difference between the retention mean scores of the experimental and control group favoring the experimental group (t = -5,160, p<0.05). The retention level of the experimental (64) group is better than that of the control group. The results also support Hypotheses 2- a and 2-b): There is a significant difference between the pretest and posttest mean scores of the experimental group students (t =-41,56, p<0.05). The learning (32) environment designed based on an LCS increased the students’ achievement. However, there is still a significant difference between the posttest and retention mean scores of the experimental group students (t =9,397, p<0.05). The students (32) forgot some of what they had learned. The reason for forgetting this information may be the five-week interval between the posttest and retention test. (Hypotheses 3-a and 3-b): There is a significant difference between the pretest and posttest mean scores of the control group students (t =-55,26, p<0.05). That is, (32) the traditional learning environment also improved the students’ achievement. This may be because the students learned Web design-related subjects for the first time. There is also a significant difference between the posttest and retention mean scores of the control group (t =15,459, p<0.05). This shows that the students in the control (32) group also forgot what they had learned to some extent. Results Concerning the Experimental and Control Group Students’ Attitude Scores in relation to Learning-Teaching Process Results related to pretest attitude scores of the experimental and control groups. There is a significant difference between the attitudes of the groups (hypothesis 1-a). (t = - (74) 0,784, p<0.05). This indicates that both of the groups had similar attitudes towards learning-teaching process prior to the application. Results related to posttest attitude scores of the experimental and control groups. There is a significant difference between the posttest attitude mean scores of the groups (t = -6,054, p<0.05). Therefore, it can be argued that learning environment designed (74) based on an LCS affected the students’ attitudes more positively than the normal learning environment. Results concerning the experimental group students’ pretest attitude and posttest attitude scores. As a result of Wilcoxon test administered on the pretest attitude and posttest 256 Fatma Gozalan Cicek, & Mehmet Taspinar attitude scores of the experimental group students, significant differences were found for many items. Thus, first the items whose pretest and posttest scores are significantly different are discussed and then some other items thought to be important are discussed. It is seen that before the application, the students agree with this negative statement “I get tired of investing too much effort in class” (X pretest: 3,78) and after the application, they stated that they strongly disagree with the same statement ( X posttest: 4,33). This may prove that instruction given in this process makes students active through both teacher-student interaction and student-student interaction; so, students were not bored and were willing to invest effort. In this environment of active interaction, the students stated that they feel prone to sharing their opinions with their peers (X pretest: 3,72 - X posttest: 4,39). In such environments, students are more willing to make effort to explain and defend their opinions. The students’ agreement with the statement “I like being given an opportunity to create my own goal” increased throughout the application (X pretest= 4,18; X posttest= 4,75). The students’ opinion about the statement “I like being given an opportunity to control myself” became more positive during the application (X pretest: 3,93;X posttest: 4,72). When the students think that they belong to the learning environment, they feel more confident (X pretest: 4,18- X posttest: 4,57) and see themselves as a part of the learning environment. Therefore, the students feel more comfortable during class activities (X pretest: 3,72 - X posttest: 4,39) and they believe that they could learn better in an environment where they feel relaxed and confident (X pretest: 4,03 - X posttest: 4,33). These results show that the students enjoy explaining and defending their opinions. Prior to the application, the students agree with the statement “I feel confident when equality of opportunity is ensured” (X pretest: 4,18) and after the application, they strongly agree with the same statement (X posttest: 4,78). In the environment designed based on LCS, the teacher shows the same interest to all students over his/her computer. The students feel that they are given opportunities to construct their own meanings (X pretest: 3,69 - X posttest :4,57) and they like being given the opportunity of deciding what to do (X pretest: 4,12 - X posttest: 4,78) The students believe that they can manage their time more effectively in the learning environment designed based on an LCS as they are interactively involved in the process and they are provided with immediate feedback (X pretest: 3,72 - X posttest :4,12) In conclusion, the students instructed in the learning environment designed based on LCS reported no negative attitude towards this environment. In this