PERFORMANCE OUTCOME AND TASK- TECHNOLOGY FIT RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN

(1)

PERFORMANCE OUTCOME AND TASK- TECHNOLOGY FIT RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN

AUDIENCE RESPONSE SYSTEM AND ACTIVE LEARNING

BY

JONATHAN MAMANGKIANG MANTIKAYAN

A dissertation submitted in fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Information

Technology

Kulliyyah of Information and Communication Technology International Islamic University Malaysia

MARCH 2015

(2)

ii

ABSTRACT

Audience Response System (ARS) has been identified as a probable and innovative solution to fix problems related to conventional education practices, which come as a result of the isolation and lack of interaction and engagement that exist in traditional classes. Previous research has shown that ARS improves interactive learning and enhances teacher’s ability to understand the degree of how students comprehend his/her teaching. Unfortunately, this might not truly reflect the students’ performance, since the teacher’s concern is to evaluate his/her teaching which might not inculcate the academic values to the students. Furthermore, the majority of earlier studies regarding the use of ARS have been devoted to tertiary educational level with less attention given to secondary or high school level, and there is lack of research done on secondary education to explore the effects of ARS on active learning and students’

performance outcome as well as the relationship between task-technology fit of ARS with active learning and performance outcome in a secondary learning environment.

To address the gap in the research literature, a study using quantitative survey, quasi- experiment and observation has been conducted to investigate the impact of ARS on secondary school students’ active learning, their performance outcomes and task- technology fit. The sample populations used for this study were from three learning institutions in Malaysia and four schools in the Philippines. The Independent samples T-test performed shows there was no significant difference between the average post- test result outcome scores in the treatment group and post-test result scores in the control group for each pair of classes taught by the same teacher in the experiment.

The result of the quantitative survey reveals that ARS can trigger engagement, discussion and interaction as forms of active learning in the classroom and task- technology fit of ARS had positive significant effect on reaction, learning and behaviour outcomes in the classroom. Active learning has positive significant effect on performance outcome in the classroom, whereas task-technology fit of ARS shows positive significant effect on active learning and performance outcome in the classroom. Finally, during observations in which ARS was not used, students did not appear to be as engaged in the lessons. Several students exhibited off-task behaviour during many of the observations in which ARS was not used while students appeared to be more eager to participate and were more attentive during lessons which incorporated ARS. Our research findings demonstrate that ARS usage in secondary education can trigger active learning, initiate positive student reaction outcomes, and improve students’ learning outcomes. This research offers new insights towards improving the quality of teaching and student’s learning experience.

(3)

iii

ﺚﺤﺒﻟا ﺺﺨﻠﻣ

رﻮﻀﳊا ﺔﺑﺎﺠﺘﺳإ مﺎﻈﻧ ﱪﺘﻌﻳ

(ARS)

حﻼﺻﻹ ﻻﺎﻤﺘﺣا ﺮﺜﻛﻻاو ﺮﻜﺘﺒﳌا ﻞﳊا بﻼﻄﻟا ﻞﺻاﻮﺗ مﺪﻋ ﻞﻠﺧ

لﻮﺼﻓ ﰲ ﺪﺟﻮﺗ ﱵﻟا ﺔﻛرﺎﺸﳌاو ﻞﻋﺎﻔﺘﻟا مﺪﻌﻟ ﺔﺠﻴﺘﻧ ﰐﺄﻳ ﻞﻠﳋا اﺬﻫو ،يﺪﻴﻠﻘﺘﻟا ﻢﻴﻠﻌﺘﻟا تﺎﺳرﺎﻤﲟ ﻖﻠﻌﺘﳌا ﺔﻳﺪﻴﻠﻘﺘﻟا ﻢﻴﻠﻌﺘﻟا .

مﺎﻈﻨﻟا اﺬﻫ نأ ﺔﻘﺑﺎﺴﻟا ثﺎﲝﻷا تﺮﻬﻇأ

) ARS

ةرﺪﻗ زﺰﻌﻳو ،ﻲﻠﻋﺎﻔﺘﻟا ﻢﻠﻌﺘﻟا ﻦﺴﳛ

(

ﻢﻠﻌﳌا / سرﺪﻠﻟ بﻼﻄﻟا بﺎﻌﻴﺘﺳا ﺔﺟرد ﺔﻓﺮﻌﻣ ﻰﻠﻋ ﻪﻤﻠﻌﳌا .

ﻻ ﺪﻗ ،ﻒﺳﻸﻟ ﻳ

ءادأ مﺎﻈﻨﻟا اﺬﻫ ﺲﻜﻌ

ﻪﻟ ﻢﻴّﻘﻳ مﺎﻈﻨﻟاو دﻮﺼﻘﳌا ﻮﻫ ﻢﻠﻌﳌا نﻷ ﺐﻟﺎﻄﻟا /

ﺔﻴﳝدﺎﻛﻷا ﻢﻴﻘﻟا سﺮﻐﻳ ﻻ ﺪﻗ اﺬﻫو ،ﺲﻳرﺪﺘﻟا ﺔﻘﻳﺮﻃ ﺎﳍ

بﻼﻄﻟا ﺪﻨﻋ ا تﺎﺳارﺪﻟا ﺔﻴﺒﻟﺎﻏ ﺖﺳﺮُﻛ .

ماﺪﺨﺘﺳإ ﺚﺤﺒﻟ ﺔﻘﺑﺎﺴﻟ

) ARS

ﻊﻣ ،ﱄﺎﻌﻟا ﻢﻴﻠﻌﺘﻟا ىﻮﺘﺴﻣ ﰲ

(

ﱵﻟا ثﺎﲝﻷا ﰲ ﺺﻘﻧ كﺎﻨﻫو ،ﺔﻴﻟﺎﻌﻟا وأ ﺔﻳﻮﻧﺎﺜﻟا سراﺪﳌا ىﻮﺘﺴﻣ ﰲ ﻪﻣاﺪﺨﺘﺳإ ﱃا ﻞﻗأ مﺎﻤﺘﻫا ءﻼﻳإ رﺎﺛآ فﺎﺸﻜﺘﺳﻻ يﻮﻧﺎﺜﻟا ﻢﻴﻠﻌﺘﻟا ىﻮﺘﺴﻣ ﻰﻠﻋ ﺖﻳﺮﺟأ

) ARS

ﻚﻟﺬﻛو بﻼﻄﻟا ءادأ ﺞﺋﺎﺘﻧو ﻢﻠﻌﺘﻟا ﻰﻠﻋ

(

ﲔﺑ ﺔﻗﻼﻌﻟا

) ARS

ﻟا

(

يﻮﻧﺎﺜﻟا ﻢﻠﻌﺘﻟا ﺔﺌﻴﺑ ﰲ ءادﻷا ﺞﺋﺎﺘﻧو لﺎﻌﻔﻟا ﻢﻠﻌﺘﻠﻟ ﺢﻠﺼﻳ يﺬ .

ةﻮﺠﻔﻟا ﺔﳉﺎﻌﳌ

و ﻲﻤﻜﻟا ﺢﺴﳌا ماﺪﺨﺘﺳﺎﺑ ﺔﺳارﺪﻟا ﻩﺬﻫ ﺖﻳﺮﺟأ ﺪﻘﻓ ،عﻮﺿﻮﳌا اﺬ ﻪﻘﻠﻌﺘﳌا ﺔﻴﺜﺤﺒﻟا تﺎﻴﺑدﻷا ﰲ ﻩدﻮﺟﻮﳌا ﲑﺛﺄﺗ ﻦﻣ ﻖﻘﺤﺘﻠﻟ ﺔﻴﻋﻮﻨﻟا ﺔﻈﺣﻼﳌاو ﺔﺑﺮﺠﺘﻟا ﻪﺒﺷ

) ARS

ﺎﺜﻟا سراﺪﳌا ﰲ بﻼﻄﻟا ﻢﻠﻌﺗ ﻰﻠﻋ

(

ﺞﺋﺎﺘﻧو ،ﺔﻳﻮﻧ

ﻪﻴﺟﻮﻟﻮﻨﻜﺘﻟا ﻞﺋﺎﺴﳌا ﰲ ﻢﻬﺘﻗﺎﻴﻟو ،ﻢﻬﺋادأ .

تﺎﺴﺳﺆﻣ ثﻼﺛ ﻦﻣ ﺖﻧﺎﻛ ﺔﺳارﺪﻟا ﻩﺬﻫ ﰲ ﺔﻣﺪﺨﺘﺴﳌا ﺔﻨﻴﻌﻟا

ﲔﺒﻠﻔﻟا ﰲ ىﺮﺧا سراﺪﻣ ﻊﺑرأو ﺎﻳﺰﻴﻟﺎﻣ ﰲ ﺔﻴﻤﻴﻠﻌﺗ .

لﺎﻤﻌﺘﺳﺎﺑ ﺔﻠﻘﺘﺴﻣ تﺎﻨﻴﻋ ءﺎﻘﺘﻧا ﰎ

) T-test

ﲔﺒﺗ ﺪﻗو

(

ﻳﺮﻓ ﰲرﺎﺒﺘﺧﻻا تﺎﺟرد ﻂﺳﻮﺘﻣ ﲔﺑ ﲑﺒﻛ قﺮﻓ ﺪﺟﻮﻳ ﻻ ﻪﻧأ جوز ﻞﻜﻟ رﺎﺒﺘﺧﻻا ﺪﻌﺑ ﻩﺮﻄﻴﺴﻟا ﻖﻳﺮﻓو جﻼﻌﻟا ﻖ

ﺔﺑﺮﺠﺘﻟا ﰲ ﻢﻠﻌﳌا ﺲﻔﻧ ﻞﺒﻗ ﻦﻣ سرﺪﺗ لﻮﺼﻓ ﻦﻣ .

نأ ﻦﻋ ﺖﻔﺸﻛ ﻲﻤﻜﻟا ﺢﺴﳌا ﺔﺠﻴﺘﻧ

) ARS

نأ ﻦﻜﳝ

(

نأو ﺔﻴﺳارﺪﻟا لﻮﺼﻔﻟا ﰲ لﺎﻌﻔﻟا ﻢﻠﻌﺘﻟا لﺎﻜﺷأ ﻦﻣ ﻞﻜﺸﻛ ﻞﻋﺎﻔﺘﻟاو ﺔﺸﻗﺎﻨﳌاو ﺔﻛرﺎﺸﳌا نﺎﻨﻋ ﻖﻠﻄﻳ

) ARS

ﻓﻷا دودر ﻰﻠﻋ ﰊﺎﳚا ﲑﺛﺄﺗ ﻪﻳﺪﻟ

(

ﺔﻴﺳارﺪﻟا لﻮﺼﻔﻟا ﰲ كﻮﻠﺴﻟاو ﻢﻠﻌﺘﻟاو لﺎﻌ .

ﲑﺛﺄﺗ ﻪﻟ لﺎﻌﻔﻟا ﻢﻠﻌﺘﻟا

ـﻟ ﺔﻴﺟﻮﻠﻨﻜﺘﻟا مﺎﻬﳌا ﰲ ﺔﻗﺎﻴﻠﻟا ﻖﻴﺒﻄﺗ ﲔﺣ ﰲ ،ﺔﻴﺳارﺪﻟا لﻮﺼﻔﻟا ﰲ ءادﻷا ﺞﺋﺎﺘﻧ ﻰﻠﻋ ﲑﺒﻛ

) ARS

ﺮﻬﻈﻳ

(

ﺔﻴﺳارﺪﻟا لﻮﺼﻔﻟا ﰲ ءادﻷاو ﻲﻠﻋﺎﻔﺘﻟا ﻢﻠﻌﺘﻟا ﻰﻠﻋ ﰊﺎﳚإ يﻮﻨﻌﻣ ﲑﺛﺄﺗ .

ﺒﺗ تﺎﻈﺣﻼﳌا لﻼﺧ ﻦﻣو ،اﲑﺧأ ﲔ

مﺪﺨﺘﺴﺗ ﻻ ﱵﻟا لﻮﺼﻔﻟا ﰲ سورﺪﻟا لﻼﺧ ﻪﻛرﺎﺸﻣو طﺎﺒﺗرا اوﺮﻬﻈﻳ ﱂ بﻼﻄﻟا نﺎﺑ

) ARS

ﺪﻳﺪﻌﻟﺎﻓ

(

ﺞﺋﺎﺘﻨﻟا تﺮﻬﻇأ ﺎﻤﻨﻴﺑ ،لﻮﺼﻔﻟا ﻚﻠﺗ ﰲ ﺔﺒﻗاﺮﳌا لﻼﺧ تﺎﺒﺟاﻮﻟا وا مﺎﻬﻤﻠﻟ ثاﱰﻛا مﺪﻋ كﻮﻠﺳ ﺮﻬﻇا ﻢﻬﻨﻣ ﻦﻤﻀﺘﺗ ﱵﻟا سورﺪﻟا لﻼﺧ ﺎﻫﺎﺒﺘﻧا ﺮﺜﻛأو ﺔﻛرﺎﺸﳌا ﻰﻠﻋ ﺎﺻﺮﺣ ﺮﺜﻛأ اﻮﻧﺎﻛ بﻼﻄﻟا نﺎﺑ )

ARS

ﺖﺒﺜﺗ

.(

ماﺪﺨﺘﺳا نأ ﺚﺤﺒﻟا ﺞﺋﺎﺘﻧ )

(

ARS

ﱃإ يدﺆﻳ نأ ﻦﻜﳝ يﻮﻧﺎﺜﻟا ﻢﻴﻠﻌﺘﻟا ﰲ عوﺮﺸﻟا ﰲ ﻢﻬﺴﺗو ، ٍﻂﺸﻧ ٍﻢﻠﻌﺗ

بﻼﻄﻟا ﻢﻠﻌﺗ ﺞﺋﺎﺘﻧ ﻦﺴﲢو ،ﰊﺎﳚإ ﻞﻋﺎﻔﺗ دﺎﳚا ﰲ .

ةدﻮﺟ ﲔﺴﲢ ﻮﳓ ةﺪﻳﺪﺟ ﺔﻳؤر ﺚﺤﺒﻟا اﺬﻫ مﺪﻘﻳ

ﺐﻟﺎﻄﻟا ةﱪﺧﺮﻳﻮﻄﺗو ﻢﻠﻌﺘﻟاو ﻢﻴﻠﻌﺘﻟا

.

(4)

iv

APPROVAL PAGE

The dissertation of Jonathan Mamangkiang Mantikayan has been approved by the following:

_____________________________

Lili Marziana Binti Abdullah Supervisor

_____________________________

Nuraihan Mat Daud Internal Examiner

_____________________________

Mohamed Amin Embi External Examiner

______________________________

Zoraini Wati Abas External Examiner

_______________________________

El-Fateh Abdullahi Abdelsalam Chairman

(5)

v

DECLARATION

I hereby declare that this dissertation is the result of my own investigations, except where otherwise stated. I also declare that it has not been previously or concurrently submitted as a whole for any other degrees at IIUM or other institutions.

Jonathan Mamangkiang Mantikayan

Signature:……… Date:………...

(6)

vi

INTERNATIONAL ISLAMIC UNIVERSITY MALAYSIA

DECLARATION OF COPYRIGHT AND AFFIRMATION OF FAIR USE OF UNPUBLISHED RESEARCH

PERFORMANCE OUTCOME AND TASK-TECHNOLOGY FIT RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN AUDIENCE RESPONSE SYSTEM AND

ACTIVE LEARNING

No part of this unpublished research may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronics, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without prior written permission of the copyright holder except as provided below:

1. Any material contained in or derived from this unpublished research may only be used by others in their written with due acknowledgement.

2. IIUM or its library will have the right to make and transmit copies (print or electronic) for institutional and academic purposes.

3. The IIUM library will have the right to make, store in a retrieval system and supplies copy of this unpublished research if requested by other universities and research libraries.

Affirm by Jonathan Mamangkiang Mantikayan

……… ……….

Signature Date

(7)

vii

This work is dedicated to my parents Demama Mantikayan and Laga Mamangkiang and to my brothers and sisters. To my beloved wife Momtadzah Ambag Abdulgani and

loving children Noorul Haqq, Nushratollah, Zanjabeelah and Saiful Haqq.

(8)

viii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

All praise and thanks are due to Allah (swt) for His blessings and guidance in my PhD journey. First, I would like to acknowledge the Ministry of Higher Education, Malaysia for giving me a scholarship for my studies and the International Islamic University Malaysia for providing me the necessary support during the course of my studies.

I want to thank the Dean of Kulliyyah of Information and Communication Technology Prof. Dr. Abdul Wahab Abdul Rahman, Deputy Dean Postgraduate and Research Prof. Dr. Husnayati Hussin, Head of Information Systems Department for their assistance and encouragement. I am considerably indebted to my supervisor Dr.

Lili Marziana Binti Abdullah for her guidance, supervision, support, understanding and encouragement, which enabled me to work on and complete the research. My heartfelt thanks to Assoc. Prof. Dr. Media Anugerah Ayu for her support and care, which made it possible for me to start and continue the research. Special thanks to Prof. Dr. Mohd Adam Suhaimi, Assoc. Prof. Dr. Murni Mahmud, Prof. Dr. Asadullah Shah, Dr. Adamu Abubakar and Dr. Normia Salindal - Ahmad whose constructive and insightful feedbacks have benefited this research in many ways. I gratefully acknowledge the INTEG group member who provided input to this research. My deepest appreciation to my parents, Demama Mantikayan and Laga Mamangkiang, my brothers, Alimuddin, Abdulrashid, Abdulbayan, Ahmad and my sisters, Tindoz, Mu’mina, Bailani, my wife Momtadzah Ambag Abdulgani, my father and mother in- law, Sheikh Hadji Abdullah Abdulgani and Hadjah Sapiyah Ambag, my brothers and sisters in-law.

Lastly, to all other family and friends like Dr. Saleem Yunos Lingasa, Dr.

Badrudin P. Ahmad, Dr. Abdul Muin M. Lantong, Engr. Nasrudin T. Mustapha, Dr.

Shamsuddin Taya, Sheikh Muhammad Taha Abdulgapor and Bangsamoro people who have helped and been there for me over the years, I want to express my thanks. There are not enough words to express my sincere gratitude to all.

(9)

ix

LIST OF TABLES

Table No. Page No.

2.1 Comparison of various audience response systems 16

2.2 Four-level model of outcome from education 41

2.3 Training criteria taxonomies 42

2.4 TTF definitions and research contexts 45

2.5 Examples of classroom task dimensions and ARS technology elements

48

2.6 Task-technology fit factors, elements and definitions 49 2.7 Information system (IS) success factor in the literature 51 2.8 Publications on active learning, performance outcome and

task-technology fit element

52

3.1 Studies on active learning, performance outcome and task- technology fit variables

54

4.1 Research hypotheses 66

4.2 Reliability test result of the pilot study 67

4.3 Pilot study population 68

4.4 Result outcome scores by group 69

4.5 Test of homogeneity for result outcome 70

4.6 Comparison of result outcome mean score 70

4.7 Pilot study and comparison 71

4.8 Participants’ profile 73

4.9 Classes used in the study 76

4.10 Data reduction and reliability test results for active learning, performance outcome and task-technology fit items

80

(14)

xiv

4.11 Operational definition for engagement, discussion and interaction

83

4.12 Measured operational definitions for engagement using Likert scales

83

4.13 Operational definition for reaction, learning and behaviour 84 4.14 Measured operational definitions for reaction outcome using

Likert scales

84

4.15 Operational definition for task-technology fit 85 4.16 Measured operational definitions for task-technology fit 86

4.17 Potential validity threat 88

5.1 Descriptive statistics for difference of pre-test result outcome scores by class

93

5.2 Independent sample t-test of mean difference between pre-test result outcome scores in control group and treatment group by class

95

5.3 Descriptive statistics for difference of post-test result outcome scores by class for the control group

97

5.4 Descriptive statistics for difference of post-test result outcome scores by class for ARS classes

97

5.5 Independent sample t-test of mean difference between post- test result outcome scores in control group and treatment group by class

101

5.6 Descriptive statistics for mean difference of post-test result outcome scores of all non-ARS groups

103

5.7 ANOVA results of mean difference of post-test result outcome scores of all non-ARS groups

103

5.8 Descriptive statistics for mean difference of post-test result outcome scores for all ARS groups

104

5.9 ANOVA results of mean difference of post-test result outcome scores of all ARS groups

104

5.10 Descriptive statistics of post-test score differences in control group and treatment groups

106

(15)

xv

5.11 Independent samples t-test of mean differences between post- test scores in ARS and non-ARS groups

107

5.12 Descriptive statistics of difference of post-test scores in classes 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7

109

5.13 Independent samples t-test of mean differences between post- test scores in ARS and Non-ARS groups of classes 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7

110

5.14 Descriptive statistics of difference of post-test scores in ARS classes and non-ARS classes by country

111

5.15 Independent samples t-test of mean differences between post- test scores in ARS classes and non-ARS classes by country

112

5.16 Descriptive statistics for mean difference of pre-test and post- test result outcomes

112

5.17 Paired sample test of pre-test and post-test result outcomes 113

5.18 Summary results of experiment analysis 115

5.19 Profile of respondents 119

5.20 Correlation analysis among the factors influencing the use of audience response system for engagement, discussion and interaction

120

5.21 Standard multiple regression analysis of the active learning variables

121

5.22 Correlation analysis among the factors influencing the use of audience response system for reaction, learning and behaviour

123

5.23 Standard multiple regression analysis of the performance outcome variables

125

5.24 Correlation analysis between active learning and performance outcomes

127

5.25 Standard multiple regression analysis of active learning and performance outcome variables

128

5.26 Correlation analysis among the factors influencing the use of audience response system

129

5.27 Standard multiple regression analysis of the active learning and performance outcome variables

130

(16)

xvi

5.28 Summary of hypothesis results 132

5.29 Observation in ARS and non-ARS classes 134

(17)

xvii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure No. Page No.

2.1 Literature review process 11

2.2 Characteristics of learning environment catalyzed by audience response system

30

2.3 The structure of instruction with audience response system 32

2.4 The technology-to-performance chain 47

3.1 The conceptual framework 56

3.2 Research model 57

4.1 Design strategy 63

5.1 Boxplot representing post-test result outcome score difference ranked by class

97

5.2 Boxplot representing post-test score differences for all ARS and non-ARS Classes

106

5.3 Boxplot representing post-test score differences in classes 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7

109

5.4 Boxplot representing post-test scores in ARS classes and non- ARS classes by country

111

5.5 The hypothesized model 117

(18)

xviii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

Acronym Title

ARS Audience Response Systems

TTF Task-Technology Fit

AL Active Learning

PI Peer Instruction

ADNI Adni Islamic School

PO Performance Outcome

IIS International Islamic School BIS Baseerah International School EKII Eastern Kutawatu Islamic Institute MIT Maguindanao Institute of Technology

SAA Sharif Awliya Academy

DIPMC Datu Ibrahim Paglas Memorial College

(19)

1

CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION

1.1INTRODUCTION

This thesis presents research conducted on the effects of the Audience Response System (ARS) in a secondary school environment. This chapter mainly establishes the main focus of the research and provides its overview as presented in the thesis.

Specifically, it presents the background of the research, the problem statement, the research objective. The research scopes as well as the definitions of terms are mentioned. Finally, it lists the contributions of the research, the outline of the thesis and a summary of the chapter.

1.2 BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY

A challenge in the learning system is that over the past few years, teachers are increasingly competing for students’ attention with video games and the Internet leading to lack of student interest and comprehension in subject matter (OSTP, 2010).

Currently, students have lost interest in traditional classroom instructional methods and teachers are becoming more frustrated with students who do not pay attention or retain presented materials (Reeves, 1998). Teachers have incorporated various instructional strategies in their classrooms; however, the problem continues in schools because students learn in a variety of ways and not all of the students’ learning styles are being addressed. As technology progresses, new systems emerge to assist educators in preparing and managing lessons (Banks, 2006). The use of Audience Response System (ARS) in learning institutions is becoming more widespread.

(20)

2

Although audience response systems have been used in some form since the 1960s, they have become increasingly popular in recent years. Current ARS utilizes wireless devices to incorporate results directly into software packages giving instructors the capability to get immediate feedback. Learner attendance and games are integrated into several newer ARSs. Real time feedback allows instructors to identify comprehension among learners and to make adjustment in delivery, if desired (Judson

& Sawada, 2002).

Lecturers have used ARSs in their teaching without radically changing the traditional lecture format. With this method, standard lectures are supplemented with questions, and students’ response provides feedback to both students and teacher on the learning process (Kennedy & Cutts, 2005). ARS technology permits teachers to poll students’ responses to questions and instantly display the aggregated results to the class (Beatty, 2004). There are several vendors of ARSs and features vary from one vendor to another. ARS greatly enhances communication between learner to learner and between learner and the instructor, increasing active engagement throughout the class and affecting both learning and instructions (Dufresne, Gerace, Leonard, Mestre,

& Wenk, 1996). Engagement refers to a student willingness, need, desire and compulsion to participate in the learning process, promoting higher level thinking for enduring understanding (Bomia et al., 1997). In principle, interaction is a series of events or actions that take place between at least two objects. Types of interaction as parts of various educational approaches are learner-tutor interaction, learner-learner interaction, learner-content interaction and learner-interface interaction (Mattheos, 2004). Discussion is the process of talking about the subject matter in the classroom, typically in order to reach a decision or to exchange ideas (Laurillard, 2002).

Performance outcome is the behaviour employed in completing tasks, using ARS to

(21)

3

satisfy an information need (D’Ambra & Wilson, 2004). It involves reaction, behaviour, learning and result outcome. Tasks are actions carried out by individuals in turning inputs to outputs in order to satisfy their information needs. Technology characteristics are tools (hardware, software and data) used by individuals in carrying out their information tasks. Task-technology fit (TTF) is the correspondence between task requirements and functionality of the Audience Response Systems (D’Ambra &

Wilson, 2004). When used with interactive pedagogies that allow for increased student participation and questioning in the classroom, ARSs are known to have the potential to create dynamic interactive learning environments that lead to higher student achievement (Duncan, 2005; Mazur, 1997).

There have been a number of studies (See Appendix 1) done on the role ARSs have on interaction and learning, but all have failed to explain the underlying reasons.

All these studies have been conducted in large classroom settings for the purpose of having everyone participate and respond in class by clicking on the correct answer, but not necessarily interact with the teacher or with one another.

1.3 PROBLEM STATEMENT

As an educator, it is important to know the new emerging tools to assist educators in preparing and managing courses. ARS has been effective in higher education especially in science classrooms, although almost no research has been done at the secondary school level (LeSage, Kay, & Knaack, 2010). According to Banks (2006), ARS can facilitate a range of admirable instructional practice such as student engagement, peer discussion, aid assessment, formative assessment, constructivist technique, question based method, problem based method, critical thinking skills and anonymity (Banks, 2006). Active learning is an important component of the learning

(22)

4

practice for all students (Ayu, Taylor, & Mantoro, 2009; Banks, 2006; Bonwell &

Eison, 1991; Boyle & Nicol, 2003b; Mattheos, 2004). Research literature shows that isolation, and lack of interaction and engagement exist in traditional classes (Draper &

Brown, 2004; Guthrie & Carlin, 2004; Hake, 1998). Tinto (2005), states that lack of interaction in courses seems to contribute to lower performance outcome in those courses. Existing literature on the use of ARS focuses on higher education (Banks, 2006). To the researcher’s knowledge, it is not known to what extent ARSs add to active learning in secondary school classroom environment. Additionally, it is vital to examine if utilizing an ARS affects students’ performance outcome. Moreover, task- technology fit of ARS in the classroom needs to be explored. Several studies call for the need for research in this area (Banks, 2006; Cummings & Hsu, 2007; Cutts, 2006;

Felce, 2007; Kay & LeSage, 2009b; Keller et al., 2007; Kennedy & Cutts, 2005;

Latessa & Mouw, 2005; Nelson et al., 2012; Poulis et al., 1997; Scornavacca &

Marshall, 2007; Simpson & Oliver, 2007; Stevenson, 2007; Williams, 2003; Wit, 2003).

This raises a question about hypotheses that propose a link between student performance outcome, active learning and task-technology fit of ARS. This research proposes Audience Response Systems which allow students to actively engage in class and increase performance outcome. The effect of the system is proven by utilizing the tool in a secondary learning environment.

(23)

5 1.4 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES

Based on the research problem stated above, the objectives of the study are set out as follows:

i. To explore the effects of audience response system (ARS) on active learning.

ii. To investigate the impact of audience response system on students performance outcome.

iii. To determine the impact of active learning on performance outcome.

iv. To examine the relationship between task-technology fit of ARS on active learning and performance outcome in a secondary learning environment.

1.5 RESEARCH QUESTIONS

This study seeks to answer the following research questions:

i. What does audience response system (ARS) add to active learning in secondary level education?

ii. What are the performance outcomes of utilizing ARS in secondary level education?

iii. What is the impact of active learning on performance outcome in a secondary learning environment?

iv. Is there a relation between task-technology fit of ARS on active learning and performance outcome?

1.6 SCOPE OF THE RESEARCH

The scope of this research covers the impact of Audience Response System on active learning, performance outcome and task-technology fit in a secondary learning

(24)

6

environment. Research is undertaken using experiments and survey within, but not limited to, the scope of the following aspects:

• Quasi-experiment as the methodology for investigating the result outcome of students in ARS and non-ARS classes for both the treatment and control groups.

• Survey as the methodology for extracting facts about active learning, performance outcome and task-technology fit from the perspective of the treatment group.

• Observation as the method for extracting additional facts from teachers by comparing the treatment and control groups.

1.7 DEFINITION OF GENERAL TERMS

i. Audience Response System: It is a combination of hardware and software intended to support communication and interactivity in the class (Beatty, 2004).

ii. Active Learning: Any instructional technique that gets learners involved in activities in the classroom rather than inactively listening to a lecture (Bonwell & Eison, 1991).

iii. Task-technology Fit of ARS: This is the degree to which a technology assists an individual in performing his or her portfolio of task (Goodhue &

Thompson, 1995).

iv. Performance Outcome: Students’ abilities to incorporate latest information with existing knowledge, providing apparent understanding of themselves and the world around them (Weinstein, 1989).

PERFORMANCE OUTCOME AND TASK- TECHNOLOGY FIT RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN

PERFORMANCE OUTCOME AND TASK- TECHNOLOGY FIT RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN

APPROVAL PAGE

DECLARATION

INTERNATIONAL ISLAMIC UNIVERSITY MALAYSIA

PERFORMANCE OUTCOME AND TASK-TECHNOLOGY FIT RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN AUDIENCE RESPONSE SYSTEM AND

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ... 1

CHAPTER THREE: ARS IN SECONDARY SCHOOL RESEARCH FRAMEWORK ... 54

CHAPTER FIVE: DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATIONS ... 92

CHAPTER SIX: FINDINGS ... 137

CHAPTER SEVEN: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION ... 151

LIST OF TABLES

LIST OF FIGURES

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION

1.1INTRODUCTION

1.3 PROBLEM STATEMENT

5 1.4 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES

1.5 RESEARCH QUESTIONS

1.6 SCOPE OF THE RESEARCH

1.7 DEFINITION OF GENERAL TERMS