Assumption University-Ejournal of Interdisciplinary Research (AU-Ejir) s1

Assumption University-eJournal of Interdisciplinary Research (AU-eJIR)

Vol. 1. Issue.1 2015 EFFECTIVENESS OF E-TOOLS S IN TEACHING SOCIAL STUDIES IN NEPALESE SCHOOLS- A CASE STUDY

Dr. Mustafa Harun CAN Nema Dorje Lama Nepal

Abstract: This research is related to use of E-tools in teaching social studies. It is based on the experimental research done on the students of Kavrepalanchock district in different two groups. Firstly 40 students were selected from different 10 schools by the help of pre-test as a sample group for the research purposes. Students of grade (10) were selected and made two groups. One group of student was taught social lesson without using any E –tool but another group of student was taught by using e- tools. The research lasted in six month .During the research different 3-tests were taken to compare the effectiveness of teaching in e tool using and teaching without e tool.

Keyword: eTools, High School, Nepal, Social Studies

1. INTRODUCTION:

1.1 Background Social studies is one of the multi-dimensional subject .It is the composition of economics, sociology, political science, geography, history, civics, archeology, etc. Main aim of social studies is to produce intelligent, dutiful, honest and good citizen of the nation. It cultivates the students by informing geographical changes of the world, past events and encourages contextualizing in the present situation of the world and helps to work in group with feeling of brotherhood in the world. It has become a big challenge to teach the social studies lessons in an effective way. In teaching social lesson, teachers should be more conscious to select the best method of teaching. On the other hand, Nepal is a developing nation. In such country, it is more difficult to make the effective social lesson, since teachers are not getting sufficient training in teaching social studies. In the world, there is a high development of science and technology. It has been found that for teaching social studies there are lots of using E-tools like computer, smart board, videos, documentary show,3D class, mobile apps, Television Internet, web sites, Facebook, blog sites etc. in developed nation. In contrary, in Nepal, we find very limited educational institutions are using e- tools in teaching social studies. In those school as well, there is the lack of trained teachers and lack of sufficient e- tools s. If we see the history of computer education in Nepal, it was started in Nepal in the year 1972 only. That means development of technology was very late in Nepal. Similarly, use of technology in teaching field was also introduced very lately in Nepal. Therefore, in Nepal it is the matter of new experiment for using e-tools in teaching social lesson. This research is fully devoted to find out the effectiveness of using e-tools s in teaching social studies. So that, it will be easy to apply in teaching social studies. In Nepal, we have very traditional method of teaching social studies. Generally in Nepal, social studies is taught in traditional way of teaching method followed by few projects and field visit. But in this research, a sample class is taught in modern method where teacher uses e-tools in teaching social lessons. But on the other hand other sample class is not using e-tools for teaching social lessons. Both the

ISSN: 2408-1906 Page 1 Assumption University-eJournal of Interdisciplinary Research (AU-eJIR)

Vol. 1. Issue.1 2015 group A and group B are kept under the strict supervision of the teacher. For forming the sample class, researcher visited ten schools of Kavrepalanchock district which are more remote and not reachable by the modern technology. For the selection of students researcher had taken a test so that researcher could take the students of same level, age group and capacity. Those students were of all grade 10. While selecting the students many students were encouraged to take the test of selection round. Students were selected in such a way that they all were of similar age group and same grade so that there will not be any difference in the objectives of the research. In the course of research, both the groups A and B were kept in a strict monitoring mechanism so that there will not be influence of any factors in the research. Among two sample group of students, Group “A” students were taught social studies without e-tools and other group “B” students were taught by using E-tools . In this research 0nly specific lessons were taught. Research was conducted till 6 months in which three times exams were taken for both the group and analyzed and compared the results.

1.2 Purpose of Study Development of technology is very slow in Nepal as Nepal is a developing country. Similarly, use of technology in the field of education is also introduced very lately in Nepal. On the other hand, use of technology in teaching social studies is also very rare and in the phase of experiment in Nepal. Therefore, the main objective of this research is to:  Find out the effectiveness of e-tools s in teaching social lessons in Nepal.

2. METHODOLOGY

Objective of this research is to find out the effectiveness of e-tools in teaching social lessons. First of all, researcher took 40 students from different 10 schools. For the selection of students researcher had taken a test so that researcher could take the students of same level, age group and capacity. Those students were all from grade 10. While selecting the students many students were encouraged to take the test of selection round. Then, students were categorized into two groups i.e. Control group “A” and experimental group “B”. Here, by the use of Quasi- experimental method, research was made completed. Where two groups were taught same lesson but in “Group B” E-tools like computer, internet, smart board documentary show was used for teaching social lessons. But in the case of other group “A” no e-tools was used for teaching social lessons. For both group same lesson were taught like:  Election process.  Importance of peace.  United Nations and Its organs.  Human rights and  Subject of National Concern. These lessons were taught in both the group. The main objectives of above lessons were to: i. Explain election process and role of citizen in election process. ii. Describe the impact of peace in development and role of civil society and political parties in maintaining peace in society. iii. Explain the formation of UN, main objectives of UN, importance of UN and its special agencies and their functions. iv. Define human rights and explain the worldwide declaration of human rights.

Vol. 1. Issue.1 2015 v. Explain the matter of national concern like: national and territorial integrity, self-respect and border security of the nation.

Three tests were conducted during the research time. Tests were taken after teaching each two lessons. Questions were asked same for both the group and compared with each other.

2.1 Instrumentation and Data Collection After each lessons test was taken. In this whole research only three tests were taken and named as test 1, test 2 and test 3. While taking test, questions were designed and checked by the professionals so that there would not be any partiality while rating the exam papers. After taking test of students, exam papers were checked and obtained the marks of both the groups; The instrument used for this study was designed by the researcher. The instrument is known to be Unit Test, which was worth of 50 marks. The unit test consists of sections, A , B & C In section A, 10 very short questions of 1 mark each were asked , In section B, 5 short questions of 5 marks each were asked and in section C, 1 long question of 10 marks was asked. The face and content validity of the instrument was ascertained by given the instrument to inter–raters that are experts of concern topic for ratings. The average score of the inter–rater coefficient yielded 0.82, which is high enough to confirm the validity of the instrument. Test – re- test method was used to obtain the reliability of the instruments and the reliability co-efficient was found to be 0.71 which was high enough to make the instrument reliable. The study used different types of e – tools like computer, smart board, documentary show, presentation, internet etc. The students in group A were taught without using the e-tools s, the second group B students were exposed to modern method of teaching by using e-tools for six month. The students’ scores for pre-test and post test were collected and the hypotheses generated for the study were analyzed. 2.2 Research Questions The following research questions were raised for the purpose of this study. 1. Is there any difference between in the pre-test scores of the students taught with conventional and e –tool using teaching for solving problems in social lessons? 2. Is there any difference between in the test 1, test 2 and test 3scores of the students taught with conventional and teaching by the use of e-tools for solving problems in social lessons?

2.3 Research Hypotheses Based on the above research questions the following hypotheses were raised; Hypothesis-1: There is no significant difference between in the pre test scores of students exposed to the conventional and e-tools using approach. Hypothesis-2: There is no significant difference between in the test 1, test 2 and test 3scores of the students taught with conventional and teaching by the use of e-tools for solving problems in social lessons?

2.4 Research Design This study adopted quasi- experimental method. Firstly, pre-test was taken for the selection of same level of students and later on during the research three tests were taken. Test 1, test 2 and test 3 were taken after completion of each two lessons. The experimental group (B) was exposed to method of teaching using e-tools s, while the conventional group (A) represent the

Vol. 1. Issue.1 2015 control group was exposed to usual conventional approach. The design of the study was as follows; B treatment is given through e-tools using teaching approach. A treatment is given through conventional method of teaching

2.5 Data Analysis To test the null hypotheses, t-test was used on the difference between the pre-test mean score and the post-test mean score of social students taught with e-tools using teaching method. The alpha level of 0.05 was used as the acceptable significant level for rejecting or upholding all the assumptions.

3. RESULTS/ FINDINGS 3.1 Experiment 1 Hypothesis-1: There is no significant difference in the pre test scores of students exposed to the conventional and e-tools using teaching approach. To test hypothesis one, pre-test was given to both experimental and conventional class.Table 1 showed that t- calculated (1.19) < t-table value (2.92), (N=40, Mean (24, 26), SD (5.40, 5.21), Df= 98) at 0.05 level of significance. Hence, the null hypothesis is therefore upheld. This implies that the two groups selected for the study were homogeneous since there is no different in their performance.

3.2 Experiment 2 Hypothesis-2: There is no significant difference in the post test scores of students exposed to e- tools using teaching approach treatment and conventional approach. To test this hypothesis, the performance of students in the two groups after treatment were collected and tested using t-test as presented in the Table 2. Table 2 showed that t-calculated (3.28) is greater than the t-table (2.92), (N=40, __ (27, 32), SD (4.43, 5.26), Df= 98) at 0.05 level of significance; the null hypothesis was therefore rejected, contrary to the Hypothesis stated. This implies that there is significant difference in the performance of the two groups. The experimental and the conventional groups were found with differences in the analysis of their performance in favour of the experimental group. The total mean for the treatment group (A) is 32 and conventional group (B) is 27 showed that the performance of e-tools using group was far better than the performance of conventional group. By implication, the students that were taught with e-tools using teaching outperformed the students that were exposed to the traditional method of teaching. This is an indication that the treatment given to the experimental group is effective and responsible for the differences in the performance of students in favour of the treatment class.

Table 1. t-test summary on students’ pre-test score in groups Variables N Mean SD t-calculated t-table Group A(control group) 20 24 5.40

Group B(treatment 20 26 5.21 1.19 2.29 group) Df= 98 Table 2. t-Test summary on students test1 scores in groups

Vol. 1. Issue.1 2015 Df = 98 Variables N Mean SD t-calculated t-table Group 20 27 4.34 A(control group) Group 20 32 5.26 3.28 2.92 B(treatment group)

4. DISCUSSION

The findings prevailed that the e-tools used in social lessons to the experimental group i produced greater academic performance in the test1 using e-tools therefore enhances learning of social science lessons. This finding is consistent with those of test2 and test 3 as well. The study proves that using e-tools in teaching social lessons lead to more efficient knowledge acquisition. Students feel a sense of reality in what they learn, which is long lasting in learning. Another finding was on knowledge acquisition and application as well as short term retention is better supported by the use of e-tools in teaching social lessons.

5. LIMITATIONS OF RESEARCH This study involved only two variables and used only fixed e-tools s like computer, smart board, documentary show, and internet. In addition, this study only took a sample of high school students (grade-10) in Kavrepalanchock District, so the conclusion of the study is limited to the range of generalizations.

6. CONCLUSION The use of e-tools like computers, smart boards, and videos available on You-Tube etc. in teaching is an innovative approach for teaching social science. This method improves the teaching and learning of social studies in schools since students studying social subject performed poorly in their external examination. In an attempt to curb this ugly trend of student failure in social studies exam in secondary school, the use of e-tools would enable the students to retrieve or recall the previously learnt subject quickly and thereby enhance their fortune in teaching and learning social subject. These approaches can be effective additions to regular social studies instruction and can help students visualize unseen phenomena, develop scientific language, improve understanding of the sociological process and contribute to the development of scientific thinking. Based on the findings the following recommendations are hereby offered:

(i) Government should procure e-tools s and organize seminars for social teacher on the need to imbibe latest teaching culture. (ii) Social studies teachers should incorporate the use of e- tools s in teaching to compliment their traditional chalk-talk method of instructional delivery. (iii) Social studies teachers should use frequently e-tools s during Instructional development, especially when it is inevitable.

Vol. 1. Issue.1 2015 (iv) School authorities should invite specialists (educational technologists, instructional material technicians, computer experts, etc.) to assist social teachers with their e-tools packages that are relevant to the subject. REFERENCES

Association of Advancement in Computer Education. Journal. 2007;14(1):3-30. Amael A, Eric J. Using Video and Static Pictures to Improve Learning of Procedural Contents. Computer in Human Behavior. 2009;25:354-359. Bosco A. ICT resources in the teaching of mathematics: Between computer and school technologies. A case-study. The Curriculum Journal. 2004;15(3):265-280. Brashears,T.,Akers C, Smith, J. The Effects of Multimedia Cues on Students Cognition in an Electronically Delivered High School Unit of Instruction. Journal of Biological Education Research. 2005 55(1):5-18. Dike HI. A Textbook of Educational Technology. Port-Harcourt: University of Port- Harcourt; 2008. Eamon MK. Social-demographic, School, Neighborhood and Parenting Influences on Academic Achievement in Latino Young Adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence. 2005; 34(2):163- 175. Elliot SN, Kratochiwill TR, Cook JL, Travers JF. Educational Psychology effective Teaching. Effective Learning. 3rd Ed New York: McGraw Hill Book Co.; 2001. Fundamental Educational curriculum: 2069, Curriculum Development Center of Nepal Hoffer TN, Luther D. Instructional animation versus static pictures. Ameta-Analysis Learning and Instruction. 2007; 17:722-738. Ijhedo JA. A Quasi-experimental Research on the Effect of Synchronized Instructional Resources in Automobile Education. A Case Study University of London; 1995. Kellerman A. Multimedia Technology Education. 2004;(11):110-14. Available: http/www.suite101.com/articjeetm/multimedia education. Publishers, Ibadan; 2006. Kimberly VH. Gender differences in computer technology achievement. Meridian Journal. 2002;5(2):4-6. Kaiyum Abdul: Auther, Teaching social studies,Readmore publication Lamsal Matrika and Mukhiya S.N.:Authors, New social studies :Readmore Publication Mayer RE, Chandler R. When learning is just a click away. Does simple user Interaction foster deeper interaction of multimedia messages? Journal of Educational Psychology. 2001; 93:390- 397. Mayer RE. Multimedia Learning. Cambridge, U. K: Cambridge University Press. 2001 National Council for the Social Studies. (1997). National Council for the Social Studies standards for social studies teachers . Washington DC: Author. Nepal Education policies, curriculum design and implementation at the general secondary level, Curriculum Development Center of Nepal Osokoya JA. Towards a New Generation of Multimedia Learning Research. Okwo FA. Effects of a Multi-media on Students’ Achievement in Poetry. WCCI Nigeria Chapter Forum. 1994;4(2). Pryor, B., & Bitter, G. (1996). Lessons learned for integrating technology into teacher education. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 12 (2), 13-17.

Vol. 1. Issue.1 2015 Secondary Education curriculum: 2064, Curriculum Development Center of Nepal The International Society for Technology in Education (1996). National educational technology standards [Brochure]. Eugene, OR: Author Thebe Sangeeta:Auther, a social studies grade 10, Shubharambh Publication. Wilson, E.K., & Marsh, G.E. (1995). Social studies and the Internet revolution. Social Education, 59 (4), 198-202. White, C. (1996). Relevant social studies education: Integrating technology and constructivism. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 4 (1), 69-76. White, C. (1995). 'Remaking' social studies: The importance of integrating technology into social studies. Southern Social Studies Journal, 20 (3), 44-53.

APPENDEX

Questionnaire for T1 Answer the following questions: Group A Choose the correct option :( 10X1=10) 1. What is an election? 2. Why is peace regarded as the infrastructure of development? 3. Write any two reasons of conflict? 4. Write any two role of civil society to maintain the peace. 5. What is ballot paper? 6. What is proxy vote? 7. What do you understand by polling centre? 8. How can you help to election commission? Write any two ways. 9. Who are responsible to maintain peace in the society? 10. What do you mean by invalid votes? Group B Short answer questions 11. Mention any six steps to put forward in bringing about sustainable peace in your community? 12. Explain the role of political parties for maintaining the peace in the country? 13 Make a list of advantages of Advantages of peace and Disadvantages of conflict. 14 A good citizen must participate in an election. Prepare a dialogue on it. 15 What are the responsibilities of the polling officer? Group C Long answer question: 16. What is electoral roll? Write any four roles that should be played by the citizen before the election and four roles during the election.

Questionnaire for T2 Answer the following questions: Group A Choose the correct option :( 10X1=10) 1. What is Atlantic Charter?

Vol. 1. Issue.1 2015 2. Why was United Nations established? 3. What is General Assembly? 4. Write any two functions of IMF. 5. What is UNMIN? 6. What is the UN peace keeping force? 7. What is the main function of World Meteorological Organization? 8. Who is the present general secretary of UN? 9. What is Veto? 10. Write any two functions of ITU. Group B Short answer questions 11. How is the Security Council composed of? Describe its functions. 12. Mention the advantages for Nepal being a member of the UNO. 13What are the functions of the secretariat? 14. List the UN agencies working in Nepal to solve various problems. 15. Describe the major duties of peace keeping force. Group C Long answer question: 16. Critically analyze the functions of UN.

Questionnaire for T3 Answer the following questions: Group A Choose the correct option :( 10X1=10) 1. What are human rights? 2. When was Universal Declaration of Human Rights issued by the general assembly of the UN? 3. How many articles are there in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? 4. How are you exercising your rights in your classroom? 5. What is Yalta Conference? 6. When did Nepal establish Human Rights Commission? 7. What do you mean by National Integrity? 8. When did Nepal become the member of UNO? 9. What is Dashgaja area? 10. What is principle of panchasheel ? Group B Short answer questions 11. Mention the activities done by 5the Human Rights organizations to protect human rights. 12. What fundamental rights are Nepalese people enjoying as the human rights? Discuss. 13Why do more criminal activities take place in the southern border of Nepal? Make a list. 14 How would you solve the problem of the encroachment of borders if you become the minister of foreign affairs? 15. What should we do if anyone attacks on the nationality of our country?

Group C Long answer question:

Vol. 1. Issue.1 2015 16. Give the introduction of Universal Declaration of human rights and mention it’s any seven provisions.

Marks. Group A F.M=50

Name of students Pre-Test Test-1 1.Neman Lama 35 36 2.Nimesh lama 25 28

3.Prabin lama 21 23 4.Ramesh Shrestha 18 24

5.Depesh Malla 17 21 6.Arjun Poudel 28 26 7.Aayush Sharma 21 30 8.Akash Bal 25 27 9.Aalok Gautam 27 24 10.Nira lama 26 32 11.Shanti Maya Tamang 28 35 12.Indra Waiba 21 25 13.Norbu KC 36 32 14.Saran KC 24 30 15.Thule Rai 16 23 16.Amar KC 21 29 17.Aman Joshi 26 24 18.Shakti Bom 26 23 19.Purna Ghale 18 24 20. Ram Ghale. 20 30

Vol. 1. Issue.1 2015 Marks. Group B F.M=50 Name of students Pre-Test1 Test1 1.Laxu Waiba 36 38 2.Kanchi Tamang 27 39

3.Aman Rai 24 36 4.Sambridi Malla 20 22

5.Shanker Shrestha 16 24 6.Dhiraj KC. 29 39 7.Daile Gurung 23 34 8.Narayan Shrama 26 30 9.Kul Bahadur Magar 28 28 10.Hom Magar 30 35 11.Dol Bahadhur Magar 26 36 12.Bol Bahadur Thapa 25 28 13. Ram Chandra Thapa 39 34 14.Marichman Lama 27 34 15.Chhedup Waiba. 19 24 16.Padam Awosti 24 33 17. Haste Gurung. 27 37 18. Dinesh Katuwal 29 34 19.Dependra Rimal 26 26 20. Rabina Adhikari. 24 35

Vol. 1. Issue.1 2015

ISSN: 2408-1906 Page 11