Computers & Education 57 (2011) 20112024

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers & Education

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compedu

Fostering positive attitude in probability learning using graphing calculator

Choo-Kim Tan*, Madhubala Bava Harji, Siong-Hoe Lau
Faculty of Information Science and Technology, Multimedia University, Jalan Ayer Keroh Lama, 75450 Bukit Beruang, Melaka, Malaysia

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Although a plethora of research evidence highlights positive and signicant outcomes of the incorpo-
Received 23 November 2010 ration of the Graphing Calculator (GC) in mathematics education, its use in the teaching and learning
Received in revised form process appears to be limited. The obvious need to revisit the teaching and learning of Probability has
8 May 2011
resulted in this study, i.e. to incorporate GC in the teaching and learning of Probability, specically on the
Accepted 9 May 2011
issue of attitudes towards learning probability. The objective is to examine the effectiveness of GC
interactive learning, particularly on students attitudes towards Probability. A total of 65 foundation
Keywords:
students participated in this study; 32 students in the experimental group and 33 in the control group.
Cooperative/collaborative learning
Improving classroom teaching The teaching approaches varied between the groups. While the experimental group experienced the GC
Interactive learning environments approach, the control group encountered the conventional teaching approach of chalk and talk. Students
attitude towards learning probability was assessed using the Probability Attitude Inventory (PAI), was
administered prior to and after the study. The results show signicantly difference in the improved
attitude towards Probability between the groups, particularly in terms of usefulness of Probability,
interest in Probability and self-concept in Probability. This study provides evidence that learning Prob-
ability with GCs benets students.
2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Over the decades, two of the main concerns of the mathematics educators around the world, among others include Thailand (Prakitipong
& Nakamura, 2006), Chile (Ramirez, 2005), United States (Fields, 2005) are the unsatisfactory performance in Mathematics and negative
attitudes towards Mathematics.
Numerous studies (Almeqdadi, 2005; Noraini, 2006; Utts, Sommer, Acredolo, Maher, & Matthews, 2003) have been conducted to address
these issues and examine the difculties students face in mathematics (Jones, 2000; Wisenbaker, Scott, & Fadia, 1999). Different teaching
and learning methods have been experimented to motivate and increase students interest towards Mathematics. Among the methods
adopted include, such as adopting cooperative learning and peer interaction (Jones, 2000; Magel, 1998), learning via videos (Esteban,
Gonzalez, & Tejero, 2000), Internet-based instruction (Utts et al., 2003), geometers sketchpad (Almeqdadi, 2005) and graphing calcu-
lator (GC) (Ellington, 2003; Forster, 2004; Noraini, 2006).
Although research evidence highlights positive and signicant outcomes of the use of the GC in education, there appears to be limited
studies of its use in teaching and learning Mathematics. Most of the research is in the teaching and learning of Algebra, Graphs and
Functions, Straight Lines, Geometry, Trigonometry, Statistics and Calculus (Arnold, 2008; Horton, Storm, & Leonard, 2004; Jones, 1995;
Thompson & Senk, 2001; Waits & Demana, 1999b). However, research on Probability learning with GC appears to be limited.
The obvious need to revisit the teaching and learning of Probability has resulted in this study, i.e. to address the issue of unfavourable
attitude towards learning Probability. It is aimed at developing positive attitudes and behaviours towards learning Probability among
undergraduates. The two research questions of interest are:

(1) To what extend did the incorporation of GC change the students attitude towards Probability?
(2) Are there signicant differences in the students a) perceived usefulness of Probability, b) interest in Probability and c) self-concept of
Probability between the experimental and control groups?

* Corresponding author. Tel.: 60 6 2523427; fax: 60 62318840.

E-mail address: cktan@mmu.edu.my (C.-K. Tan).

0360-1315/$ see front matter 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.05.005
2012 C.-K. Tan et al. / Computers & Education 57 (2011) 20112024

2. Literature review

The conventional approach of talk-and-chalk obviously does not promote much interaction and students appear to be passive learners
(Duatepe-Paksu & Ubuz, 2009; Neo, unpublished; Rosnaini, Mohd Arif, & Lim, 2009). The limited or hardly any interaction and discussions
sessions make the learning process appear boring or mundane. There is no opportunity to discuss or actively explore concepts that students
do not understand. They may eventually not be able to understand the teaching materials and/or retain pertinent mathematical concepts
and hence, nd the lessons boring or/and uninteresting (Honeycutt & Pierce, 2007).
Preliminary ndings provide evidence for changes in attitude, with the adoption of GCs. Positive attitudes and increased motivation to
learn mathematics with GC have been reported (Ellington, 2003; Ha, 2008; Milou, 1999; Schrupp, 2007; Stick, 1997). Students have reported
that the learning is more interesting, exciting and enjoyable (Jones, 1995; Schrupp, 2007; Waits & Demana, 1994). They developed a positive
attitude towards using GC in learning Mathematics, in general, and Statistics, in particular, which in turn affects their attitudes towards using
GC in learning Mathematics and Statistics and vice versa (Kor, 2008).
Studies found GC to be a user friendly, useful and effective tool to encourage students to enjoy learning mathematics (Noraini, 2006;
Schrupp, 2007). They favoured the use of GC in learning Mathematics and found that it is easy to use (Ha, 2008; Hasan, Azizan, &
Kassim, 2005; Mohd Ayub, Ahmad Tarmizi, Abu Bakar, & Mohd Yunus, 2008; Noraini, 2004; Seth & Willis, 2004; Waits & Demana, 1994).
It also enhances their skills, knowledge, understanding of concepts (Kor, 2008; St. John, 1998), and mathematical problems solving (Schrupp,
2007). It provides excellent learning experiences and engages them in real mathematics, i.e. a new experience to them (Waits & Demana,
1994). In addition, it promotes appreciation for Mathematics, particularly in using real data/experiments and presenting real world problems
which may not be solved easily with a paper-and-pencil approach (Kor, 2008; Schrupp, 2007). Consequently, students enthusiastically and
willingly work harder in learning mathematics when their interest towards Mathematics improves and lessons are transformed from
mundane tasks to interesting and fun (Kor, 2008; Noraini, 2004; Waits & Demana, 1994). Students interest and enthusiasm is obvious when
they are able to see the whole picture of the topic (Abd Rahim, 2008).
There is also an obvious shift in the students perceptions towards solving Mathematical problem as they are freed from tedium
computation (Dick, 1992; Stacey, 2004). Firstly, the multiple representation features of GC enables them to meaningfully resolve problems,
taking multiple perspectives into consideration and solving problems in different ways (Rosihan & Kor, 2004). Students are more partici-
pative and more willing to spent time in resolving Mathematical questions and display a sense of self-condence to work independently
(Noraini, 2004). Secondly, the drawing and calculation functions of GCs enable students to visualize, i.e. graphically or numerically, the
relationships between the Mathematics concepts, make sense of these concepts and interpreting the conclusions, which consequently
raises their level of condence in solving mathematical problems (Nasari, 2008; Scariano & Calzada, 1994; van der Kooij, 2001). The reduced
level of anxiety, higher level of motivation and continued interested in learning mathematics encourages students to talk about Mathe-
matics, which eventually becomes a norm among students (Rosihan & Kor, 2004; Waits & Demana, 1994, 1998).
With a more enjoyable, exciting and interesting learning environment, students tend to place higher worth in mathematics (Waits &
Demana, 1994). Waits and Demana (1999a) elaborate that the adoption of GC enables students to see that mathematics has value.
[and they] . nd mathematics more interesting and exciting. [and it provided] . excitement and interest in mathematics (p.5). Students
perception towards the usefulness of Mathematics and its importance to their future and career tends to form as they experience using GCs
in Mathematics lessons (Kor, 2008; Schrupp, 2007). They are able to see the signicance of Mathematics in their daily lives and to
understand the reasons for learning Mathematics (Rosihan & Kor, 2004; Schrupp, 2007). They nd Mathematics as a practical subject, i.e.
a wholesome and community related subject (Rosihan & Kor, 2004).

3. Methodology

3.1. Participants

The target population of this study comprised foundation/pre-university students at a university in Malaysia. 65 students participated in
this study; 32 students in the experimental group (24 males and 8 females) and 33 students in the control group (29 males and 4 females);
age ranged from 17 to 21 years old. An independent sample t-test on students performance of the previous trimesters mathematics subject
was conducted to verify similarity of the two samples. The Levines test for equality of variances (F .054, p > .05) was not signicant,
therefore it can be assumed equality of variances for both groups. A closer look shows that the mean and standard deviation of both groups
are almost similar, as displayed in Table 1. The mean scores of the experimental and control groups are 73.12 and 73.061 respectively; with
standard deviations of 19.874 and 19.733 respectively. Hence, it can be concluded that both groups are homogeneous as there is no
signicant difference between the groups, p .989 (> .05).

3.2. Instrument

The students attitude towards learning Probability was assessed, using the Probability Attitude Inventory (PAI) (see Appendix), adapted
from Mathematics and Science Attitude Inventory under the Project EDGE of Rochester Institute of Technology (Rochester Institute of
Technology, 1999). The only adaptation made was a change in the term mathematics to probability. On a 5-point Likert scale, ranging

Table 1
Mathematics background.

Group Mean SD
Experimental 73.129 19.874
Control 73.061 19.733

SD Standard deviation.
 C.-K. Tan et al. / Computers & Education 57 (2011) 20112024 2013

from Strongly Disagree (1), Disagree (2), Neither Agree nor Disagree (3), Agree (4), to Strongly Agree (5), students were required to indicate
their perceptions and beliefs towards Probability. 31 statements were included in this inventory and the data obtained from these state-
ments were analyzed in terms of three aspects: (i) Students attitude towards the usefulness of Probability, (ii) Students interest in
Probability, and (iii) Students self-concept in Probability.

3.3. Graphing calculator (GC) instruction and conventional instruction

Students in the experimental group used the pocket-sized GC in learning four main topics of their Probability course: Random Variable,
Binomial Distribution, Poisson Distribution and Normal Distribution. The instructor incorporated GC into the lectures to demonstrate key
concepts of Probability and to provide visual examples. In order to produce cohesive and pedagogically sound GC learning materials, self-
designed GC instructional worksheets, i.e. based on the interactive and scaffolding learning framework of this study were utilized:

C encourage active interaction, i.e. communication and involvement among students, interaction between student and GC as well as
between student and instructor. Students as active rather than passive learners.
C prompt students to learn with each other by sharing information, ideas in a cooperative and collaborative manner.
C provide a conducive, fun and enjoyable environment, and to relate real life experience to the activities.
C prompt the scaffolding process, with GCs as the scaffolding tool.

To integrate the above elements in the GC instructional worksheet, tasks, guidelines and questions that require students to explain,
discuss, compare were incorporated to create a more interactive classroom environment. Examples, What are the values of X between 6
and 10?, Explain how you solve for the probability that X assumes the values between 6 and 10., Discuss with your friends how you solve
for the probability of at least 10 chips fail if the value of CDF (10) is known from part (i) above., Compare and discuss the solution of using
the graphing calculator and the solution of using the statistical tables. Solve it and write it in the symbol. etc.
The students Probability textbook was used as a teaching and learning tool in the control group. The self-designed instructional
worksheets (without the use of GC) that based on the interactive and scaffolding learning framework of this study were also used by the
students in the control group. The syllabus and teaching materials for both groups were similar.

3.4. Procedures

This study adopted the quasi-experimental intact group research design. It was carried out concurrently for both groups in a 14 weeks
trimester. In order to ensure consistency, only one instructor taught both the groups, using the same contents. The only difference was that
different teaching and learning tools were incorporated as mentioned earlier.
At the beginning of the trimester (week 1), the pre-PAI was administered to both groups. They were informed of the condentiality of
their responses.
In weeks 2 and 3, the experimental group underwent four sessions of GC workshops in order to familiarize them with the buttons on GC
so that they will be able to master the key features necessary for the topics identied for this study. Each session lasted for an hour.
The intervention period commenced after the GC workshops, i.e. from week 4 to week 12. A typical lesson for both groups generally
began with the teaching of theories (15 min), conducting GC activities for the experimental group/solving problem questions for the control
group (100 min), and conclusion (5 min).
The self-designed instructional activity sheets in both groups provided opportunities for discussions, interactions and communication in
each lesson. A transformation is seen in the instructors role, i.e. to a scaffolder who guided, facilitated and offered suggestions, if necessary.
The intensity of the scaffolding gradually lessened as students gained competency in mastering the GCs (for the experimental group) and
comprehending the topics (for both groups). The control group, on the other hand, was taught using the conventional approach of chalk and
talk. However, they had equal opportunities for instructor guidance and facilitation, class interactions and discussions too. Both groups kept
journals to record their experiences.
At the end of the intervention period, the PAI was re-administered to both groups. Statistical analysis, i.e. descriptive statistics, t-test,
ANCOVA and MANCOVA were conducted, using SPSS 11.0.

4. Data analysis and results

4.1. Instrument validation

All data of this study was analyzed to determine the reliability and validity of the measurement scales. A reliable instrument is one that
gives consistent results (Fraenkel & Wallen, 2010). The instrument is considered reliable if the reliability coefcient is greater or equal to .7
(Fraenkel & Wallen, 2010). The Alpha coefcients as shown in Table 2, which ranging from .8648 to .9741, i.e. more than .7, implies that the
instruments exhibited acceptable reliability.
The 31 statements were analyzed for validity by conducting a factor analysis, with the extraction method of Principal Component
Analysis, the rotation method of Varimax, and the coefcient displayed by size. As mentioned earlier, the analysis was based on the three
aspects (17 statements on aspect of students self-concept in Probability (SC), 9 statements on students interest towards Probability (IP), and
5 statements on students attitude towards the usefulness of Probability (UP)). The rotation solution, as shown in Table 3, yielded three
interpretable factors, i.e. the SC, IP and UP aspects. The SC aspect accounted for 37.67% of the item variance, the IP aspect accounted for
22.59% of the item variance, and the UP aspect accounted for 11.86% of the item variance. The results of the factor analysis shown in Table 4
reveal high validity scores.
2014 C.-K. Tan et al. / Computers & Education 57 (2011) 20112024

Table 2
Reliability.

Instrument Aspects Cronbachs Alpha

PAI Overall .9567
UP .8648
IP .9505
SC .9741

Note. UP: Perceived usefulness of Probability, IP: students interest in Probability, SC: students
self-concept in Probability.

4.2. Comparison of results between experimental and control groups

4.2.1. ANCOVA
Table 5 shows the means and standard deviations of pre and post-PAI for both groups. The means of pre and post-PAI for both groups are
depicted in Fig. 1. Fig. 2 depicts the graph of post-PAI with condence interval for both groups.
ANCOVA was conducted. The independent variable was the Groups, i.e. experimental and control groups. The dependent variable was the
post-PAI scores and the covariate was the pre-PAI scores. A preliminary analysis evaluating the homogeneity-of-slopes assumption indicates
that the relationship between the covariate (pre-PAI) and the dependent variable (post-PAI) did not differ signicantly as a function of the
independent variable (group), F(1,61) .005, p .947 (>.05). Based on this nding, we proceeded with the ANCOVA analysis.
The ANCOVA is signicant, i.e. F(1,62) 71.491, p < .05.The estimated marginal means are shown in Table 6 and depicted in Fig. 3. The
experimental group had the largest adjusted mean (3.965) and the control group had the smallest adjusted mean (2.948). Follow-up test,
Holms sequential Bonferroni was conducted to evaluate pairwise difference among the adjusted means. It was chosen to control for Type I
error across the pairwise comparisons. It has strong control and great power and allows for use with any set of statistical tests. There is
a signicant difference between the two groups, p < .05. That is, the experimental group recorded signicantly higher scores than that of the
control group at the end of the treatment period.

4.2.2. MANCOVA
Table 7 presents the means and standard deviations of pre-UP, pre-IP, pre-SC, post-UP, post-IP and post-SC for both groups. The means of
pre-UP, pre-IP, pre-SC, post-UP, post-IP and post-SC for both groups are depicted in Figs. 4 and 5. Fig. 6 shows the graph of post-UP, post-IP
and post-SC with condence interval for both groups.
MANCOVA was conducted. The independent variable was the Groups, i.e. experimental and control groups. The dependent variables
were the post-UP, post-IP and post-SC scores and the covariate were the pre-UP, pre-IP and pre-SC scores. A preliminary analysis evaluating

Table 3
Total Variance Explained.

Component Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings

Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative %

1 15.730 50.742 50.742 15.730 50.742 50.742 11.676 37.666 37.666
2 4.281 13.809 64.552 4.281 13.809 64.552 7.001 22.585 60.251
3 2.343 7.557 72.108 2.343 7.557 72.108 3.676 11.857 72.108
4 .856 2.762 74.870
5 .692 2.233 77.103
6 .678 2.187 79.290
7 .649 2.093 81.383
8 .634 2.045 83.428
9 .561 1.808 85.236
10 .496 1.599 86.835
11 .461 1.486 88.321
12 .396 1.277 89.599
13 .375 1.210 90.808
14 .359 1.157 91.965
15 .326 1.053 93.018
16 .285 .919 93.937
17 .232 .750 94.687
18 .219 .707 95.393
19 .201 .650 96.043
20 .190 .614 96.657
21 .167 .538 97.195
22 .160 .517 97.712
23 .141 .454 98.166
24 .105 .339 98.505
25 .102 .328 98.833
26 .089 .287 99.120
27 .081 .262 99.382
28 7.444E-02 .240 99.622
29 5.587E-02 .180 99.802
30 3.794E-02 .122 99.925
31 2.336E-02 7.535E-02 100.000
 C.-K. Tan et al. / Computers & Education 57 (2011) 20112024 2015

Table 4
Validity.

Question Aspects

SC IP UP
Q8 .931 .124 .057
Q16 .841 .097 .078
Q20 .830 .093 .108
Q7 .824 .142 .074
Q18 .818 .013 .133
Q24 .812 .250 .155
Q4 .810 .343 .091
Q22 .804 .162 .249
Q27 .803 .380 .074
Q25 .802 .185 .233
Q13 .799 .208 .171
Q19 .781 .179 .275
Q5 .778 .355 .248
Q30 .752 .195 .181
Q23 .747 .316 .252
Q12 .745 .278 .073
Q17 .732 .276 .222
Q31 .130 .880 .039
Q11 .224 .829 008
Q28 .093 .816 .150
Q2 .249 .812 .145
Q14 .206 .810 .104
Q29 .324 .786 .286
Q1 .309 .780 .247
Q10 .104 .779 .190
Q15 .314 .778 .202
Q21 .204 .174 .843
Q9 .133 .293 .760
Q26 .386 .117 .739
Q3 .191 .036 .739
Q6 .097 .239 .709

Note. Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
Bold: the value is greater or equal to .7.

the homogeneity-of-slopes assumption indicates that the relationship between the covariate and the dependent variables did not differ
signicantly as a function of the independent variable, i.e. F(2,58) .266, p .768, for pre-UP and post-UP, F(2,58) .074, p .929, for pre-IP
and post-IP, and F(2,58) 1.934, p .154, for pre-SC and post-SC. Based on this nding, we can proceed with the MANCOVA analysis.
The Pillais Trace of .607 is signicant, F(3,58) 29.857, p < .05, indicating that we can reject the hypothesis that the populations means
on the dependent variables are the same for the two instructional methods.
The MANCOVA is signicant, i.e. F(1,60) 11.337, p .001, for post-UP; F(1,60) 71.215, p < .05, for post-IP, and F(1,60) 31.677, p < .05,
for post-SC, controlling for pre-UP, pre-IP and pre-SC.
Univariate test results are signicant for post-UP, post-IP and post-SC, with F(1,60) 11.337, 71.215, and 31.677, respectively, and p < .05.
The estimated marginal means are shown in Table 8 and Figs. 7, 8 and 9. Holms sequential Bonferroni was conducted to evaluate
pairwise difference among the adjusted means. There are signicant differences between two groups for post-UP, post-IP and post-SC,
p < .05. That is, the experimental group recorded signicantly higher scores than those of the control group after the study in all the
three aspects.

4.2.3. t-test results

The t-test results reveal that there is a signicant difference in the overall means attitude before and after the study for both groups. The
control group had signicantly lower overall means attitude after the study (M 2.95, SD .614) than before the study (M 3.31,
SD .386), t(32) 2.944, p < .05, whereas the experimental group registered a signicant higher overall means attitude after the study
(M 3.96, SD .284) than before (M 3.24, SD .392), t(31) 9.114, p < .05.
In addition, there is no signicant difference in pre-PAI between the two groups (t(63) .762, p .449), but there is signicant difference
in post-PAI between them (t(45.370) 8.561, p < .05). Before the study, the average attitude score of the experimental group (M 3.24,
SD .392) is not signicantly different from that of the control group (M 3.31, SD .386). However, the experimental group (M 3.93,
SD .284) recorded signicantly higher scores than that of the control group (M 2.95, SD .614) after the study.

Table 5
Means and Standard Deviations of pre and post-PAI for two groups.

Group PAI Mean SD

Control Pre 3.31 .386
Post 2.95 .614
Experimental Pre 3.24 .392
Post 3.96 .284
2016 C.-K. Tan et al. / Computers & Education 57 (2011) 20112024

4.1

3.9

3.7

3.5
PAI Scores

experimental group
3.3
control group
3.1

2.9

2.7

2.5
Pre Post

Fig. 1. PAI scores before and after intervention.

4.3. Qualitative data

This study evidently concurs with the literature on the improved attitude when GC is used. Closer examination also found that the
experimental classroom was transformed into a laboratory of active learners, exploring, experimenting, analyzing, discussing, comparing
and having fun while learning collaboratively, a seemingly, difcult subject. They developed condence in solving problems and were able to
see the useful of Probability. An active lab emerged, with students interacting with each other, with the instructor and with GC. The entries
into the students journals verify these ndings:

4.2

3.9
95% CI Post-test attitude

3.6

3.3

3.0

2.7

experimental group control group

Group
Fig. 2. Error bar chart for post-PAI.
 C.-K. Tan et al. / Computers & Education 57 (2011) 20112024 2017

Table 6
Estimated Marginal Mean.

Group Mean Std Error 95% Condence Interval

Lower Bound Upper Bound

Experimental 3.965 .086 3.794 4.136
Control 2.948 .084 2.779 3.116

Note. Covariates appearing in the model are evaluated at the following values: Pre-PAI 3.28.

C Perceived usefulness of probability

. We can solve the uncertainty in numerical quantity. For instance, the win or loss in each play of a game. We can use probability to
determine the outcome of the situation or experiment. . Interesting and can be applied in our daily life.
. quite interesting and it may be useful in my future life.
. I think this topic is more useful than other topics that we have learnt . Interesting and can be applied in daily life,. will help me in the
future.
. helps me to understand interrelation between values.

C Students interest in probability

. It was amusing and also fun (learning with graphing calculator). I am happy and satised. I dont have anymore problem .
I have exciting experiences with the graphing calculator.
. quite interesting.

C Students condence in probability

. it enables me to calculate the answers faster and more efciently. . less room to make careless mistakes. . helps me to double-check my
answers. . to detect where I have gone wrong in the calculation and improves my understanding.
. it is more efcient while learning something . letting me double check my calculations/method.
. I have identied the method to obtain a solution. . I am condent because I understand the method of solution.
. I am now able to interpret the questions and answer that I got. I think with graphing calculator, my problem solving skills have improved.
. I can answer the questions condently and cant wait or the next class .

C Collaborative learning
. We brain-storm and discuss with each others, also ask help from lecturer because we are condent .
. we interact more now.lecturer and friends helped in conducting tasks, this made me to be more condent to solve problems now.I do
not scare to solve more problems.

3.8
Estimated Marginal Means

3.6

3.4

3.2

2.8

Experimental group Control group

Fig. 3. Estimated marginal means of Post-PAI.

2018 C.-K. Tan et al. / Computers & Education 57 (2011) 20112024

Table 7
Means and standard deviations of pre and post-PAI for three aspects.

Group PAI Mean SD

Control
UP Pre 3.61 .549
Post 3.31 .794
IP Pre 2.93 .445
Post 2.44 .749
SC Pre 3.40 .470
Post 3.12 .905

Experimental
UP Pre 3.43 .590
Post 3.88 .512
IP Pre 2.87 .507
Post 3.76 .426
SC Pre 3.42 .518
Post 4.10 .286

. we discuss the questions thoroughly and try to gure out the concepts behind the questions .
. we interact by discussing every question and help each other when we nd difculties .
In contrast, entries in the control groups journals provide evidence that, as compared to the GC approach, the conventional approach did
not provide much room for interaction among them. Students condence level in problem solving was low and they were not able to see
the useful of Probability:
. It is not as what I expect. I thought it is useful before I learnt this subject, but now I cant see .
. abstract subject, cant apply it. I dont bother, I also dont understand.
. I dont want to discuss with my friends. I would like the answers to be given straight away. Hate to calculate. Boring subject. I dont know how
to do my exercises, I dont understand ..
. not as what I expected . I am good in mathematics but hate long calculations . I know how to solve the question coz after the classes, I do
lots of exercises and study myself
. I dont know how to solve, everyone do their own work . I dont know them . no choice but ask lecturer.
. I am not sure whether my solution is correct .
. Probability is difcult, very abstract . dont know how to start with the workings. . too many formula and difcult calculation.
. bored with this class, dont see the concept of probability, my friends know a little only even though discuss with them.
. The class is boring. Just sitting and doing our own work. Lecturer asked me to discuss with friends, but I dont know what to discuss & they
also dont want to discuss. Never mind, just sit & listen to lecturer.
Of the 33 students in the control group, only 5 students had perceived the usefulness of Probability.

5. Discussions and implications

As a conclusive result, both groups recorded signicant differences before and after the study, and between groups in their attitudes
towards Probability after the study. The experimental group showed signicant improvement in attitudes towards Probability, and
signicantly better attitude than the control group at the end of the study. On the other hand, the control group had signicantly less

3.8
3.6
3.4
3.2
PAI Scores

UP
3
IP
2.8
SC
2.6
2.4
2.2
2
Pre Post
Fig. 4. PAI scores before and after the study for control group based on three aspects.
 C.-K. Tan et al. / Computers & Education 57 (2011) 20112024 2019

4.2
4
3.8
3.6
3.4
PAI Scores UP
3.2
IP
3
SC
2.8
2.6
2.4
2.2
2
Pre Post

Fig. 5. PAI scores before and after the study for experimental group based on three aspects.

positive attitude and interest towards Probability after the study than before the study. The results are consistent with previous research
(e.g. Ellington, 2003; Ha, 2008; Kor, 2008; Milou, 1999; Munawir & Raihan, 2008; Noraini, Tay, Ding et al., 2003; Schrupp, 2007; Stick, 1997;
Wilson & Krap, 1994) conrming that GC approach fosters positive attitudes and increased motivation to learn mathematics. The
experimental group showed both increased attitudes and better attitude than the control group in all three aspects after the study.
The signicantly higher attitude recorded by the experimental group might be due to the learning environment which was more
interactive and supportive. Students looked forward to learning new things and having fun with GC. Students actively participated in

4.5 Post-students'
attitude towards the
use of probability
Post-students'
interest towards
4.0 probability
Post-students' self-
concept in
probability
3.5
95% CI

3.0

2.5

2.0

experimental group control group

Group
Fig. 6. Error bar chart for three aspects.
2020 C.-K. Tan et al. / Computers & Education 57 (2011) 20112024

Table 8
Estimated Marginal Means of three aspects.

Dependent Variable Group Mean Std. Error 95% Condence Interval

Lower Bound Upper Bound

Post-UP Experimental 3.879 .121 3.638 4.120
Control 3.305 .119 3.068 3.542
Post-IP Experimental 3.761 .111 3.539 3.983
Control 2.437 .109 2.218 2.655
Post-SC Experimental 4.090 .122 3.847 4.333
Control 3.121 .120 2.882 3.361

Note. Covariates appearing in the model are evaluated at the following values: Pre-UP 3.52, Pre-IP 2.90, Pre-SC 3.41.

knowledge and skills acquisition, during the GC activities. Some students sought help from more capable peers and their instructors, if they
encountered difculties in solving the problems and/or the functions of using GCs. In addition, students explored the GC activities through
the discovery approach and were seen sharing answers and information during the discovery process. They appeared to enjoy the sharing
and interactive process. It saved their time in solving problems by speeding-up the tedious calculation process. As highlights by Stacey
(2004), GC has been used functionally and pedagogically in which students appreciated getting the answers. Consistent with Kor (2008)
and Schrupp (2007) GC made interesting changes in Probability classrooms and enhanced the students appreciation and enjoyment of
learning mathematics.
The results of this study are also consistent with other studies (Nasari, 2008; Scariano & Calzada, 1994; van der Kooij, 2001), particular in
terms of helping students to visualize the concepts, graphically or numerically, understanding the relationships between concepts, and
make sense of probability concepts. This in turn increases their condence in applying mathematics and interpreting the conclusions. The
results are also consistent with previous studies that support the use of GC in boosting students self-condence in learning mathematics
(Abd Rahim, 2008; Acelajado, 2005; Anis, 2008; Graham, Headlam, Sharp, & Watson, 2008; Jones, 1995; Khairiree, 2003; Noraini, 2003;
Noraini, Tay, Goh, et al., 2003; Rosihan & Kor, 2004).
Students began to nd Probability relevant to the daily lives, i.e. how the situations in the world apply the Normal distribution. They
found the lessons enabled them to understand the probability of an incident to occur and that they can apply what they learnt into real life
situations and solve daily lifes problems. The knowledge gain would also be useful in their future, as they would be able to apply probability
to determine the outcome of a certain situation in their daily life as well as in their workplace. They also displayed better understanding of
the usage of the formula in the Probability course. These ndings are also consistent with previous research that found that GC helped
students see the usefulness of mathematics and highly regard its importance to their future and career (Kor, 2008; Schrupp, 2007; Seth &
Willis, 2004; Waits & Demana, 1994). The quantitative ndings of signicant differences in students attitude towards learning Probability
after using GC support this evidence.
The mean score in the control group, which, on the other hand, had declined after the intervention showed slightly better attitude
towards Probability before the intervention than after the intervention (mean difference .36). However, after the intervention, the

3.9

3.8
Estimated Marginal Means

3.7

3.6

3.5

3.4

3.3

Experimental group Control group

Fig. 7. Estimated marginal means of post-UP.
 C.-K. Tan et al. / Computers & Education 57 (2011) 20112024 2021

3.75

Estimated Marginal Means 3.5

3.25

2.75

2.5

Experimental group Control group

Fig. 8. Estimated marginal means of post-IP.

students displayed the same attitude in the aspects of the usefulness of Probability and self-concept in Probability as before, except for the
aspect of interest towards Probability. This could be because they had expected that they would develop some level of interest towards
Probability (mean 2.93) before the study. However, they found the lessons of the conventional approach were not to their expectations,
especially in the aspect of interest towards Probability. It is clear that although students underwent a full course on Probability, most of
the students, who did not use GC, appear to be unable to see the relevancy of Probability in their daily lives and appear to display lower

4.2

4
Estimated Marginal Means

3.8

3.6

3.4

3.2

Experimental group Control group

Fig. 9. Estimated marginal means of post-SC.
2022 C.-K. Tan et al. / Computers & Education 57 (2011) 20112024

self-concept in Probability. This is evident from students journal, i.e. of the 33 students, only 5 students had perceived the usefulness of
Probability and most of them were unsure of the solutions and answers they presented. Obviously, students appeared to be disinterested in
Probability, which could be due to the delivering mode that they found to be boring. The signicant lower attitude displayed by the control
group may also be due to the limited interactions among students. Despite the instructors encouragement to discuss, they were mostly
passive and did not seek assistance when in difculties. The majority of students expressed that Mathematics is difcult, even before
undertaking the Probability course. This perception and attitude prevailed, and in fact worsen after the Probability course. They appear to
be bored of listening to the lecture and bored in solving problems, using the pencil-and-paper approach and the one-way, non-active
learning environment. Consequently, the students found it difcult to understand, which could also be because they were not able to see
the usefulness of Probability in lives and future careers. The ndings are consistent with Duatepe-Paksu and Ubuz (2009), Neo
(unpublished), Rosnaini et al. (2009), i.e. in the conventional approach, students are mostly passive and rarely volunteer to participate,
and solve the questions displayed on the whiteboard. Thus it is not surprising that the level of condence in Probability declined. Students
were clearly not motivated in the Probability classrooms as they found the lesson uninteresting, which is consistent with Honeycutt and
Pierces (2007) study, i.e. the students were less interested and unable to understand, and retain important concepts.
This study provides signicant implications in the adoption of GC. As highlighted in the Literature Review section, there is evidence in
changes in attitude when GCs are adopted in the classrooms, i.e. among others, increased motivation, enjoyment, appreciation in mathe-
matics. This study shows empirical evidence that GC instruction can be an alternative innovative teaching approach to develop positive
attitude in mathematics learning, especially in Probability lessons.
The interesting results yielded in this study would certainly encourage educators to adopt GCs in their classrooms, particularly in
Probability courses. Educators could design effective GC instructions which provide hands-on experiences, particularly since mathematics
involves complex concepts and computations. GCs would facilitate students learning, especially in solving more complex mathematics
problems which is challenging. The GC instructional worksheets of this study could be adopted or adapted for this purpose. Alternatively
instructors could design their own instructional worksheets to facilitate effective use of GCs, adopting the interactive and scaffolding
framework of this study as an option.
The interactive, cooperative and supportive learning environment, such as scaffolding from more competent peers and adults (teacher),
which the GC instructions generated, had helped overcome learning barriers as well as anxieties and elevated students to the higher level of
development as they gained conceptual and procedural knowledge. It is important for educators to apprehend their students attitude
towards the subject and an effective tool in order to undertake appropriate measures/actions to continuously enhance the learning of
Probability.

6. Conclusion

In concluding, learning Probability with GC has clearly beneted students in this study. It has proven to be a powerful learning tool in
solving mathematical problems and has transformed students attitude towards learning Probability. It provides great opportunities to
foster positive attitudes towards mathematics, in general, and Probability, in particular. This is a clear indication that students who use GC in
their learning positively, perceive the usefulness of Probability in lives, develop an increase in interest in Probability learning and greater
sense of condence in Probability. With these positive ndings, GC is seen as a valuable educational tool that ought to be adopted in
mathematics classrooms as well as further extended to other domains and scopes. Future research could examine the effects of GC in other
aspects and in different educational settings. A better understanding and implementation of effective GC instructions will enhance the
adoption and educational value of such educational technology.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank StatWorks (M) Sdn Bhd for the GC loan, the Foundation Center for the permission of conducting this study to
foundation students, Rochester Institute of Technology, and all the respondents.

Appendix. Questions in the Probability Attitude Inventory (strongly disagree. strongly agree):

1. Probability is something which I enjoy very much.

2. Solving Probability problems is fun.
3. There is little need for Probability in most jobs.
4. When I hear the word Probability, I have a feeling of dislike.
5. I would like to spend less time in school doing Probability.
6. Probability is helpful in understanding todays world.
7. No matter how hard I try, I cannot understand Probability.
8. I often think, "I cant do it," when a Probability problem seems hard.
9. It is important to know Probability in order to get a good job.
10. I enjoy talking to other people about Probability.
11. Sometimes I do more Probability problems than are given in class.
12. I remember most of the things I learn in Probability.
13. I would rather be given the right answer to a Probability problem than to work it out myself.
14. It is important to me to understand the work I do in Probability.
15. I have a real desire to learn Probability.
16. It scares me to have to take Probability.
17. I have a good feeling towards Probability.
18. If I dont see how to do a Probability problem right away, I never get it.
 C.-K. Tan et al. / Computers & Education 57 (2011) 20112024 2023

19. I usually understand what we are talking about in Probability.

20. I feel uneasy when someone talks to me about Probability.
21. Probability is of great importance to a countrys development.
22. I would like a job which doesnt use any Probability.
23. I am good at doing Probability problems.
24. I can get along perfectly well in everyday life without Probability.
25. It makes me nervous to even think about doing Probability.
26. Probability is useful for the problems of everyday life.
27. I dont do very well in Probability.
28. I would like to do some outside reading in Probability.
29. Probability is easy for me.
30. Most people should study some Probability.
31. Sometimes I read ahead in my Probability book.

The Probability Attitude Inventory was adapted from Mathematics and Science Attitude Inventory, Project EDGE, Rochester Institute of
Technology, 1999.

References

Abd Rahim, A. S. (2008). Application of geometers sketchpad software aids in improving secondary school students understanding on the concept of functions and graphs.
Paper presented at the 3rd national conference of graphing calculators.
Acelajado, M. J. (2005). Use of graphing calculators in college algebra: cognitive and noncognitive gains in mathematics students. Paper Presented at the ICMI regional
conference-the third East Asia regional conference on mathematics education, China.
Almeqdadi, F. (2005). The effects of using the geometers sketchpad (GSP) on Jordanian students understanding some geometrical concepts. International Journal for
Mathematics Teaching and Learning.
Anis, S. B. A. B. (2008). Program Calculator Idol Dalam Mengagalakkan Penggunaan Kalkulator Grak Dalam P-P Matematik. (Calculator Idol program in encouraging the use
of graphic calculator in teaching and learning mathematics). (Abstract). Paper Presented at the 3rd national conference on graphing calculators.
Arnold, S. (2008). Making algebra meaningful with technology. Paper presented at the 3rd national conference of graphing calculators.
Dick, T. (1992). Supercalculators: implication for calculus curriculum, instruction, and assessment. In J. T. Fey (Ed.), Calculators in mathematics education: 1992 yearbook of the
national council of teachers of mathematics (pp. 145157). Reston, VA: NCTM.
Duatepe-Paksu, A., & Ubuz, B. (2009). Effects of drama-based geometry instruction on student achievement, attitudes, and thinking levels. The Journal of Educational Research,
102(4), 272288.
Ellington, A. J. (2003). A meta-analysis of the effects of calculators on students achievement and attitude levels in precollege mathematics classes. National Council of Teachers
of Mathematics, 34(5), 433463.
Esteban, S., Gonzalez, M. P., & Tejero, L. J. (2000). Videos as a learning support to improve mathematics education. I. advantages and methodology. Paper presented at the
International Conference on Mathematics for living, Jordan.
Fields, V. (2005). Teacher levels of technology implementation and students achievement in reading and mathematics. In C. Crawford, et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of society for
information technology and teacher education international conference 2005 (pp. 33583361). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
Forster, P. A. (2004). Efcient use of graphics calculators in high school calculus. International Journal for Technology in Mathematics Education, 11(1), 13.
Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (2010). How to design and evaluate research in education (7th ed.). NY: McGraw-Hill.
Graham, E., Headlam, C., Sharp, J., & Watson, B. (2008). An investigation into whether student use of graphics calculators matches their teachers expectations. International
Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 39(2), 179196.
Ha, T. Y. (2008). Technology-integrated mathematics eductaion (TIME): A study of integrations between teachers and students in technology-integrated secondary mathematics
classrooms. University of Hawaii.
Hasan, H., Azizan, M., & Kassim, S. (2005). The use of graphic calculators in Malaysia secondary schools: students perception and teachers constraints. Paper presented at The
10th Asian technology conference in mathematics.
Honeycutt, B. B., & Pierce, B. A. (2007). Illustrating probability in genetics with hands-on learning: making the math real. The American Biology Teacher, 69(9), 554561.
Horton, R. M., Storm, J., & Leonard, W. H. (2004). The graphing calculators as an aid to teaching algebra. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 4(2), 152162.
Jones, P. (1995). Realising the educational potential of the graphic calculator. In E. D. Laughbaum (Ed.), Hand-held technology in mathematics and science education: a collection
of papers (pp. 6871). Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University.
Jones, T. (2000). Instructional approaches to teaching problem solving in mathematics: integrating theories of learning and technology. Final paper, EDUC6100. retrieved from.
www.mindymac.com/edu6100projects/TjonesProblem6100.htm.
Khairiree, K. (2003). Dispelling the myths on using graphing calculator and examination. Paper presented at the 1st national conference on graphing calculators.
Kor, L. K. (2008). Calculator mediated learning in a heterogeneous mathematics classrooms. Paper presented at the 3rd national conference of graphing calculators.
Magel, R. C. (1998). Using cooperative learning in a large introductory statistics class. Journal of Statistics Education, 6(3).
Milou, E. (1999). The graphing calculator: a survey of classroom usage. School Science and Mathematics133140.
Mohd Ayub, A. F., Ahmad Tarmizi, R., Abu Bakar, K., & Mohd Yunus, A. S. (2008). A comparison of Malaysian secondary students perceived ease of use and usefulness of
dynamic mathematical software. International Journal of Education and Information Technologies, 2(3), 194201.
Munawir, A., & Raihan, H. (2008). Penggunaan Kalkulator Grak Dalam Matematik: Topik Garis Lurus Dan Impak Pelaksanaan (Use of graphing calculator in mathematics:
straight Lines topic and implementation Impacts). Paper presented at the 3rd national conference on graphing calculators.
Nasari, G. Y. (2008). The effect of graphing calculator embedded materials on college students conceptual understanding and achievement in a calculus in course. Detroit, Michigan:
Wayne State University.
Neo, M. Interactive web-based education: a multimedia-mediated learning web learning (MMWL) framework. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Multimedia University, Malaysia.
Noraini, I. (2003). Communication in mathematics: usage of graphing calculator. Paper presented at the 1st national conference on graphing calculators.
Noraini, I. (2004). Exploration and entertaining mathematics: why graphic calculator? Paper presented at the 2nd national conference on graphing calculators.
Noraini, I. (2006). Exploring the effect of TI-84 plus on achievement and anxiety in mathematics. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 2(3), 6778.
Noraini, I., Tay, B. L., Ding, H. E., Goh, L. S., Anis, S., & Nilawati, M. (2003). A graphing calculator-based instruction and its impact on the teaching and learning of mathematics.
Paper presented at the 1st national conference on graphing calculators.
Noraini, I., Tay, B. L., Goh, L. S., Nilawati, M., Ding, H. E., Aziah, A. A., et al. (2003). KaGUM Project 2001:A graphing calculator-based instruction and its Impact on the teaching and
learning of mathematics.
Prakitipong, N., & Nakamura, S. (2006). Analysis of mathematics performance of grade ve students in Thailand using Newman procedure. Journal of International Cooperation
in Education, 9(1), 111122.
Ramirez, M. J. (2005). Understanding the low mathematics achievement of Chilean students: a cross-national analysis using TIMSS data. Boston College.
Rochester Institute of Technology. (1999). Mathematics and science attitude inventory, Project EDGE. Retrieved July 7, 2004, from. http://oerl.sri.com/instruments/up/studsurv/
instr129.html.
Rosihan, M. A., & Kor, L. K. (2004). students reactions to learning mathematics with graphing technology. Paper presented at the 2nd national conference on graphing
calculators.
Rosnaini, M., Mohd Arif, H. I., & Lim, A. K. (2009). Development and evaluation of a CAI courseware G-Reect on students achievement and motivation in learning
mathematics. European Journal of Social Sciences, 8(4), 557568.
2024 C.-K. Tan et al. / Computers & Education 57 (2011) 20112024

Scariano, S. M., & Calzada, M. E. (1994). The role of the graphing calculator in the basic skills mathematics curriculum. Mathematics and Computer Education6069.
Schrupp, R. D. (2007). Graphing calculator usage in a math classroom: effects of using graphing calculators to solve quadratics with high school mathematics students. Marshall,
Minnesota: Southwest Minnesota State University.
Seth, D. L., & Willis, L. (2004). Graphic calculator Explorations to enhance mathematics in Public high Schools. Paper presented at the 2nd national conference on graphing
calculators.
St. John, D. (1998). Exploring hill chipers with graphing calculators. In E. D. Laughbaum (Ed.), Hand-held technology in mathematics and science education: a collection of papers
(pp. 146153). Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University.
Stacey, K. (2004). Helping students learn to do mathematics well with technology. In A. H. Yahya, B.Adam., M. I. Ahmad Izani, H. L. Koh, & H. C. Low (Eds.), Integrating
technology in the mathematical sciences (pp. 312). Malaysia: Penerbit Universiti Sains Malaysia.
Stick, M. E. (1997). Calculus reform and graphing calculators: a university view. Mathematics Teacher356360.
Thompson, D. R., & Senk, S. L. (2001). The effects of curriculum on achievement in second-year algebra: the example of the university of Chicago school mathematics project.
Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 32(1), 5884.
Utts, J., Sommer, B., Acredolo, C., Maher, M. W., & Matthews, H. R. (2003). A study comparing traditional and hybrid internet-based instruction in introductory statistics
classes. Journal of Statistics Education, 11(3).
van der Kooij, H. (2001). Functional algebra with the use of the graphing calculator. The Netherlands: Freudenthal Institute, Utrecht University.
Waits, B. K., & Demana, F. (1994). The calculator and computer precalculus project (C2PC): what have we learned in ten years? In E. D. Laughbaum (Ed.), Hand-held technology
in mathematics and science education: a collection of papers (pp. 1232) Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University.
Waits, B. K., & Demana, F. (1998). The role of graphing calculators in mathematics Reform. In E. D. Laughbaum (Ed.), Hand-held technology in mathematics and science
education: a collection of papers (pp. 7275). Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University.
Waits, B. K., & Demana, F. (1999a). Calculators in mathematics teaching and learning: past, present, and future. In E. D. Laughbaum (Ed.), Hand-held technology in mathematics
and Science education: a collection of papers (pp. 211). Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University.
Waits, B. K., & Demana, F. (1999b). A new breed of calculators: they will change the way and what you teach. In E. D. Laughbaum (Ed.), Hand-held technology in mathematics
and science education: a collection of papers (pp. 8184). Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University.
Wilson, M. R., & Krap, C. M. (1994). The impact of graphics calculators in students; understanding of function. Journal of Computer in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 13,
252264.
Wisenbaker, J. M., Scott, J. S., & Fadia, N. (1999). A cross-cultural comparison of path models relating attitudes about and achievement in introductory statistics courses. Inter-
national Statistical Institute. 52nd Session.