Volume 10 -
MEJDS (2020) 10: 7 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Nazaripour A, Laie S. Reverse Learning on Academic Self-efficacy and Mathematical Learning in Students with Learning Disabilities. MEJDS 2020; 10 :7-7
URL: http://jdisabilstud.org/article-1-1296-en.html
URL: http://jdisabilstud.org/article-1-1296-en.html
1- Department of Educational Technology, Kermanshah Branch, Islamic Azad University
Abstract: (3298 Views)
Background & Objectives: An effective method in teaching different concepts to students with learning disabilities is applying reverse learning methods in education, i.e., of vital importance. The present study aimed to investigate the effect of reverse learning on academic self–efficacy and learning math lessons in students with learning disabilities.
Methods: This was a quasi–experimental study with a pretest–posttest and a control group design. The statistical population of the study included all female high–school students (seventh grade) in Kermanshah City, Iran, in the academic year of 2017–2018. The study sample consisted of 50 students who were selected by a multistage cluster random sampling method and were randomly allocated into two groups of 25 people. Data collection tools consisted of McIlroy and Bunting (2001) Academic Self–Efficacy Scale (ASES) to measure academic self–efficacy and a researcher–made math test. The obtained data were analyzed at a significance level of α=0.05 in SPSS using descriptive and inferential statistics, including Multivariate Analysis of Covariance (MANCOVA). Academic Self–Efficacy Scale consists of 10 items, with answers ranging from totally disagree with (grade 7) to completely disagree using a 7–point Likert–type scale (Score 1). The questions 5, 6, and 9 are scored in reverse, i.e., the entire opposite option (grade 7) and the option “I totally agree” (score 1). Therefore, the scores of this questionnaire range from 10 to 70, and the higher scores indicate greater academic self–esteem. The scale’s validity was verified through content and face validity tests and using the opinions of the experts of the relevant field. To collect the required data, 20 questionnaires were used by teacher–made mathematical learning. This assay was based on learning the lessons of pages 1–68 of the 7th–grade math book using CDs, flashes, and educational software. The questionnaire was developed through content and face validity methods and using 5 experts’ opinions. The field of study has been reviewed and approved. The design of the reverse learning class included the instruction in mathematics based on the following headings (reversed in 8 sessions in the experimental group and the conventional methods were implemented for the control group). After 8 sessions, a questionnaire on academic empowerment learning was performed as a posttest survey. Then, the mean posttest score was compared with the pretest one.
Results: The MANCOVA results indicated a significant difference between the experimental and control groups by controlling the pretest effect and considering the corrected Alfa (0.525) in academic self–efficacy (p<0.001). Additionally, this difference was significant in learning the mathematical course (p<0.001). The mean scores comparison also suggested that the scores of academic and math self–efficacy of the experimental group significantly increased at the posttest. In other words, reverse learning was effective in learning self–efficacy and learning mathematical lessons in students with learning disabilities. Thus, about 39.8% of the academic self–efficacy and 18.1% of learning math student groups were affected by reverse learning.
Conclusion: The present study findings indicated that reverse learning was effective in academic self–efficacy and learning of math lessons in students with learning disabilities.
Methods: This was a quasi–experimental study with a pretest–posttest and a control group design. The statistical population of the study included all female high–school students (seventh grade) in Kermanshah City, Iran, in the academic year of 2017–2018. The study sample consisted of 50 students who were selected by a multistage cluster random sampling method and were randomly allocated into two groups of 25 people. Data collection tools consisted of McIlroy and Bunting (2001) Academic Self–Efficacy Scale (ASES) to measure academic self–efficacy and a researcher–made math test. The obtained data were analyzed at a significance level of α=0.05 in SPSS using descriptive and inferential statistics, including Multivariate Analysis of Covariance (MANCOVA). Academic Self–Efficacy Scale consists of 10 items, with answers ranging from totally disagree with (grade 7) to completely disagree using a 7–point Likert–type scale (Score 1). The questions 5, 6, and 9 are scored in reverse, i.e., the entire opposite option (grade 7) and the option “I totally agree” (score 1). Therefore, the scores of this questionnaire range from 10 to 70, and the higher scores indicate greater academic self–esteem. The scale’s validity was verified through content and face validity tests and using the opinions of the experts of the relevant field. To collect the required data, 20 questionnaires were used by teacher–made mathematical learning. This assay was based on learning the lessons of pages 1–68 of the 7th–grade math book using CDs, flashes, and educational software. The questionnaire was developed through content and face validity methods and using 5 experts’ opinions. The field of study has been reviewed and approved. The design of the reverse learning class included the instruction in mathematics based on the following headings (reversed in 8 sessions in the experimental group and the conventional methods were implemented for the control group). After 8 sessions, a questionnaire on academic empowerment learning was performed as a posttest survey. Then, the mean posttest score was compared with the pretest one.
Results: The MANCOVA results indicated a significant difference between the experimental and control groups by controlling the pretest effect and considering the corrected Alfa (0.525) in academic self–efficacy (p<0.001). Additionally, this difference was significant in learning the mathematical course (p<0.001). The mean scores comparison also suggested that the scores of academic and math self–efficacy of the experimental group significantly increased at the posttest. In other words, reverse learning was effective in learning self–efficacy and learning mathematical lessons in students with learning disabilities. Thus, about 39.8% of the academic self–efficacy and 18.1% of learning math student groups were affected by reverse learning.
Conclusion: The present study findings indicated that reverse learning was effective in academic self–efficacy and learning of math lessons in students with learning disabilities.
Type of Study: Original Research Article |
Subject:
Rehabilitation
References
1. Operationalizing the NJCLD Definition of Learning Disabilities for Ongoing Assessment in Schools. Learning Disability Quarterly. 1998;21(3):186–93. [DOI]
2. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5®). American Psychiatric Pub; 2013.
3. Ganji M. Asibshenasi Ravani bar asas DSM–5 [Psychopathology Based on DSM–5]. Tehran: Savalan Pub;2017. [Persian]
4. Silver CH, Ruff RM, Iverson GL, Barth JT, Broshek DK, Bush SS, et al. Learning disabilities: the need for neuropsychological evaluation. Arch Clin Neuropsychol. 2008;23(2):217–9. [DOI]
5. Elias SM, MacDonald S. Using Past Performance, Proxy Efficacy, and Academic Self-Efficacy to Predict College Performance. J Appl Social Pyschol. 2007;37(11):2518–31. [DOI]
6. Hen M, Goroshit M. Academic procrastination, emotional intelligence, academic self-efficacy, and GPA: A comparison between students with and without learning disabilities. J Learn Disabil. 2014;47(2):116–24. [DOI]
7. Moll K, Göbel SM, Gooch D, Landerl K, Snowling MJ. Cognitive Risk Factors for Specific Learning Disorder: Processing Speed, Temporal Processing, and Working Memory. J Learn Disabil. 2016;49(3):272–81. [DOI]
8. Efklides A. Metacognition: Defining its facets and levels of functioning in relation to self-regulation and co-regulation. European Psychologist. 2008;13(4):277–87. [DOI]
9. Vanmeirhaeghe B, van Hees V. DIVIDED BY NUMBERS – studying with dyscalculia [Documentary]. Belgium: University College Ghent; 2012. [Article]
10. Jaafar WMW, Ayub AFM. Mathematics Self-efficacy and Meta-Cognition Among University Students. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2010;8:519–24. [DOI]
11. Bergmann J, Sams A. Flipped Learning for Math Instruction. Attaran M, Farahmand Khanghah M. (Persian translator). Tehran: Meraat Publication; 2017.
12. Ja’afar Khani F, Dehvari S. Tassir amoozesh makous bar pishraft dars kar va fanavari va angizesh tahsili danesh amoozan paye haftom [The effect of inverse learning on academic achievement and academic engagement of work and technology in the seventh students]. In: Conference on Modern Management Paradigms and Behavioral Sciences [Internet]. Tehran, Iran: Permanent Secretariat of the Conference; 2017. [Article]
13. Mehring J. Present Research on the Flipped Classroom and Potential Tools for the EFL Classroom. Computers in the Schools. 2016;33(1):1–10. [DOI]
14. Lento C. Promoting active learning in introductory financial accounting through the flipped classroom design. J Applied Research in HE. 2016;8(1):72–87. [DOI]
15. Delavare A. Research Educational and Psychological. Tehran: RavanPub;2013. [Persian]
16. McIlroy D, Bunting B. Personality, Behavior, and Academic Achievement: Principles for Educators to Inculcate and Students to Model. Contemporary Educational Psychology. 2002;27(2):326–37. [DOI]
17. Mehdizadeh I, Rajaeepoor S, Hoveida R, Salmabadi M. The Role of academic self-efficacy and academic self-handicapping in academic Procrastination. Education Strategies in Med Sci. 2018;11(3):105–10. [Persian] [Article]
18. Bandura A. Reflection on Nonability Determinants of Competence. In: Sternberg RJ, Kolligian J. Competence Considered: Perceptions of Competence and Incompetence Across The Lifespan. New Haven: Yale University Press. pp:315–62.
19. Lerner JW. Children with Learning Disabilities: Theories, Diagnosis, Teaching Strategies. Rakhshan F, Faryar A. (Persian translator). Tehran: Mabna Pub; 2013.
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
