. 2013 . . . " ") 113( : . . . / / " . Declaration The work provided in this thesis, unless otherwise referenced is the researcher's own work, and has not been submitted elsewhere for any other degree or qualification. Student's Name : Signature: : Date: : :)( 1 1.1 2 2.1 6 3.1 7 4.1 8 5.1 8 6.1 9 7.1 10 8.1 11 : 13 1:2 14 1:1:2 14 2:1:2 15 3:1:2 17 4:1:2 19 5:1:2 21 6:1:2 22 7:1:2 22 8:1:2 24 9:1:2 24 10:1:2 25 11:1:2 26 2:2 27 1:2:2 27 2:2:2 29 3:2:2 36 4:2:2 40 : 44 1:3 45 2:3 45 3:3 45 4:3 45 5:3 47 1:5:3 48 2:5:3 48 6:3 50 1:6:3 50 2:6:3 51 7:3 51 8:3 51 9:3 52 : 53 1:4 54 2:4 56 3:4 58 4:4 60 5:4 85 : 94 1:5 95 2:5 95 1:2:5 95 2:2:5 97 3:2:5 99 4:2:5 100 5:2:5 105 4:5 107 3:5 108 109 118 p ) 1( 46 ) 2( 47 ) 3( 49 ) 4( )- Sample K- S 1( 49 ) 5( ) =9( 50 ) 6( . 54 ) 7( . 55 ) 8( 57 ) 9( . 59 ) 10( ) ( 60 ) 11( ) ( . 61 ) 12( ) ( 62 ) 13( 64 ) 14( 64 ) 15( . 65 ) 16( 65 ) 17( . 66 ) 18( 67 ) 19( 68 ) 20( 69 ) 21( 70 ) 22( 70 ) 23( . 71 ) 24( 71 ) 25( LSD 72 ) 26( . 73 ) 27( 74 ) 28( 74 ) 29( . 75 ) 30( . 76 ) 31( 76 ) 32( . 78 ) 33( 78 ) 34( 79 ) 35( 79 ) 36( 80 ) 37( 81 ) 38( ) ( . 82 ) 39( ) ( . 83 )40( ) ( . 84 ) 41( 85 )42( 93 1 118 2 124 3 129 4 130 5 131 6 132 7 134 8 134 " )2012-2013( ) ( . )65( )44 ( 68 %. ) 46( . . )0.88(. ) 3.87( )3.9( )3.58( ) 0.05 ( ) ( )() () 2525-3535( ) 55-10 10 ( ) 5 5-15 16-20 20(. ) ( ) (. . . 1 )( 1.1 . 2.1 . 3.1 . 4.1 . 5.1 . 6.1 . 7.1 . 8.1 . 2 )( 1.1. . )2007" ( 90% 90% ." . )2008( )2009( 3 . )(2013 (Cheung & Slavin, 2013) )2009.( (Agrawel, 2009) . )2007( . 4 ) () 2006( . . (Baki & Guveli, 2008) . (Aqda & Hamidi & Rahimi, 2010) . (Kilicman & Hussan & Husain, 2010) . (National Council of Teachers of Mathematics NCTM) 5 )NCTM, 2000(. )2010( . . )2003( (Delen & Bulut, 2011) . )2005( 6 ) 1984( . )1996-1997 ( )1998( ) ( ) 2000( . . 2.1 )2011( . )2009( )2002.( 7 : . (E- Learning) . 3.1 : 8 ) .( 4.1 : . . . . 5.1 (E- Learning) . . 9 . . . . . 6.1 : )0.05 ( . 10 )0.05 ( . )0.05 ( . )0.05 ( . )0.05 ( . )0.05 ( . 7.1 : : . .: . 11 : . : . : . 8.1 : . : 2012-2013 . : 12 : . : . 13 1:2 1:1:2 2:1:2 3:1:2 4:1:2 5:1:2 6:1:2 7:1:2 8:1:2 9:1:2 10:1:2 2:2 1:2:2 2:2:2 3:2:2 4:2:2 14 )2007( 90% 90 % . 1:2 1:1:2 . )2007( ) J. finn( " ". 15 . ) 1996( ) Pates, 2006()2011(. )2006( . . )1436.( ) 2007( (Sandoval, 2008) )Saettler, 1978( . . 2:1:2 )2007 ( (2008) )2011( 16 (Visual- Instruction) ) 2007( . (Audio- Visual Instruction) .) 2011 ( Programmed Learning Modules Self- Learning Systems Interactive Video . )(Communication . ) (Systematic Approach . 17 ) 2012( . )1978( )2011( )1963.( )1977( . ) 1996 ( . Richey & Seel, 1994)( )1994()2007 ( . )2011( . 3:1:2 . ) 2006(" 18 ". . )Programmed instruction ( . )2007(Jan, 2008).( . Jan, 2008)( . . 19 . . 4:1:2 )Ellington, 2005( . . . . 20 . . )2011(Friedman, 1984)(" ". )Ellington, 2005( ) 2007( )2008()2009( (Agrawal, 2009) . )2009( .) 2007( 21 . . 5:1:2 ) 2008 ( )2009 ( )2005()2009( ) 2009( . 22 6:1:2 ) 2002( . ) 2003( . )Erdogan & Sahin, 2010( . . 7:1:2 )Baki & Guveli, 2008( . )(Kilicman & Hussan & Husain, 2010 23 . ) 2010()Aqda & Hamidi & Rahimi, 2010()2008()Reed, et. al, 2010( . ) 2010( MATLAP MAPLE MATHMATICA GeoGebra Cabri Sketchpad .) 1996 ( ) 2011( . )Cheung, 2013( 24 )CAI( : JOSTE, Larson Pre- Algebra, SRA (Drill and Practice) 8:1:2 )2011( . . . 9:1:2: . . . 25 . . 10:1:2 )2011(.)Kramsch, 1991( )Dalgianli & Lieuland, 1991()2011( . . )2002( . 26 11:1:2 )Aydn & Baki, 2010( . . . (Stipek & Salmon & Gyvers, 2001) )NCTM, 2000( NCTM . .)Mokhele & Jita, 2010( . 27 : . . )(2013 ) 58 ( ) ( . (2009) ) (75 28 . . ) 2005( (32) : ) ( ) ( ) ( ) .( 29 : )2013( ) 2009( )2005 ( . )2013( )2005( . . . 2:2:2 (Cheung & Slavine, 2013) )K- 12( ) 174( ) 45( )29( . 30 )2013( Excel PowerPoint (74) : Excel PowerPoint . Excel PowerPoint ) ( ) ( . (Birgin & Gurbuz, 2012) (Computer assisted Instruction) (CAI) )2009- 2010 ( . (Misconception Test) (MT) )12( ) (37 )18( (CAI) )19 ( . (2012) 31 (64) . (2011) (977) ) 80( ) 2010-2011( . . 32 ) (Kilicman & Hussan & Husain, 2010 " " "MAPLE" "MAPLE" . Aqda & Hamidi & Rahimi, 2011)( )57( (CAI) . )2007( )94( (37) . 33 ) ( . (2006) . (72) ) 32(. . . (2002) (160) . ) Ke, 2008( 34 ) 15( (GSAT math test) (Attitudes Inventory) ) (ATMI . )5( . (Baki & Guveli, 2008) (Web- Based Mathematics Teaching) (WBMT) (2004- 2005) )(18 80) ( . ) (Mawata, 2000 (Java Applet) (163) . 35 : : (Birgin & Gurbuz, 2012) (2013) (Baki & Guveli, 2008) (2013) (2011) (2006) (2002) (Kilicman, al, et, 2010) )2013( ) 2002( . . (2013) (2011) (2007) ) 2002( )2013( (Aqda, al, et, 2010) (2012) . 36 (2013) )2008( (2012) (2011) 2008) ( . (2012) (2011) (2008) 2008) ( (2007) (2002). 3:2:2 : (2012) )2010-2011( (273) . )2004( 37 ) 5( ) 129( . . . . )2009( . (2008) " " 38 . (63) (58) (5) (57) . . ) 2009( . )103( . : . . . )2005( (31) (60) : 39 . . (2004) (2003- 2004) ) 112( : . : . : (2012) 40 (2008) )2009 ( . (2008) )2009( (2012) . )2012( (2008) ) 2009( . . . 4:2:2 (Mofokeng & Mji, 2010) . )58 ( . 41 (Demirbilek & Tamer, 2010) )( . . )13 (. (2008) " " . . (2003) 42 . : (2010) (2010) (2008) (2003) . (2010) (2008) (2003) 43 : . . . . . . . 44 1:3 2:3 3:3 4:3 5:3 1:5:3 2:5:3 6:3 1:6:3 2:6:3 7:3 8:3 9:3 45 : . : . . : )65 ( )29()36( 2012-2013 . : )44 ( )68 (% )1992 ( )20 (% )65 ( ) 44 ( 46 )44 ( ) 1 ( : )1 :( (%) 21 47.7 23 52.3 36 81.8 3 6.8 5 11.4 5 14 31.8 5_15 18 40.9 16_ 20 5 11.4 20 7 15.9 25 11 25.0 25_35 21 47.7 35 12 27.3 13 29.5 31 70.5 5 31 70.5 5_ 10 9 20.5 10 4 9.1 47 : ) Wozeny & Venkatesh & Abrami, ( ) Sang & Valcke & Braak & Tondeur , ( ) ( ) ( ) .( : . ) ( ) ( : ) :( - - - : 48 : : : : : . . ) ( )(. : ) ( ) ( ) : : : ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) (. : )Consistency( )) (Cronbach Alpha .()3 ( : 49 )3 :( ) ( ) .-. ( ) . ( . ) -(1- Sample K- S).( )4 (- 0.05 )05.0.sig( . )4 ()- Sample K- S 1( Z .679 .497 .603 0 50 ) :( ) ( ) ( ).( : )( . )5 :( 2 7 7 1 1 5 3 5_15 3 16_ 20 2 20 1 3 6 51 : ) ( ) .( . : ) : .( : : 1. ) 6( . 2. . 3. . 4. . 52 5. . 6. . 7. . 8. . 9. . 10. . : ) SPSS ( : )-(1- Sample K- S)( . . " " . . . LSD . 53 54 . )6:( ) 6 ( . )1-5( 2.5 2.5-2.9 3 -3.4 3.5-3.9 4 . : : : ) ( : 55 )7( . * ) * () ( 4.29 .73 . 4.22 .52 . 4.18 .65 . 4.02 .76 4.02 .73 . 4.02 .66 . 4.00 .57 . 4.00 .52 . 3.97 .69 3.84 .71 3.79 .55 . 3.75 .86 . 3.75 .83 . 3.63 .91 . 3.29 1.0 3.22 1.0 3.87 .42 56 ) ( ) ( ) - ( ) ( ) - ( ) ( ) - ( ) .( : : ) 8 (: 57 )8( . . 4.3 .86 . 4.31 .63 . 4.20 .76 4.15 .64 . 4.11 1.12 . 4.06 .99 3.95 .74 . 3.90 1.07 3.90 1.00 . 3.90 .96 . 3.88 .86\ 3.86 .95 . 3.81 .99 . 3.77 1.30 . 3.68 .98 . 3.61 1.16 . 3.40 1.08 (LCD) 3.27 1.24 3.90 .56 * ) * () ( 58 ) ( ) ( ) - ( LCD ) ( ) - ( ) ( ) - ( ) ( : : )9 (: 59 )9( . 3.90 .74 3.88 .92 3.86 .87 3.84 .68 3.81 .92 3.65 .91 3.61 .96 3.43 1.02 3.38 1.01 3.34 1.01 3.34 1.07 2.93 1.12 3.58 .56 * )* () ( 60 ) ( ) ( )- ( ) ( ) - ( ) ( ) .( : : : )0.05 ( . : 1. )0.05 ( . ) ( )Independent t- test ( )10.( ) 10 () ( . ) =21( ) =23( )( 3.93 .460 3.82 .370 0.84 0.40 61 )10 ( )0.40 ()0.05 ( )0.05 ( . 2. )0.05 ( . ) ()Independent t- test ( )11.( ) 11 () ( . ) =21( ) =23( )( 3.71 .560 4.07 .510 -2.2 0.03* * ) ( )11 ( 62 )0.03 () 0.05 ( )0.05 ( . . 3. )0.05 ( . ) ()Independent t- test ( )12.( ) 12 () ( . ) =21( ) =23( )( 3.61 .590 3.55 .560 0.32 0.74 )12 ( )0.74 ( )0.05 ( )0.05 ( . 63 0.40 0.03 0.74 0.39 . : )0.05 ( . : 1. )0.05 ( . )One-way ANOVA( ) ( ) ( : 64 )13 ( . 3.86 3.72 4.08 ) ( )One-way ANOVA () ( : ) 41 ( "" 0.29 2 0.14 7.39 41 7.68 43 0.18 0.82 0.44 )41 ( )0.44 ()0.05 ( . 2. ) 0.05 ( . 65 )One-way ANOVA( ) ( ) ( : )15 ( . 3.87 4.14 3.95 ) ( )One-way ANOVA () ( : ) 16 ( "" .220 2 .110 13.40 41 .320 13.62 43 0.34 0.71 )16 ( )0.44 ( )0.05 ( 66 . 3. )0.05 ( . )One-way ANOVA( ) ( ) ( : )17 ( . 3.54 3.69 3.81 ) ( )One-way ANOVA () ( : 67 ) 18 ( "" 0.36 2 0.18 13.57 41 13.93 43 0.33 0.55 0.58 ) ( )18 ( ) 0.58 ( )0.05 ( . 0.44 0.71 0.58 0.57 . 68 : )0.05 ( . : 1. )0.05 ( . ) One-way ANOVA ( ) () ( : )19 ( . 25 25_35 35 4.01 3.85 3.79 ) ( )One-way ANOVA () ( : 69 ) 20 ( "" .290 2 .140 7.39 41 7.68 43 .180 .810 0.44 )20 ( )0.44 ()0.05 ( . 2. )0.05 ( . )One-way ANOVA( ) () ( : 70 )21 ( . 25 25_35 35 4.070 3.92 3.70 ) ( )One-way ANOVA () ( : ) 22 ( "" 0.77 2 0.38 12.84 41 13.62 43 0.31 1.23 0.30 )22 ( ) 0.30 ( )0.05 ( . . )0.05 ( . 71 )One-way ANOVA( ) () ( : )23 ( 25 25_35 35 3.85 3.61 3.29 ) ( )One-way Anova( ) ( : ) 24 ( "" 1.85 2 .920 12.08 41 13.93 43 .290 3.14 * 0.05 ) ( ) 24 ( )0.05 ()0.05 ( . 72 )LSD ( ) ( : ) 25(LSD 25 25_35 35 25 3.85 -0.56* 25_35 3.61 35 3.29 ) ( ) ( : 253525 25. 0.44 0.30 0.05 0.26 . 73 : )0.05 ( . : 1. )0.05 ( . )One-way ANOVA( ) () ( : )26 ( . 5 5_15 16_ 20 20 3.80 3.85 4.18 3.85 ) ( )One-way ANOVA () ( : 74 ) 27 ( "" .5670 3 .1890 7.12 40 7.68 43 .170 1.06 0.37 )27 ( )0.37 ()0.05 ( . 2. )0.05 ( . ) () ( : )28 ( . 5 5_15 16_ 20 20 4.07 3.79 3.81 3.90 75 ) ( )One-way ANOVA () ( : ) 29 ( "" 0.67 3 0.22 12.94 40 13.62 43 0.32 0.69 0.56 ) ( )29 ( )0.560 ()0.05 ( . 3. ) 0.05 ( . )One-way ANOVA( ) () ( : 76 )30 ( . 5 5_15 16_ 20 20 3.50 3.70 3.80 3.27 ) ( )One-way ANOVA () ( : ) 31 ( "" 1.27 3 .420 12.66 40 13.93 43 .310 1.33 0.27 ) ( )31 ( )0.27 ()0.05 ( . 77 0.37 0.56 0.27 0.4 : )0.05 ( .: 1. )0.05 ( . ) One-way ANOVA ( ) () ( : 78 )32 ( . 5 5_ 10 10 3.89 3.88 3.75 ) ( )One-way ANOVA () ( : ) 33 ( "" .0720 2 .0360 7.61 41 7.68 43 .180 .190 0.82 )33( ) 0.82( )0.05( . 79 2. )0.05 ( . )One-way ANOVA( ) () ( : )34 ( . 5 5_ 10 10 3.87 4.01 3.86 ) ( )One-way ANOVA () ( : ) 35 ( "" .1370 2 .060 13.48 41 13.62 43 .320 0.20 0.81 ) ( 80 )35 ( ) 0.81 ( )0.05 ( . 3. )0.05 ( . )One-way ANOVA( ) () ( : )36 ( 5 5_ 10 10 3.48 3.87 3.68 ) ( )One-way Anova () ( : 81 ) 37 ( "" 1.05 2 .530 12.87 41 13.93 43 .310 1.68 0.19 ) ( )37( ) 0.19( )0.05( . 0.82 0.81 0.19 0.6 . 82 : )0.05 ( . : 1. )0.05 ( . ) ()Independent t- test ( )38.( ) 38 () ( . ) =13( ) =31( )( 3.69 0.38 3.95 0.42 1.89- 0.06 ) ( ) 0.06 ( )0.05 ( )0.05 ( . 83 2. )0.05 ( . ) ()Independent t- test ( )39.( ) 39 () ( . ) =13( ) =31( )( 3.76 0.46 3.95 0.59 -1.0 0.31 )39 ( )0.31 ( )0.05 ( )0.05 ( . 3. )0.05 ( . ) ()Independent t- test ( )40.( 84 ) 40 () ( . ) =13( ) =31( )( 3.32 .510 3.69 .560 2.01- 0.04* )40 ( )0.04 ( )0.05 ( )0.05 ( . . 0.06 0.31 0.04 0.13 85 : ) :( . )4 (28% )10 (.471% . . . . )5 (20% )14 (56% )3 (12% )3 (12% 1. . )2 (11% )9 (50% 2. )7 (38.8% 1. . 2. . )4 (13.3% )1 (3.33% 86 3. . 4. . )9 (30% )16(53.3% a. . b. . c. . d. . e. . f. . )6 (14.6% )2 (4.87% )13 (31.7% )15 (36.5% )2 (4.87% )3 (7.31% a. . . . )9 (50% )7 (38.88% )2 (11.1% b. . . . )20 (76.9% )4 (15.3% )2 (7.69% c. . . )9 (90% )1 (10% d. . . )2 (40% )3 (60% 87 : : : a. : : " " : " " b. . : " " : " " 88 a. : " " : " " b. : " " : " magic graph " a. : " " 89 : " " b. : : "3-4 " c. : : " " : " ." d. : : " 90 . " : "" : " " e. : : " " f. : " " 91 a. : : " 90% ." : "" : " " : " " : " " 92 b. : : " " : " " : " " : "" : " " c. : : " " : 93 " " : " . 61% 50% 39%. )42 ( 77.55% % % 62.68% 94 95 : . : " : " ) ( 96 . . (Aqda & Hamidi & Rahimi, 2010) . )2010( . )2009 ( . ) ( . . . 97 )2007( . ) ( . ) ( . : " : " ) 3.90 .( 98 . ) ( . . ) ( . . ) ( . . 99 : : ) .( . Magic graph . . ) ( ) ( . ) ( )( . 100 : : : )0.05 ( . )0.05 ( . . . . . ) 2010( ) ( 101 . )2001( . )2012( . : )0.05 ( . )0.05 ( . . . ) 2009( )2012 ( 102 . ) ( . : )0.05 ( . )0.05 ( . )0.05 ( . . 103 . : )0.05 ( . )0.05 ( . . )2009 ( . ) ( )( : )0.05 ( . 104 )0.05 ( . . : )0.05 ( . )0.05 ( . )0.05 ( . . 105 . . : : % % %. 106 . ) ( . ) ( . ) ( . )2010 ( . 107 : . . . 108 . )Magic graph .( . . . . 109 :: ) 2003 .( . . )2003.( . . )2005.( . . )2011.( . . )1996.( .1. . )2009 .( . .22-6-2013: html.7966_post-blog/04/2013/com.blogspot.3tafp://http (2009). .1 . . . 110 )2009.( . . )2004.( . . )2010.(.1. . )2008.( . . )2007.( . . . )2011.( . .26)1+2.(235-271. )2009.( . . )2004 .( . . 111 )2009 .( . 25-12-2012 http://kenanaonline.com/users/kadwany/posts/300477 )2011.( . . )2009.( . . )2005.( . .22-6-2013 http://www.almdares.net/salim )2003.( . . )2008.( . 1 . . )2003.( ) .(:). 2006( )2007 .( . . 112 )2009.( . 8)15.(1-15. )2013.( . . )2010.( . ) ( 24)3( 729-752. )2008.( . . )2011.( . 27)1.( 653-690. )2011.(. 18-11-2012 http://kenanaonline.com/users/azhar- gaper/posts/351500 )2013.( . )( 27)1( 182 - 200. )2012.( . . . 113 )2010.( . . )2010.( . .14 .221-250. )2002.(. 2. . )2009.(.1. . )2002.( . . )1996.( . . . )2007.(. 1. . )1992 .( . . )2007.(. 1. . )2006.( . . )2012.( . . 114 :: Aqda M., Hamidi F. & Rahimi M.(2011).The comparative effect of computer-aided instruction and traditional teaching on student s creativity in math classes. Procedia Computer Science 3 266-270. Acikalin M.(2006).The influence of computer-supported instruction (CSI) on the principles of constructivist pedagogyin the social studies curriculum. Unpublished doctora dissertation The Ohio State University USA. Aydin, M., Baki, A., Yildiz, C. & Kogce, D. (2010). Mathematics teacher educators beliefs about teacher role. Procedia Social and Behavioral Science, 2, 5468 5473. Baki A. & Guveli E. (2008). Evaluation of a web based mathematics teaching material on the subject of functions. Computer & Education 51 854-863. Borromeo E., Elen, J. & Verschaffel L. (July 2011). Relationships between mathematics teachers acceptance of computer supported- open learning enviroments and their beliefs: a survey study in Italian lower secondery schools. Proceedings of EDULEARN11 Conference Barcelona Spain. Cheung A. & Slavine R. (2013). The effectiveness of educational technology applications for enhancing mathematics achievement in K- 12 classrooms: Ameta-analysis. Educational Research Review 9 88- 113. 115 Delen, E. & Bulut, O. (2011). The Relationship between Students' Exposure to Technology and Their Achievement in Science and Math. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 10, 311- 317 Demirbilek, M. & Tamer S. (2010). Math teachers perspectives on using educational computer games in math education. Procedia Computer Science, 9, 709-716. Ellington, H., Perclvalm f. & Race, P. (2005).Handbook of Educational Technology. Third Edition. kogen Page ltd, London. Erdogan, A. & Sahin, I. (2001). Relationship between math teacher candidates Technological Pedagogical And Content Knowledge (TPACK) and achievement levels. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2, 2707 2711. Gurubuz R. & Birgin O. (2012). The effect of computer-assisted teaching on remedying misconceptions: The case of the subject probability . Computer & Education 58 931-941. Jain, P. (2004).Educationl Technology. Dominate Publishers and Distributors Delhi. Januszewski, A. & Michael, M. (2008). Educational technology: A definition with commentary. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, New York, USA. Kilicman, A., Hassan M. & Husain S. (2010). Teaching and Learning using Mathematics Software "The New Challenge". Procedia Social and Behavioral Science, 8, 613-619. 116 Ke, F.(2008). A case study of computer gaming for math: Engaged learning from gameplay?. Computers & Education 51 1609 1620. Mawata, C. P. (2000). Lessons on Rigid Transformations using the web And java Applets. http://oneweb.utc.edu/- Chiristopher Mawta/ transformations. MofoKeng, P. & Mji A. (2010). Teaching mathematics and science using computers: How prepared are South African teachers to do this?. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 2 1610 1614. Mokhele, M. & Jita, L. (2010). South African teachers perspectives on continuing professional development: a case study of the Mpumalanga Secondary Science Initiative. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 9, 1762 1766. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (2000). Principles and Standards for School Mathematics. 26-7- 2012 http://www.nctm.org/standards/content.aspx?id=26809 Niederhauser,D. & Stoddort T. (2001). Teachers' instructional perspectives and use of educational software. Teaching and teacher Education, 17, 15-31. Agrwal, R. (2009).Educational Technology mangement and evaluation. SHIRA Publication, Delhi india. Reed, H., Drijvers, P. & Kirschner, P. (2010). Effects of attitudes and behaviours on learning mathematics with computer tools. Computers & Education, 55, 1-15. http://oneweb.utc.edu/- 117 Sandoval, F. (2008). History Of Educational Technology. Retrieved 14- 12-2012 from http://www.slideshare.net/fvsandoval/history-of- educational-technology Sang, G., Valcke, M., Braak, J. & Tondeur, J. (2009). Student teachers thinking processes and ICT integration: Predictors of prospective teaching behaviors with educational technology. Computers & Education. ARTICLE IN PRESS. Siddiqui, Mujibul.(2004).Challenges of Educational Technology.SB Nangia NewDelhi India. Stipek, D., Givvin, K., Salmon, J. & MacGyvers, V. (2001). Teachers beliefs and practices related to mathematics instruction. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17 (2), 213 - 226. Woney,L., Venkatwsh, V. & Abrami, Ph. (2006). Implementing Computer Technologies:Teachers Perceptions and Practices. Jl. of Technology and Teacher Education, 14(1), 173- 207. http://www.slideshare.net/fvsandoval/history-of- educational-technology 118 )1( : : : " " ) X ( . : : : - - - - ....................................................................................................... 119 : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . 121 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122 . )LCD( . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . 123 . . . . . . . . . 124 ) 2( : : " " ) ( . : : - - - - ....................................... ................................................................ 125 : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126 . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127 . . . . . . )LCD( . . . . . . . . : . . . 128 . . . . . . 129 ) ( - - _ - - - - - - 130 ) 4( 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 131 ) 5( - - - - - -- 132 ) 6( 133 ) 7( 134 ) 8( 135 136 An-Najah National University Faculty of Graduate Studies The effectiveness of computer applications on the syllabus Mathematics for the tenth Grade from the perspective of school teachers of Public schools in the District of Tulkram By Rula Hussam Eddin Abu Saa Supervised by Dr. Ali Zuhdi Dr. Wajeeh Daher This Thesis is Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Curriculum and Teaching methods, Faculty of Graduate Studies, An-Najah National University, Nablus, Palestine 2013 B The effectiveness of computer applications on the syllabus Mathematics for the Tenth grade from the perspective of school teachers of Public schools in the District of Tulkram. By Rula Hussam Eddin Abu Saa Supervised by: Dr. Ali Zuhdi Dr. Wajeeh Daher Abstract This study aims at identifying the effectiveness of computer applications on the syllabus Mathematics for the tenth Grade from the perspective of school teachers of Public schools in the District of Tulkram for the Academic year 2012-2013. The study also aims to identify the effect of the independent variables: gender, years of teaching experience, years of the use of computers in the process of teaching, work place, and class size on the effectiveness of computer applications as viewed by teachers in district of tulkarm. The population of the study is the 65 teachers teaching this syllabus in all schools. The questionnaire is distributed by the Directorate. 46 out of the 65 are collected. Thus the specimen of the study is 68% of the target population. The descriptione method is used. The other research instrument is the interview and questionnaire. The questionnaire items are 46 categorized into three categories:first Advantage of computer applications to the syllabus as perceived by teacher; second, drawbacks and difficulties of using computer applications in the syllabus; third, the overall goods and objectives of using these computer applications.The questionnaire and the interview are pilotted using cronpak alpha. The validity is 88. C The results show that the average of using computer applications is 3.87 while the drawbacks average is 3.9. As for the average of goals and objectives for using applications is 3.58. there is no significance of statistical difference (a<=0.05) of the advantages of using computers due to gender, workplace, qualifictionsm, class size, the number of years of experience using computers, and teaching experience, there is, also, no significance of statistical difference (a<=0.05) of the drawbacks due to workplace, qualifications, class size, teaching experience, computer skills and use. There is a significance of statistical difference (a<=0.05) in the averages of the goals of using computer applications due to workplace and class size. The results of the interviews show that teachers reacted positionaly to the use of computer applications. There are some difficulties and drawback of using computer applications and such as syllabus is too demanding, some teachers don t use these applications. Other teachers use other computer software. In the light of this, the researcher recommends that syllabus designers design a less demanding syllabus, and include a mandatory, compulsory unit about computers in the syllabus of mathematics for grade 10. This document was created with Win2PDF available at http://www.win2pdf.com. The unregistered version of Win2PDF is for evaluation or non-commercial use only. This page will not be added after purchasing Win2PDF. http://www.win2pdf.com