—e—e—— OO _ ——_—_—_—_—_—_—_—_—_—_ _ —_—_—_—_ OO ee eee ee E _———_—_—_e—e ee This enabled to assess the changes in the problem-solving strategies of the students and the support of DGS for solving problems. The tables below give the results of some students who have relatively distinctive responses of the pre- and post-tests. TABLE II: Student 2 score on pre-test and post-test T. Summary of Students Works on Problems on Pre and Post Test Generally, some of the students gave similar responses to the first and second problem of both the pre- and post- test. But there are some significant differences between students in the methods of solution used in both tests. The students were supposed to use the circumference of a circle as an input for solving the problems. Instead, they all performed straightforward arithmetic operations on the given numbers. This points out that the students did not develop a conceptual understanding regarding the circumference of a circle, from the regular lessons by the collaborative teacher and but some of the students improve this ideas using DGS-based lessons. As a consequence, the students did improve managing to solve the problems with respect to the circumference in the post-test. The third problem remains unanswered in the first test. Apparently, the students did not relate this problem to their classroom activities. This also indicates that they have not well understood the basis of 1. However, in the class discussions it turned out that they knew about the ratio of a circumference of a circle to its diameter, that produces a from the textbook. Yet, in constructing the number themselves. The stud conceptually understand the radian, either. This is the pre-test most of the students confused it with t he tests show some improvement, but still they have difficulty ents’ responses to the fourth problem show that they did not obvious from the solutions they have developed in pre-test. In he area. In the post-test they considered the circumference of a circle. Only one student attempted to apply the concept of radian to the correct measurement of the appropriate arc-lengths. In the final problem, however, two students achieved correct results thanks to the appropriate classroom activities. The distinctive results of pre- and post-tests point out that the students have managed to generalize their ideas in order to find out the area of a circle. The confidence interval for the mean difference between the post test and pre test does not include zero and its confidence interval contains only positive values, which suggests DGS training have a significant difference on students test score. The small p-value (p = 0.00) further suggests that the data are inconsistent with HO: uy = 0, that is, the pre and post-test do not perform equally. Specifically, students after completing the training (post test mean = 10.60) performed better than before the training score (pre test mean = 8.62) in terms of giving a correct response on related question. So, the results of the paired procedure led us to believe that the data are not consistent with HO (t = 8.06; p = 0.000). And also the box plot shows the hypothesized value (that is Hy: u; = 0) have a significance difference between student score before and after the training of students score. TABLE IV: student’s response on Motivation Discussion and interaction after training of DGS From the above table 4, student’s response related to classroom discussion and interaction, about 64 % students give a response that, I interacted with my group mates or the teacher during the lessons (u=3.64, o=1.25) and discussed the result of our group work with the other group members(u=3.68, o=1.06). In related to students and teachers interaction during the lesson, about 72% of students asked questions of the teacher when they did not understand something in the lesson this is about the mean student of u=4.24 with standard deviation o=0.87 and 60% of them interacted with the group mates or the teacher during the lessons in DGS classroom and also the figure related to students interaction supports almost more than half students interact with their group members and teachers and also ask lesson related questions for teachers. SRR eT TA ARTA ASI RO nr cenies ena ee | ARAN AT YR ena arene e n= ee NTO MOEN AT In related to student’s relationship with teachers and peers, (asking questions, interaction and discussion students answered they make me active participant in the class and am interested to know everything in the lesson. TABLE V: Student’s response on Student centered Learning Activity after training of DGS According to Table 5, out of 25 students 48% of them are agree and strongly agree that the lesson with DGS help them to easily understand the concepts of the area of a regular polygon and the area of a circle independently and with the group members and 36% of them are not agree this idea, the remaining 16% neutral from both conditions.
