| Literature DB >> 30138404 |
Tassawar Iqbal1, Saqib Iqbal2, Syed Sajid Hussain3, Iftikhar Ahmed Khan3, Hikmat Ullah Khan1, Attiqa Rehman3.
Abstract
Adult illiteracy is a major problem worldwide especially in developing countries. Adult Basic Education (ABE) programs working in this context are not very effective due to lack of motivation for the people who are not literate. The reason is inadequate learning content and content delivery methods. This situation calls for developing novel learning content and a learner-directed content delivery approach. This paper presents an exploratory study investigating the use of the Environmental Print Material (EPM) as learning content for the non-literate population of Pakistan. The EPM content is presented to the adult non-literate population in two ethnographic studies. The most frequently recognized content is selected and utilized as learning content in a Computer Assisted Learning (CAL) application. An empirical study is conducted upon two groups with 107 participants to compare the EPM-based learning content with Traditional Learning Content (TLC). As many as 54 participants participated in the experimental group (presented with EPM-based learning content), whereas 53 participants took part in the control group (presented with TLC content). The results reveal that the experimental group performed significantly better compared to the control group in recognition, pronunciation, and recall of the presented content. The meta-analysis of the results shows a large effect size of (1.05) with confidence interval in the range (0.798-1.315). The results claim that the EPM has potential to be considered as learning content in the ABE programs.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30138404 PMCID: PMC6107138 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0201902
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Features for designing the learning content for non-literates.
| Features | Description | Effects |
|---|---|---|
| Multimodality | Combination of textual, visual, audio, gestural and spatial modes [ |
Increases the motivation of non-literates [ Increases the level of comprehension [ |
| Building on the previous knowledge and utilizing the past experiences [ | Creation of new knowledge schemas and updating of existing schemas | The following effects are reported in the literature [ Adds information to the current structure of knowledge Increases understanding Increase skills Motivates the learners Affects the learning experience positively |
| Contextualized learning | Learning is embedded within [ activity, context and culture |
Learners can relate to their experiences and context Learners pay more attention resulting better engagement and more motivation toward learning |
Features for content delivery to non-literates.
| Features | Description | Effects |
|---|---|---|
| Facilitated learning | Instructor’s role is limited to orientation and on-demand help[ | Considering the learning styles, active participation, learners control and frequent feedback while delivering content promotes and sustains the motivation of the learners [ |
| Repetition of content | The learning content is readily available to the learners in multiple modes like visuals, descriptive and audio. This content can be utilized by the learners according to their ease repetitively. |
Reduced cognitive load [ Flexible learning environment [ |
| Frequent feedback and positive reinforcement | The learners receive frequent feedback on their learning performance. This feedback is often coupled with rewards in order to have positive reinforcement. |
Immediate and frequent feedback may help learners to learn from their mistakes. Reward and punishment control most of the human behaviors [ |
Purpose, participants, and materials used in the ethnographic studies.
| Study | Purpose | Participants | Materials |
|---|---|---|---|
| Study-I | to collect the EPM often seen by the people with low literacy. The reason is to maximize the number of EPM content available for the selection. | 77 participants having some literacy (from level 1 to 4), who could read and write both Urdu and English alphabet letters | Eight EPM content of each Urdu alphabet letter were collected and five most common EPM content were selected |
| Study-II | To select one EPM content for each Urdu alphabet letters. The reason for selecting these participants was to provide a close match with the participants of the experiment (see section 4) | 95 different participants (not participating in the Study-I) having no literacy | One EPM content most often recognized by the participants was selected for each Urdu alphabet letter and it was used as EPM-based Learning Content (ELC) in the experiment (see |
Fig 1Computer Assisted Learning application presenting the EPM-based learning content (ELC).
The traditional content was presented without displaying the EPM content.
Fig 2Computer-assisted assessment application using EPM.
Statistics of alphabet letter recognition scores of the experimental and the CG.
| Nature | Groups | N | Mean | SD | t-test for Equality of Means | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Recognition Score | Experimental | 54 | 20.500 | 8.489 | t-value | p-value |
| Control | 53 | 14.990 | 5.754 | 3.936 | <0.001 | |
| Recognition Score | Experimental | 23 | 20.000 | 8.636 | t-value | p-value |
| Control | 23 | 15.087 | 5.743 | 2.272 | 0.028 | |
| Recognition Score | Experimental | 31 | 20.871 | 8.502 | t-value | p-value |
| Control | 30 | 14.916 | 5.859 | 3.193 | 0.002 | |
| Recognition Score | Experimental | 28 | 20.982 | 8.340 | t-value | p-value |
| Control | 32 | 14.750 | 5.747 | 3.323 | 0.002 | |
| Recognition Score | Experimental | 26 | 19.980 | 8.782 | t-value | p-value |
| Control | 21 | 15.357 | 5.886 | 2.152 | 0.037 | |
Statistics of alphabet letter pronunciation scores of experimental and the CG.
| Nature | Groups | N | Mean | SD | t-test (Not Equal variances) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pronunciation Score | Experimental | 54 | 18.037 | 7.951 | t-value | p-value |
| Control | 53 | 12.849 | 5.814 | 3.857 | <0.001 | |
| Pronunciation Score | Experimental | 23 | 18.826 | 6.791 | t-value | p-value |
| Control | 23 | 13.282 | 6.154 | 2.901 | 0.006 | |
| Pronunciation Score | Experimental | 31 | 17.451 | 8.777 | t-value | p-value |
| Control | 30 | 12.516 | 5.623 | 2.623 | 0.01 | |
| Pronunciation Score | Experimental | 28 | 19.178 | 7.105 | t-value | p-value |
| Control | 32 | 13.640 | 5.807 | 3.276 | 0.002 | |
| Pronunciation Score | Experimental | 26 | 16.807 | 8.745 | t-value | p-value |
| Control | 21 | 11.642 | 5.753 | 2.430 | 0.019 | |
Statistics of alphabet letter recall scores of experimental and the CG.
| Nature | Groups | N | Mean | SD | t-test (Not Equal variances) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Recognition | Experimental | 42 | 18.20 | 8.014 | t-value | p-value |
| Control | 27 | 10.94 | 3.414 | 5.183 | 0.000 | |
| Pronunciation | Experimental | 42 | 16.45 | 7.84 | t-value | p-value |
| Control | 27 | 9.02 | 5.65 | 4.56 | 0.000 | |
Fig 3Meta–analysis table.