An Analysis of Voice-Controller’s Implementation in Teaching DLP Form-One Mathematics: A Case Study
Kenny Chin Aik Kang,Mohd Faizal Nizam Lee Abdullah
DOI: https://doi.org/10.37134/ejsmt.vol9.2.1.2022
2022-09-21
Abstract:This case study aims to analyze voice-controller (VC)’s implementation of five, national-type secondary schools, Kinta Utara, Ipoh, Perak, teachers in teaching mathematics form-one (T1) Dual Language Programme (DLP). VC consists of three elements: sound level and voice level practice (SL-VL-P); marker and voice level practice (M-VL-P); and activity and voice level practice (A-VL-P). Students’ voice level barrier disturbs teaching and learning. Teacher should control students’ voice level. This study contributes an alternative classroom control strategy for teachers and reflection to Secondary School Standard Curriculum planner about learning and facilitating’s situation in school from communication perspective. Data collection methods were teaching observation, interview, and document analysis. Content analysis method was used to analyze data. The research’s findings indicate the number of participants who had the VC’s goal: cognitive domain (five), affective domain (four), and psychomotor domain (none). Affective domain’s level is limited within receiving and giving response. In VC implementation: (i) The number of participants who implemented SL-VL-P using: routine class explanation (three), reminder (five), oral order (two), repeated conversation (two), blame (one), positive provocation (one), and questioning (two). (ii) The number of participants who implemented M-VL-P using: voice tone (three), body language (three), and teaching aids (none)(iii) The number of participants who implemented A-VL-P using: group size plan (two), activity’s voice level explanation (one), oral order (two), motivation (one), and questioning (two). ‘Giving reminder’ is the common way for all participants. No formal VC drill for students. Two participants faced problem in implementing VC. Conclusion: Five participants’ VC goals are not holistic. Five participants implemented VC undirectedly. There are students unable to perform VC. Implication: Teachers should: (i) plan holistic goals. (ii) plan formal VC. (iii) help students who suffer from voice level barrier. Future study is required to study the relation between voice-level practice and student’s ability to control voice-level.