|
UPSI Digital Repository (UDRep)
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Abstract : Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris |
| This aim of this study is to evaluate a digital learning module, called i-Think module (Mi-T1), whether it can help or not in improving students’ higher-order thinking skills (HOTS) in learning Algebraic Expressions. This study was based on the quasi experimental approach using the control group pre-test post-test design. The study sample consisted of two intact classes of form-one students (mean age of 13 years old), which were assigned into an experimental (n = 37) group and control (n =35). Learning sessions to solve higher-order thinking skills problems were carried out for 3 hours spanning 4 weeks, in which the experimental group and control group used the digital and printed learning modules, respectively. In addition, a survey was administered to the experimental group to measure the participants’ perceived usefulness of digital learning module. The analysis of independent sample t-test showed that the experimental group had significantly improved in their higher-order thinking skills compared to the control group. The survey data also indicated that the participants in the experimental group perceived the usefulness of the digital learning module to be equally high. Premised on these findings, the digital learning module, Mi-T1 can be used to help improve the current teaching and learning on the Algebraic Expressions topic |
| References |
1. Ahmad, J. (2002). Kesahan, kebolehpercayaan dan keberkesanan modul program maju diri ke atas motivasi pencapaian di kalangan pelajar-pelajar sekolah menengah negeri Selangor. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Universiti Putra Malaysia. 2. Basiran, H. (2006). Pembangunan dan Penilaian Modul Pengajaran dan Pembelajaran Menggunakan Kalkulator grafik dalam Pengajaran Persamaan Kuadratik. Tesis Ijazah Sarjana, UTM. 3. Coe, Aloisi, Higgins, & Major (2014). What makes great teaching? Review of the underpinning research. London, UK: Sutton Trust. 4. Dahaman, A. (2014). Pembangunan Modul m-Pembelajaran Bahasa Arab di Institut Pendidikan Guru. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Universiti Malaya. 5. Dunlosky, Rawson, Marsh, Nathan & Willingham (2013). Improving students’ learning with effective learning techniques: promising directions from cognitive and educational psychology. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 14(1), 4 -58. 6. Gallavan & Kottler (2007). Eight Types of Graphics Organizers for Empowering Social studies Students and Teachers. The Social Studies, 98(3), 117-128. 7. Hassan, Rosli & Zakaria (2016). The use of i-Think Map and questioning to promote higher-order thinking skills in mathematics. Creative Education, 7, 1069-1078. 8. Hyerle, D. (2000). A Field Guide to Using Visual Tools, ASCD, Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. 9. Hyerle, D. (2009). Visual tools for transforming information into knowledge (2nd ed.). 10. Hyerle, Alper & Wolfe (2011). Students’ successes with thinking maps: School-based research, results, and models for achievement using visual tools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin 11. Idris, N. (2005). Pedagogi Dalam Pendidikan Matematik. Kuala Lumpur: Utusan Publicatons and Distributors. 12. Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia. (2012). Dasar Pendidikan Kebangsaan. Putrajaya: Bahagian Perancangan dan Penyelidikan Dasar Pendidikan. 13. Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia. (2013). Pelan Pembangunan Pendidikan Malaysia 2013-2025: Pendidikan Prasekolah hingga Lepas Menengah. Putrajaya: Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia. 14. Ministry of Education, Malaysia. (2013). Malaysia Education Blue-print 2013: Preliminary Report 2013-2025. Retrieved December 10, 2017, fromhttp://www.moe.gov.my/en/pelan-pembangunan-pendidikan-malaysia-2013-2025 15. Mahyuddin, Elias & Abu Bakar (2009). Amalan Pengajaran Berkesan. Kuala Lumpur: Karisma Publications Sdn. Bhd. 16. Abdullah & Leow, (2017). Kesahan dan Kebolehpercayaan Instrumen Penilaian Kendiri Pembelajaran Geometri Tingkatan Satu. Malaysian Journal of Lerning & Instruction. 14(1), 211-267. 17. Mohd Noah & Ahmad (2005). Pembinaan Modul: Bagaimana Membina Modul Latihan dan Modul Akademik. Serdang: Universiti Putra Malaysia. 18. Rafi & Samsudin (2010). Training in Technologically Enabled Environments: Do Training Method and Gender Matter? Journal of Cases on Information Technology (JCIT) 12 (3), 90-99. 19. Reilly, Neumann & Andrews (2015). Sex differences in mathematics and science achievement: A meta-analysis of National Assessment of Educational Progress assessments. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107(3), 645-662. 20. Thomas & Thorne (2014). How to Increase Higher Order Thinking. Accessed on 2 May 2018 from http://www. readingrockets.org/article/34655. 21. Turner, Kitchenham, Brereton, Charters, & Budgen (2010). Does the technology acceptance model predict actual use? A systematic literature review. Information and Software Technology, 52(5), 463-479. 22. Venkatesh & Davis (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186-204. 23. Wang et al. (2015). Teacher Questioning in College English Class: A Guide to Critical Thinking. Global Journal of Human-Social Science Research, 15, 11. 24. Wittmann & Hattrup (2004). The relationship between performance in dynamic systems and intelligence. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 21, 393–440 25. Wüstenberg, Greiff, Molnár, & Funke, (2014). Cross-national gender differences in complex problem solving and their determinants. Learning and Individual Differences, 29, 18–29. 26. Zheng. Z. (2007). Gender differences in mathematical problem solving patterns: A review of literature. Journal of International Education, 8(2), 87-20. |
| This material may be protected under Copyright Act which governs the making of photocopies or reproductions of copyrighted materials. You may use the digitized material for private study, scholarship, or research. |