Article Sidebar

Download
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 1611 Download : 807

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Main Article Content

Abstract

Hybrid learning implementation is closely related with technology. In designing hybrid lessons, lecturers need to have both the pedagogical and content-related skills that make the best use of technology so that it also improves the students’ skills, including their computational thinking skills. The purpose of this research is to examine whether a hybrid learning model based on Technology Pedagogy and Content Knowledge (TPACK) affects the computational thinking skills achievement in a valid, practical, and effective manner. This research is development research using the Plomp’s model and is described in a qualitative descriptive manner. The participants were lecturers and 38 first-year students at Primary School Teacher Education Study Program of Padang State University. The instruments were validation sheets, practicality assessment sheets by lecturers, questionnaire sheets for students, and computational thinking skills test questions. The results of the validity test show that in terms of content, language, and e-learning practice, they all met very valid criteria with an average percentage score of 85.9%, 86.2%, and 84.1%, respectively. The practicality test results of model handbooks, Semester Lesson Plans, Lecture Program Units, computational thinking questions, additional material, and e-learning model meet the practical criteria with an average percentage score of 77.5%, 86.8%, 89.1%, 83.8%, 79%, and 82.4%, respectively. The average percentage of student assessment scores is 82.9% and meets the practical criteria. The results of the effectiveness test showed that 21.9% of students had reached the moderate level, 6.3% reached the low level, and 71.9% reached the very low level. This study recommends future researchers to develop a hybrid learning model based on TPACK to achieve other 21st-century abilities.

Keywords

Computational Thinking Skills Hybrid Learning Plomp’s Model Technology Pedagogy and Content Knowledge (TPACK)

Article Details

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

How to Cite
Helsa, Y., Turmudi, & Juandi, D. (2023). TPACK-based hybrid learning model design for computational thinking skills achievement in mathematics. Journal on Mathematics Education, 14(2), 225–252. https://doi.org/10.22342/jme.v14i2.pp225-252
Download Citation
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
BibTeX

References

  1. Akbar, S. (2017). Instrumen perangkat pembelajaran [Learning aids instruments]. Remaja Rosdakarya Offset
  2. Ahea, M., Kabir, R., & Rahman, I. (2016). The value and effectiveness of feedback in improving students' learning and professionalizing teaching in higher education. Journal of Education and Practice, 7(16), 38-41. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1105282.pdf
  3. Alturki, U., & Aldraiweesh, A. (2021). Application of learning management system (Lms) during the covid-19 pandemic: A sustainable acceptance model of the expansion technology approach. Sustainability (Switzerland), 13(19), 10991. https://doi.org/10.3390/su131910991
  4. Andarwulan, T., Al Fajri, T. A., & Damayanti, G. (2021). Elementary teachers’ readiness toward the online learning policy in the new normal era during Covid-19. International Journal of Instruction, 14(3), 771–786. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2021.14345a
  5. Anggraena, Y. (2021). PISA 2021 dan Computational Thinking (CT) [PISA 2021 and Computational Thinking (CT)]. https://kipin.id/marketing/PISA_2021_dan_Computational_Thinking.pdf
  6. Bradley, V. M. (2021). Learning Management System (LMS) use with online instruction. International Journal of Technology in Education, 4(1), 68-92. https://doi.org/10.46328/ijte.36
  7. Cahdriyana, R. A., & Richardo, R. (2020). Berpikir komputasi dalam pembelajaran matematika [Computational thinking in mathematics learning]. LITERASI (Jurnal Ilmu Pendidikan), 11(1), 50-56. https://doi.org/10.21927/literasi.2020.11(1).50-56
  8. Cansu, F. K., & Cansu, S. K. (2019). An overview of computational thinking. International Journal of Computer Science Education in Schools, 3(1), 17–30. https://doi.org/10.21585/ijcses.v3i1.53
  9. Dorobat, I., Corbea, A. M. I., & Muntean, M. (2019). Integrating student trust in a conceptual model for assessing learning management system success in higher education: An empirical analysis. IEEE Access, 7, 69202–69214. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2919100
  10. Elkhatat, A. M., & Al-Muhtaseb, S. A. (2021). Hybrid online-flipped learning pedagogy for teaching laboratory courses to mitigate the pandemic COVID-19 confinement and enable effective sustainable delivery: Investigation of attaining course learning outcome. SN Social Science, 1(5), 113. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43545-021-00117-6
  11. Haleem, A., Javaid, M., Qadri, M. A., & Suman, R. (2022). Understanding the role of digital technologies in education: A review. Sustainable Operations and Computers, 3, 275–285. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.susoc.2022.05.004
  12. Hamdan, K., & Amorri, A. (2022). The impact of online learning strategies on students’ academic performance. E-Learning and Digital Education in the Twenty-First Century. https://doi.org/doi: 10.5772/intechopen.94425
  13. Helsa, Y., & Juandi, D. (2023). Hybrid learning for conceptual understanding skills in mathematics: A meta-analysis. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 13(2), 355–363. https://doi.org/10.18178/ijiet.2023.13.2.1814
  14. Hew, K. F., Jia, C., Gonda, D. E., & Bai, S. (2020). Transitioning to the “new normal” of learning in unpredictable times: pedagogical practices and learning performance in fully online flipped classrooms. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 17(1), 57. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-020-00234-x
  15. Hockings, C., Thomas, L., Ottaway, J., & Jones, R. (2018). Independent learning–what we do when you’re not there. Teaching in Higher Education, 23(2), 145–161. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2017.1332031
  16. Hoofman, J., & Secord, E. (2021). The effect of COVID-19 on education. Pediatric Clinics of North America, 68(5), 1071-1079. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pcl.2021.05.009
  17. Hussein, L. A., & Hilmi, M. F. (2016). The influence of learning value on learning management system use: An extension of UTAUT2. Information Development, 32(5), 1306–1321. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266666915597546
  18. Kallia, M., Van Borkulo, S. P., Drijvers, P., Barendsen, E., & Tolboom, J. (2021). Characterising computational thinking in mathematics education: A literature-informed Delphi study. Research in Mathematics Education, 23(2), 159–187. https://doi.org/10.1080/14794802.2020.1852104
  19. Kazu, I. Y., & Yalçin, C. K. (2022). Investigation of the effectiveness of hybrid learning on academic achievement: A meta-analysis study. International Journal of Progressive Education, 18(1), 249-265. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1332714.pdf
  20. Kemendikbud. (2021). LMS LLDIKTI. Spada Indonesia.
  21. Kidd, T., R, L., & Morris, J. (2017). Handbook of Research on Instructional Systems and Educational Technology. IGI Global.
  22. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x
  23. Lamport, M., & Hill, R. (2012). Impact of hybrid instruction on student achievement in post-secondary institutions: A synthetic review of the literature. Journal of Instructional Research, 1, 49–58. https://doi.org/10.9743/jir.2013.7
  24. Li, S., Gong, W., Wang, L., Yan, X., & Hu, C. (2020). A hybrid adaptive teaching – learning-based optimization and differential evolution for parameter identification of photovoltaic models. Energy Conversion and Management, 225(June), 113474. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2020.113474
  25. Liborius, P., Bellhäuser, H., & Schmitz, B. (2019). What makes a good study day? An intraindividual study on university students’ time investment by means of time-series analyses. Learning and Instruction, 60, 310–321. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2017.10.006
  26. Mangkhang, C., & Kaewpanya, N. (2021). The digital etiquette enhancing to global citizenship of social studies teachers in a new normal society. Higher Education Studies, 11(3), 89–94. https://doi.org/10.5539/hes.v11n3p89
  27. Mouza, C. (2016). Developing and assessing TPACK among pre-service teachers: A synthesis of research. In Handbook of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) for educators (pp. 169-190). Routledge.
  28. Mtebe, J. S. (2018). Optical method for measuring the surface area of a threaded fastener. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 34(4), 36–39. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-1567.2009.00538.x
  29. Naseem, A., & Scholar, P. D. (2021). Effect of quizzes on anxiety and performance in mathematics at middle level. Bulletin of Education and Research, 43(1), 59–75. http://pu.edu.pk/images/journal/ier/PDF-FILES/4_43_1_21.pdf
  30. Nordin, H., Davis, N., & Ariffin, T. F. T. (2013). A case study of secondary pre-service teachers’ technological pedagogical and content knowledge mastery level. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 103, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.10.300
  31. OECD. (2018). PISA 2021 mathematics framework (second draft) (for official). OECD.
  32. Plomp, T., & Nieveen, N. (2013). An Introduction to Educational Design Research. Netherlands Institute for Curriculum Development (SLO).
  33. Powell, A., & Patrick, S. (2006). An international perspective of K-12 online learning: A summary of the 2006 NACOL international e-learning survey. North American Council for Online Learning.
  34. Raza, S. A., Qazi, W., Khan, K. A., & Salam, J. (2021). Social isolation and acceptance of the learning management system (lms) in the time of COVID-19 pandemic: An expansion of the UTAUT model. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 59(2), 183–208. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633120960421
  35. Santos, J. M., & Castro, R. D. R. (2021). Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) in action : Application of learning in the classroom by pre-service teachers (PST). Social Sciences & Humanities Open, 3(1), 100110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2021.100110
  36. Simion, L. C. (2011). Effects of Frequent Cooperative Quizzes on the Achievement of First Year College Students Enrolled in a Mathematics Course.
  37. Singh, J., Steele, K., & Singh, L. (2021). Combining the best of online and face-to-face learning: Hybrid and blended learning approach for Covid-19, post vaccine, & post-pandemic world. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 50(2), 140-171. https://doi.org/10.1177/00472395211047865
  38. Sutisna, E., & Vonti, L. H. (2020). Innovation development strategy for hybrid learning based English teaching and learning. English Review: Journal of English Education, 9(1), 103–114. https://doi.org/10.25134/erjee.v9i1.3783
  39. Tim Olimpiade Komputer Indonesia. (2018). Tantangan Bebras Indonesia 2018: Bahan Belajar Computational Thinking Tingkat SMA [Bebras Indonesia Challenge 2018: Computational Thinking Learning Materials for High School Level]. NBO Bebras Indonesia.
  40. Tim Penyusun Materi ITB. (2020). Computational thinking pada pendidikan dasar dan menengah [Computational thinking in primary and secondary education]. Lembaga Penelitian dan Pengabdian Kepada Masyarakat.
  41. Toquero, C. M. (2020). Challenges and opportunities for higher education amid the COVID-19 pandemic: The Philippine context. Pedagogical Research, 5(4), em0063. https://doi.org/10.29333/pr/7947
  42. Voogt, J., Fisser, P., Pareja Roblin, N., Tondeur, J., & van Braak, J. (2013). Technological pedagogical content knowledge–a review of the literature. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29(2), 109–121. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2012.00487.x
  43. Wannapiroon, P., Nilsook, P., Jitsupa, J., & Chaiyarak, S. (2021). Technology acceptance of online instruction for vocational instructors in new normal education. World Journal on Educational Technology: Current Issues, 13(4), 635–650. https://doi.org/10.18844/wjet.v13i4.6234
  44. Wing, J. M. (2011). Research Notebook: Computational thinking -what and why? The Link Magazine.
  45. Xiao, J. (2021). Decoding new normal in education for the post-COVID-19 world: Beyond the digital solution. Asian Journal of Distance Education, 16(1), 141-155. http://asianjde.com/ojs/index.php/AsianJDE/article/view/558/341
  46. Xie, X., Siau, K., & Nah, F. F. H. (2020). COVID-19 pandemic–online education in the new normal and the next normal. Journal of Information Technology Case and Application Research, 22(3), 175–187. https://doi.org/10.1080/15228053.2020.1824884
  47. Yılmaz, A. (2021). The effect of technology integration in education on prospective teachers’ critical and creative thinking, multidimensional 21st century skills and academic achievements. Participatory Educational Research, 8(2), 163–199. https://doi.org/10.17275/per.21.35.8.2
  48. Zahid, M. Z. (2020). Telaah kerangka kerja PISA 2021: Era integrasi computational thinking dalam bidang matematika [Review of the PISA 2021 framework: The era of integrating computational thinking in the field of mathematics]. Prosiding Seminar Nasional Matematika, 3(2020), 706–713.
  49. Zeqiri, J., Kareva, V., & AIija, S. (2020). The impact of blended learning on students’ performance and satisfaction in Southeast European university. In: Proceedings of the ENTRENOVA - ENTerprise REsearch InNOVAtion Conference, Virtual Conference, September, 233–244.
  50. Zwain, A. A. A. (2019). Technological innovativeness and information quality as neoteric predictors of users’ acceptance of learning management system: An expansion of UTAUT2. Interactive Technology and Smart Education, 16(3), 239–254. https://doi.org/10.1108/ITSE-09-2018-0065