Article Sidebar

Published
Apr 27, 2021
Download
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 926 Download : 694

Main Article Content

Abstract

This study aims to determine the online learning interactions carried out by junior high school teachers in the classroom during the COVID-19 pandemic. The quantitative using survey was used as a research methodology. 141 Mathematic Teachers was selected as the subject of this research. A questionnaire of classroom interaction practice in an online class was used as a data collection technique. The result found that mathematic teachers’ interaction activity in online courses has a different level. The interaction process that mathematic teachers use is in preparing the students to join an online course and leading the discussion with the mean of 4.2 and 4.3. In contrast, the lowest interaction happens in interaction in giving feedback and interaction in closing activity with an average of 2.5. the research also found that 78.70% of mathematic teachers always provide direction to the students in starting the online class. 40.30% of them never ask students to correct incorrect assignments during online learning.

Keywords

Classroom interaction COVID-19 Mathematics teachers Online learning

Article Details

References

  1. Abidah, A., Hidaayatullaah, H. N., Simamora, R. M., Fehabutar, D., & Mutakinati, L. (2020). The impact of COVID-19 to Indonesian education and its relation to the philosophy of “merdeka belajar”. Studies in Philosophy of Science and Education, 1(1), 38-49. doi:10.46627/sipose.v1i1.9

  2. [Article]     [Google Scholar]


  3. Alabdulaziz, M. S. (2021). COVID-19 and the use of digital technology in mathematics education. Education and Information Technologies, 1-25. doi:10.1007/s10639-021-10602-3

  4. [Article]     [Google Scholar]


  5. Bao, W. (2020). COVID ‐19 and online teaching in higher education: A case study of Peking University. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies, 2(2), 113-115. doi:10.1002/hbe2.191

  6. [Article]     [Google Scholar]


  7. Bennett, S., Maton, K., & Kervin, L. (2008). The ‘digital natives’ debate: A critical review of the evidence. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(5), 775–786. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00793.x

  8. [Article]     [Google Scholar]


  9. Borba, M. C., Askar, P., Engelbrecht, J., Gadanidis, G., Llinares, S., & Aguilar, M. S. (2016). Blended learning, e-learning and mobile learning in mathematics education. ZDM, 48(5), 589-610. doi:10.1007/s11858-016-0798-4

  10. [Article]     [Google Scholar]


  11. Bosch, M., Gascón, J., & Nicolás, P. (2018). Questioning mathematical knowledge in different didactic paradigms: the case of Group Theory. International Journal of Research in Undergraduate Mathematics Education, 4(1), 23-37. doi:10.1007/s40753-018-0072-y

  12. [Article]     [Google Scholar]


  13. Burnett, P. C., & Mandel, V. (2010). Praise and feedback in the primary classroom: Teachers' and students' perspectives. Australian Journal of Educational & Developmental Psychology, 10, 145-154.

  14. [Article]     [Google Scholar]


  15. Cobb, P., Stephan, M., McClain, K., & Gravemeijer, K. (2001). Participating in classroom mathematical practices. The journal of the Learning Sciences, 10(1-2), 113-163. doi:10.1207/S15327809JLS10-1-2_6

  16. [Article]     [Google Scholar]


  17. Cohen, E. G. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups. Review of Educational Research, 64(1), 1-35. doi:10.3102/00346543064001001

  18. [Article]     [Google Scholar]


  19. Dallimore, E. J., Hertenstein, J. H., & Platt, M. B. (2004). Classroom participation and discussion effectiveness: Student-generated strategies. Communication Education, 53(1), 103-115. doi:10.1080/0363452032000135805

  20. [Article]     [Google Scholar]


  21. Downer, J., Sabol, T. J., & Hamre, B. (2010). Teacher–child interactions in the classroom: Toward a theory of within-and cross-domain links to children's developmental outcomes. Early Education and Development, 21(5), 699-723. doi:10.1080/10409289.2010.497453

  22. [Article]     [Google Scholar]


  23. Ellis, R. (2009). Corrective feedback and teacher development. L2 Journal, 1(1), 3-18. doi:10.5070/l2.v1i1.9054

  24. [Article]     [Google Scholar]


  25. Fein, A. D., & Logan, M. C. (2003). Preparing instructors for online instruction. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 2003(100), 45-55. doi:10.1002/ace.118

  26. [Article]     [Google Scholar]


  27. Franke, M. L., Webb, N. M., Chan, A. G., Ing, M., Freund, D., & Battey, D. (2009). Teacher questioning to elicit students’ mathematical thinking in elementary school classrooms. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(4), 380-392. doi:10.1177/0022487109339906

  28. [Article]     [Google Scholar]


  29. Haleva, L., Hershkovitz, A., & Tabach, M. (2021). Students’ activity in an online learning environment for Mathematics: The role of thinking levels. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 59(4), 686-712. doi:10.1177/0735633120972057

  30. [Article]     [Google Scholar]

  31.  

  32. Hasan, N., & Khan, N. H. (2020). Online teaching-learning during COVID-19 pandemic: Students’ perspective. The Online Journal of Distance Education and e-Learning, 8(4), 202-213.

  33. [Article]     [Google Scholar]


  34. Hebebci, M. T., Bertiz, Y., & Alan, S. (2020). Investigation of views of students and teachers on distance education practices during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. International Journal of Technology in Education and Science, 4(4), 267-282. doi:10.46328/ijtes.v4i4.113

  35. [Article]     [Google Scholar]


  36. Hendriana, H. (2017). Senior high school teachers’ mathematical questioning ability and metaphorical thinking learning. Infinity Journal, 6(1), 51-58. doi:10.22460/infinity.v6i1.p51-58

  37. [Article]     [Google Scholar]


  38. Hendriana, H., Hidayat, W., & Ristiana, M. G. (2018). Student teachers’ mathematical questioning and courage in metaphorical thinking learning. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 948(1), 012019. doi:10.1088/1742-6596/948/1/012019

  39. [Article]     [Google Scholar]


  40. Hendriana, H., Prahmana, R. C. I., & Hidayat, W. (2018). Students’ performance skills in creative mathematical reasoning. Infinity Journal, 7(2), 83-96. doi:10.22460/infinity.v7i2.p83-96

  41. [Article]     [Google Scholar]

  42.  

  43. Hendriana, H., Rohaeti, E. E., & Hidayat, W. (2017). Metaphorical thinking learning and junior high school teachers' mathematical questioning ability. Journal on Mathematics Education, 8(1), 55-64. doi:10.22342/jme.8.1.3614.55-64

  44. [Article]     [Google Scholar]


  45. Herliandry, L. D., Nurhasanah, N., Suban, M. E., & Kuswanto, H. (2020). Pembelajaran pada masa pandemi covid-19. JTP-Jurnal Teknologi Pendidikan, 22(1), 65-70. doi:10.21009/jtp.v22i1.15286

  46. [Article]     [Google Scholar]


  47. Irfan, M., Kusumaningrum, B., Yulia, Y., & Widodo, S. A. (2020). Challenges during the pandemic: use of e-learning in mathematics learning in higher education. Infinity Journal, 9(2), 147-158. doi:10.22460/infinity.v9i2.p147-158

  48. [Article]     [Google Scholar]


  49. Jackson, A. T., Brummel, B. J., Pollet, C. L., & Greer, D. D. (2013). An evaluation of interactive tabletops in elementary mathematics education. Educational Technology Research and Development, 61(2), 311-332. doi:10.1007/s11423-013-9287-4

  50. [Article]     [Google Scholar]


  51. Jesionkowska, J., Wild, F., & Deval, Y. (2020). Active learning augmented reality for STEAM education: A case study. Education Sciences, 10(8), 198. doi:10.3390/educsci10080198

  52. [Article]     [Google Scholar]


  53. Johns, C., & Mills, M. (2021). Online mathematics tutoring during the COVID-19 pandemic: Recommendations for best practices. Primus, 31(1), 99-117. doi:10.1080/10511970.2020.1818336

  54. [Article]     [Google Scholar]


  55. Koh, J. H. L., & Kan, R. Y. P. (2021). Students’ use of learning management systems and desired e-learning experiences: are they ready for next generation digital learning environments?. Higher Education Research & Development, 40(5), 995-1010. doi:10.1080/07294360.2020.1799949

  56. [Article]     [Google Scholar]


  57. König, J., Jäger-Biela, D. J., & Glutsch, N. (2020). Adapting to online teaching during COVID-19 school closure: teacher education and teacher competence effects among early career teachers in Germany. European Journal of Teacher Education, 43(4), 608-622. doi:10.1080/02619768.2020.1809650

  58. [Article]     [Google Scholar]


  59. Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C. L. C. (1988). Timing of feedback and verbal learning. Review of educational research, 58(1), 79-97. doi:10.3102/00346543058001079

  60. [Article]     [Google Scholar]


  61. Lee, J. (2014). An exploratory study of effective online learning: Assessing satisfaction levels of graduate students of mathematics education associated with human and design factors of an online course. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 15(1), 111-132. doi:10.19173/irrodl.v15i1.1638

  62. [Article]     [Google Scholar]


  63. Lim, W., Lee, J. E., Tyson, K., Kim, H. J., & Kim, J. (2020). An integral part of facilitating mathematical discussions: Follow-up questioning. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 18(2), 377-398. doi:10.1007/s10763-019-09966-3

  64. [Article]     [Google Scholar]


  65. Lockyer, L., & Dawson, S. (2011). Learning designs and learning analytics. In Proceedings of the 1st international conference on learning analytics and knowledge (pp. 153-156). doi:10.1145/2090116.2090140

  66. [Article]     [Google Scholar]


  67. Markee, N. (2015). The handbook of classroom discourse and interaction. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. doi:10.1002/9781118531242

  68. [Article]     [Google Scholar]


  69. Mawad, G. (2020). Impact of electronic interaction patterns in a collaborative learning and instructional anchors-based environment on developing instructional design skills and achievement motivation. International Journal of Education and Practice, 8(1), 86-105. doi:10.18488/journal.61.2020.81.86.105

  70. [Article]     [Google Scholar]


  71. McCarthy, P., Sithole, A., McCarthy, P., Cho, J. P., & Gyan, E. (2016). Teacher questioning strategies in mathematical classroom discourse: A case study of two grade eight teachers in Tennessee, USA. Journal of Education and Practice, 7(21), 80-89.

  72. [Article]     [Google Scholar]


  73. Mehall, S. (2020). Purposeful Interpersonal Interaction in Online Learning: What Is It and How Is It Measured?. Online Learning, 24(1), 182-204. doi:10.24059/olj.v24i1.2002

  74. [Article]     [Google Scholar]


  75. Mercer, N., & Howe, C. (2012). Explaining the dialogic processes of teaching and learning: The value and potential of sociocultural theory. Learning, culture and social interaction, 1(1), 12-21. doi:10.1016/j.lcsi.2012.03.001

  76. [Article]     [Google Scholar]


  77. Metros, S. E. (2008). The educator's role in preparing visually literate learners. Theory into practice, 47(2), 102-109. doi:10.1080/00405840801992264

  78. [Article]     [Google Scholar]


  79. Montgomery, J. L., & Baker, W. (2007). Teacher-written feedback: Student perceptions, teacher self-assessment, and actual teacher performance. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(2), 82-99. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2007.04.002

  80. [Article]     [Google Scholar]


  81. Moore, J. L., Dickson-Deane, C., & Galyen, K. (2011). e-Learning, online learning, and distance learning environments: Are they the same?. The Internet and higher education, 14(2), 129-135. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2010.10.001

  82. [Article]     [Google Scholar]


  83. Mulenga, E. M., & Marbán, J. M. (2020). Prospective teachers’ online learning mathematics activities in the age of COVID-19: A cluster analysis approach. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 16(9), em1872. doi:10.29333/ejmste/8345

  84. [Article]     [Google Scholar]


  85. Mumford, S., & DikilitaÅŸ, K. (2020). Pre-service language teachers reflection development through online interaction in a hybrid learning course. Computers & Education, 144, 103706. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103706

  86. [Article]     [Google Scholar]


  87. Naranjo, C. A., Ortiz, J. S., Álvarez, V. M., Sánchez, J. S., Tamayo, V. M., Acosta, F. A., Proaño, L. E., & Andaluz, V. H. (2017). Teaching process for children with autism in virtual reality environments. In Proceedings of the 2017 9th International Conference on Education Technology and Computers (pp. 41-45). doi:10.1145/3175536.3175582

  88. [Article]     [Google Scholar]


  89. Nasution, M. D., Ahmad, A., & Mohamed, Z. (2021). Pre service teachers’perception on the implementation of project based learning in mathematic class. Infinity Journal, 10(1), 109-120. doi:10.22460/infinity.v10i1.p109-120

  90. [Article]     [Google Scholar]


  91. Payler, J. (2007). Opening and closing interactive spaces: shaping four‐year‐old children's participation in two English settings. Early Years, 27(3), 237-254. doi:10.1080/09575140701594392

  92. [Article]     [Google Scholar]


  93. Rex, L. A., & Schiller, L. (2009). Using discourse analysis to improve classroom interaction. New York: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203876985

  94. [Article]     [Google Scholar]


  95. Rodríguez-Muñiz, L. J., Burón, D., Aguilar-González, Á., & Muñiz-Rodríguez, L. (2021). Secondary mathematics teachers’ perception of their readiness for emergency remote teaching during the COVID-19 pandemic: A case study. Education Sciences, 11(5), 228. doi:10.3390/educsci11050228

  96. [Article]     [Google Scholar]


  97. Rosa, M., & Lerman, S. (2011). Researching online mathematics education: Opening a space for virtual learner identities. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 78(1), 69-90. doi:10.1007/s10649-011-9310-9

  98. [Article]     [Google Scholar]


  99. Ryve, A. (2011). Discourse research in mathematics education: A critical evaluation of 108 journal articles. Journal for research in mathematics education, 42(2), 167-198. doi:10.5951/jresematheduc.42.2.0167

  100. [Article]     [Google Scholar]


  101. Schwarz, B., Dreyfus, T., & Hershkowitz, R. (2009). Transformation of knowledge through classroom interaction. London: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203879276

  102. [Article]     [Google Scholar]


  103. Smith, H., & Higgins, S. (2006). Opening classroom interaction: The importance of feedback. Cambridge journal of education, 36(4), 485-502. doi:10.1080/03057640601048357

  104. [Article]     [Google Scholar]


  105. Steyn, G., & Adendorff, S. A. (2020). Questioning techniques used by foundation phase education students teaching mathematical problem-solving. South African Journal of Childhood Education, 10(1), 1-9. doi:10.4102/sajce.v10i1.564

  106. [Article]     [Google Scholar]


  107. Sullivan, P., Bobis, J., Downton, A., Feng, M., Hughes, S., Livy, S., McCormick, M., & Russo, J. (2020). Threats and opportunities in remote learning of mathematics: implication for the return to the classroom. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 32(3), 551-559. doi:10.1007/s13394-020-00339-6

  108. [Article]     [Google Scholar]


  109. Swan, K., Shen, J., & Hiltz, S. R. (2006). Assessment and collaboration in online learning. Journal of asynchronous learning networks, 10(1), 45-62. doi:10.24059/olj.v10i1.1770

  110. [Article]     [Google Scholar]


  111. Tan, H. R., Chng, W. H., Chonardo, C., Ng, M. T. T., & Fung, F. M. (2020). How chemists achieve active learning online during the COVID-19 pandemic: using the Community of Inquiry (CoI) framework to support remote teaching. Journal of Chemical Education, 97(9), 2512-2518. doi:10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c00541

  112. [Article]     [Google Scholar]


  113. Tularam, G. A., & Machisella, P. (2018). Traditional vs non-traditional teaching and learning strategies: The case of e-learning!. International Journal for Mathematics Teaching and Learning, 19(1), 129-158.

  114. [Article]     [Google Scholar]


  115. Ulum, M. (2020). Kebijakan standar nasional pendidikan. Syaikhuna, 11(1), 105-116. doi:10.36835/syaikhuna.v11i1.3845

  116. [Article]     [Google Scholar]


  117. van den Berg, G. (2020). Context matters: Student experiences of interaction in open distance learning. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 21(4), 223-236. doi:10.17718/tojde.803411

  118. [Article]     [Google Scholar]


  119. van Manen, M. (2016). The tact of teaching: The meaning of pedagogical thoughtfulness. New York: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781315417134

  120. [Article]     [Google Scholar]


  121. Wang, Y. H. (2020). Design-based research on integrating learning technology tools into higher education classes to achieve active learning. Computers & Education, 156, 103935. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103935

  122. [Article]     [Google Scholar]


  123. Watkins, C., & Scott, L. (2012). From the stage to the studio: How fine musicians become great teachers. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780199740529.001.0001

  124. [Article]     [Google Scholar]


  125. Way, J. (2008). Using questioning to stimulate mathematical thinking. Australian Primary Mathematics Classroom, 13(3), 22-27.

  126. [Article]     [Google Scholar]

  127.  

  128. Webb, N. M. (2009). The teacher's role in promoting collaborative dialogue in the classroom. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 79(1), 1-28. doi:10.1348/000709908X380772

  129. [Article]     [Google Scholar]

  130.