Article Sidebar

Published
Nov 16, 2023
Download
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 0 Download : 489

Main Article Content

Abstract

Some previous studies tried to improve students' understanding of the concept of the composition of functions. However, only some research results still examine efforts to increase student understanding of the concept taught online, especially by utilizing the STEAM-integrated Flip Flop learning model. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to analyze the level of effectiveness of the application of the STEAM-integrated Flip Flop model in increasing students' understanding of composition function material taught online. To answer the purpose of the study, the authors compared the model with the Flipped Learning model and the conventional learning model. The quantitative method with a pretest-posttest control group design model is employed in the present study by engaging 90 Indonesian senior high school students. This study finds that the STEAM-integrated Flip Flop model is significantly better at improving students' understanding of the composition of function concepts than conventional models. However, the same result is not found if compared with the Flipped Learning model. Though the average score of the STEAM-integrated Flip Flop model is better than the Flipped Learning model, the difference is not significant. This study also describes the related syntax of the STEAM-integrated Flip Flop model that high school math teachers can use to teach better composition functions online.

Keywords

ANOVA Composition of function Flip Flop methodology Inter-Rater Cohens’ Kappa STEAM

Article Details

Creative Commons License

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

References

  1. Aiken, L. R. (1985). Three coefficients for analyzing the reliability and validity of ratings. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 45(1), 131-142. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164485451012

  2. Aisyah, T., & Murniati, M. (2022). Online learning in the time and post COVID-19 pandemic. In (pp. 148-155). https://doi.org/10.2991/assehr.k.220302.023

  3. American Psychological Association. (1992). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. American psychologist, 47(12), 1597-1611.

  4. Bedar, R. A.-H., & Al-Shboul, M. A. (2020). The effect of using STEAM approach on developing computational thinking skills among high school students in Jordan. International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies (iJIM), 14(14), 80-94. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijim.v14i14.14719

  5. Bergmann, J., & Sams, A. (2012). Flip your classroom: Reach every student in every class every day. International society for technology in education.

  6. Brown, A. M. (2005). A new software for carrying out one-way ANOVA post hoc tests. Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine, 79(1), 89-95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmpb.2005.02.007

  7. Cooper, M. (2006). Making online learning accessible to disabled students: an institutional case study. Research in Learning Technology, 14(1), 103-115. https://doi.org/10.3402/rlt.v14i1.10936

  8. de Jong, P. G. M. (2020). Impact of moving to online learning on the way educators teach. Medical Science Educator, 30(3), 1003-1004. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-020-01027-7

  9. Diego-Mantecon, J.-M., Prodromou, T., Lavicza, Z., Blanco, T. F., & Ortiz-Laso, Z. (2021). An attempt to evaluate STEAM project-based instruction from a school mathematics perspective. ZDM – Mathematics Education, 53(5), 1137-1148. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-021-01303-9

  10. Elber, G., & Kim, M.-S. (2014). Modeling by composition. Computer-Aided Design, 46, 200-204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cad.2013.08.032

  11. Haesen, S., & Van De Put, E. (2018). STEAM education in Europe: A comparative analysis report. Eurosteam project.

  12. Han, W., Qi, T., Yang, J., Zhao, F., & Jin, X. (2020). Research on blended learning mode based on network. In 2020 2nd International Workshop on Artificial Intelligence and Education (pp. 39-43). https://doi.org/10.1145/3447490.3447498

  13. Hendriana, H., Putra, H. D., & Hidayat, W. (2019). How to design teaching materials to improve the ability of mathematical reflective thinking of senior high school students in Indonesia? Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 15(12), em1790. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/112033

  14. Hsu, L. M., & Field, R. (2003). Interrater agreement measures: Comments on Kappan, Cohen's Kappa, Scott's π, and Aickin's α. Understanding Statistics, 2(3), 205-219. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328031US0203_03

  15. Hwang, G.-J., & Lai, C.-L. (2017). Facilitating and bridging out-of-class and in-class learning: An interactive e-book-based flipped learning approach for math courses. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 20(1), 184-197.

  16. Ishartono, N., Nurcahyo, A., Waluyo, M., Razak, R. A., Sufahani, S. F., & Hanifah, M. (2022). GeoGebra-based flipped learning model: An alternative panacea to improve students' learning independency in online mathematics learning. Journal of Research and Advances in Mathematics Education, 7(3), 178-195. https://doi.org/10.23917/jramathedu.v7i3.18141

  17. Ishartono, N., Sutama, Prayitno, H. J., Irfan, M., Waluyo, M., & Sufahani, S. F. B. (2021). An investigation of Indonesian in-service mathematics teachers’ perception and attitude toward STEAM education. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1776(1), 012021. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1776/1/012021

  18. Jojo, Z. M. M., Maharaj, A., & Brijlall, D. (2012). Reflective abstraction and mathematics education: The genetic decomposition of the chain rule--work in progress. US-China Education Review, B(4), 408-414.

  19. Karampa, V., & Paraskeva, F. (2018). A motivational design of a flipped classroom on collaborative programming and STEAM. In L. Uden, D. Liberona, & J. Ristvej, In Learning Technology for Education Challenges, (pp. 226-238). Cham https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95522-3_19

  20. Kartika, E. F. R., VH, E. S., & Indriyanti, N. Y. (2021). Development and validation of web-based STEAM online platform to improve learning quality in pre-service Chemistry teacher. JOTSE, 11(2), 513-525. https://doi.org/10.3926/jotse.1316

  21. Khanal, B., Joshi, D. R., Adhikari, K. P., Khadka, J., & Bishowkarma, A. (2022). Factors associated with the problems in teaching mathematics through online mode: A context of Nepal. International Journal of Education and Practice, 10(3), 237-254. https://doi.org/10.18488/61.v10i3.3097

  22. Krathwohl, D. R., & Anderson, L. W. (2010). Merlin C. Wittrock and the Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy. Educational Psychologist, 45(1), 64-65. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520903433562

  23. Lalian, O. N. (2018). The effects of using video media in mathematics learning on students’ cognitive and affective aspects. AIP Conference Proceedings, 2019(1), 030011. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5061864

  24. Latorre-Cosculluela, C., Suárez, C., Quiroga, S., Sobradiel-Sierra, N., Lozano-Blasco, R., & Rodríguez-Martínez, A. (2021). Flipped classroom model before and during COVID-19: using technology to develop 21st century skills. Interactive Technology and Smart Education, 18(2), 189-204. https://doi.org/10.1108/ITSE-08-2020-0137

  25. Liliawati, W., Rusnayati, H., Purwanto, P., & Aristantia, G. (2018). Implementation of STEAM education to improve mastery concept. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 288(1), 012148. https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/288/1/012148

  26. Martínez-Jiménez, E., Nolla de Celis, Á., & Fernández-Ahumada, E. (2022). The city as a tool for STEAM education: Problem-posing in the context of math trails. Mathematics, 10(16), 2995. https://doi.org/10.3390/math10162995

  27. Modabbernia, N., Yan, X., & Zazkis, R. (2023). When algebra is not enough: a dialogue on the composition of even and odd functions. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 112(3), 397-414. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-022-10189-7

  28. Ogawa, M.-B. (2018). Evaluation of Flip-Flop Learning Methodology. In P. Zaphiris & A. Ioannou, In Learning and Collaboration Technologies. Learning and Teaching, (pp. 350-360). Cham https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-91152-6_27

  29. Pahmi, S., Juandi, D., & Sugiarni, R. (2022). The effect of STEAM in mathematics learning on 21st century skills: A systematic literature reviews. Prisma, 11(1), 93-104. https://doi.org/10.35194/jp.v11i1.2039

  30. Panjaitan, S. M., Hutauruk, A. J. B., Sitepu, C., Gultom, S. P., Sitorus, P., Marbun, M. R., & Sinaga, C. H. (2023). Implementation of online learning and its impact on learning achievements of mathematics education students. Infinity Journal, 12(1), 41-54. https://doi.org/10.22460/infinity.v12i1.p41-54

  31. Priyanto, M., & Permatasari, D. (2022). Students’ worksheets based on problem based learning in composition and inverse functions to enhance conceptual understanding. JRPM (Jurnal Review Pembelajaran Matematika), 7(1), 73-88. https://doi.org/10.15642/jrpm.2022.7.1.73-88

  32. Rezeki, S. (2018). Pemanfaatan adobe flash cs6 berbasis problem based learning pada materi fungsi komposisi dan fungsi invers [Utilization of Adobe Flash CS6 based on problem-based learning in material on composition functions and inverse functions]. Jurnal Pendidikan Tambusai, 2(2), 856-864.

  33. Sigit, D. V., Ristanto, R. H., & Mufida, S. N. (2022). Integration of project-based e-learning with STEAM: An innovative solution to learn ecological concept. International Journal of Instruction, 15(3), 23-40. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2022.1532a

  34. Stelovska, U., Stelovsky, J., & Wu, J. (2016). Constructive learning using flip-flop methodology: Learning by making quizzes synchronized with video recording of lectures. In P. Zaphiris & A. Ioannou, In Learning and Collaboration Technologies, (pp. 70-81). Cham https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-39483-1_7

  35. Sutama, S., Prayitno, H. J., Ishartono, N., & Sari, D. P. (2020). Development of mathematics learning process by using flipped classroom integrated by STEAM Education in senior high school. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 8(8), 3690-3697. https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2020.080848

  36. Trouillon, T., Dance, C. R., Welbl, J., Riedel, S., Gaussier, É., & Bouchard, G. (2017). Knowledge graph completion via complex tensor factorization. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 18, 1-38.

  37. Velleman, D. J. (2019). How to prove it: A structured approach. Cambridge University Press.

  38. Wahba, F. A.-A., Tabieh, A. A. S., & Banat, S. Y. (2022). The power of STEAM activities in enhancing the level of metacognitive awareness of mathematics among students at the primary stage. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 18(11), em2185. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/12562

  39. Zb, A., Novalian, D., Ananda, R., Habibi, M., & Sulman, F. (2021). Distance learning with STEAM approaches: Is the effect on the cognitive domain? Jurnal Educative: Journal of Educational Studies, 6(2), 128-139. https://doi.org/10.30983/educative.v6i2.4977

  40. Zimmerman, D. W., & Zumbo, B. D. (1992). Parametric alternatives to the Student T Test under violation of normality and homogeneity of variance. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 74(3), 835-844. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.1992.74.3.835