Design and Evaluation of a mobile application for achieving computational thinking skills through geometric transformation learning in middle school
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.sidebar##
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##
Abstract
Several studies indicate that students frequently make errors when determining the resulting reflection of geometric transformations. On the other hand, several studies mention that mobile applications have been proven effective in reducing conceptual errors in learning geometric transformations. Additionally, some experts argue that computational thinking is a skill students need to master, and it is on par with reading, writing, and arithmetic. Therefore, this study aims to design and evaluate a mobile application specifically developed to support the achievement of computational thinking skills by learning geometric transformations in middle school. The method used was Research and Development (R&D), which begins with a development stage involving needs analysis, learning material and curriculum analysis, and application design. The evaluation phase involved testing the application's validity, practicality, and effectiveness on 51 ninth-grade students from two different schools in Indonesia. The research findings indicate that: (1) the developed mobile application was proven valid based on aspects of material, language, and media feasibility; (2) the developed mobile application was proven effective in achieving middle school students' computational thinking skills with student average scores exceeding the minimum passing grade; (3) the developed mobile application was proven practical based on student response questionnaire results. These research results contribute to developing mobile applications in mathematics learning to achieve higher-order thinking skills among students.
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
The author is responsible for acquiring the permission(s) to reproduce any copyrighted figures, tables, data, or text that are being used in the submitted paper. Authors should note that text quotations of more than 250 words from a published or copyrighted work will require grant of permission from the original publisher to reprint. The written permission letter(s) must be submitted together with the manuscript.References
Ada, T., & Kurtuluş, A. (2010). Students’ misconceptions and errors in transformation geometry. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 41(7), 901–909. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739x.2010.486451
Adamich, T. (2010). Materials-to-standards alignment: How to “chunk” a whole cake and even use the “crumbs”: State standards alignment models, learning objects, and formative assessment–methodologies and metadata for education. International Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education, 6(2), 62–75. https://doi.org/10.4018/jicte.2010040106
Ahmad, D., Suherman, S., & Yarman, Y. (2023). Analysis students’ responses on transformational geometry problems to identify student spatial and logical-mathematical ability. AIP Conference Proceedings, 2698(1), 030002. https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0122331
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
Akbar, S. d. (2013). Instrumen perangkat pembelajaran [Learning device instruments]. Remaja Rosdakarya.
Aktaş, G. S., & Ünlü, M. (2017). Understanding of eight grade students about transformation geometry: Perspectives on students’ mistakes. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 5(5), 103–119. https://doi.org/10.11114/jets.v5i5.2254
Akugizibwe, E., & Ahn, J. Y. (2019). Perspectives for effective integration of e-learning tools in university mathematics instruction for developing countries. Education and Information Technologies, 25(2), 889–903. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019-09995-z
American Psychological Association. (1992). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. American psychologist, 47(12), 1597–1611. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.47.12.1597
Andraphanova, N. V. (2015). Geometrical similarity transformations in dynamic geometry environment Geogebra. European Journal of Contemporary Education, 12(2), 116–128. https://doi.org/10.13187/ejced.2015.12.116
Ansori, H., Amalia, R., & Juhairiah. (2024). Students’ errors in solving transformation geometry problems on the topic of reflection. AIP Conference Proceedings, 3058(1), 060002. https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0201157
Anwar, L., Sa'dijah, C., Murtafiah, W., & Huljannah, M. (2023). Adversity quotient of Indonesian prospective mathematics teachers in solving geometry higher-order thinking skills problems. Journal on Mathematics Education, 15(1), 79–98. https://doi.org/10.22342/jme.v15i1.pp79-98
Asif, M., Thomas, G., Awan, M. U., & Muhammad Din, A. (2021). Enhancing student engagement through heterogeneous pedagogical approaches: action research in a university level course in Saudi Arabia. International Journal of Educational Management, 35(1), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijem-10-2019-0375
Avcu, S., & Çetinkaya, B. (2019). An instructional unit for prospective teachers’ conceptualization of geometric transformations as functions. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 52(5), 669–698. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739x.2019.1699966
Ayada, W., & Hammad, M. (2023). Design quality criteria for smartphone applications interface and its impact on user experience and usability. International Design Journal, 13(4), 339–354. https://doi.org/10.21608/idj.2023.305364
Bagdasar, O. (2013). Matrix applications in computer graphics. In O. Bagdasar (Ed.), Concise computer mathematics: Tutorials on theory and problems (pp. 65–72). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-01751-8_8
Baihaki, B., Djamilah, S., & Lazwardi, A. (2022). Developing interactive learning media based on Adobe Animate Applications for geometry transformation. Kalamatika: Jurnal Pendidikan Matematika, 7(2), 191–206. https://doi.org/10.22236/KALAMATIKA.vol7no2.2022pp191-206
Barrón-Estrada, M. L., Zatarain-Cabada, R., Romero-Polo, J. A., & Monroy, J. N. (2021). Patrony: A mobile application for pattern recognition learning. Education and Information Technologies, 27(1), 1237–1260. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10636-7
Besekar, S., Jogdand, S., & Naqvi, W. (2024). Exploring sample size determination in educational research: A comprehensive review. F1000Research, 12, 1291. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.141173.3
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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-016-0798-4
Bråting, K., & Kilhamn, C. (2020). Exploring the intersection of algebraic and computational thinking. Mathematical thinking and learning, 23(2), 170–185. https://doi.org/10.1080/10986065.2020.1779012
Bringula, R. P., & Atienza, F. A. L. (2022). Mobile computer-supported collaborative learning for mathematics: A scoping review. Education and Information Technologies, 28(5), 4893–4918. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11395-9
Chan, K. K., & Leung, S. W. (2014). Dynamic geometry software improves mathematical achievement: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 51(3), 311–325. https://doi.org/10.2190/EC.51.3.c
Chookaew, S., & Panjaburee, P. (2022). Implementation of a robotic-transformed five-phase inquiry learning to foster students' computational thinking and engagement: a mobile learning perspective. International Journal of Mobile Learning and Organisation, 16(2), 198. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijmlo.2022.121888
Christopoulos, A., Conrad, M., & Shukla, M. (2018). Increasing student engagement through virtual interactions: How? Virtual Reality, 22(4), 353–369. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10055-017-0330-3
Cohen, J. (2013). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203771587
Costa, E. J. F., Campos, L. M. R. S., & Guerrero, D. D. S. (2017). Computational thinking in mathematics education: A joint approach to encourage problem-solving ability. In 2017 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE), (pp. 1–8). https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE.2017.8190655
Cutumisu, M., Adams, C., & Lu, C. (2019). A scoping review of empirical research on recent computational thinking assessments. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 28(6), 651–676. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-019-09799-3
Ebner, M. (2015). Mobile applications for math education—How should they be done? In Mobile learning and mathematics: Foundations, design, and case studies (pp. 20–32). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315814346
Florenthal, B. (2018). Students’ motivation to participate via mobile technology in the classroom: A uses and gratifications approach. Journal of Marketing Education, 41(3), 234–253. https://doi.org/10.1177/0273475318784105
Gadanidis, G. (2017). Artificial intelligence, computational thinking, and mathematics education. The International Journal of Information and Learning Technology, 34(2), 133–139. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJILT-09-2016-0048
George, A. C. (2021). A brief guide to sampling in educational settings. The Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 17(3), 286–298. https://doi.org/10.20982/tqmp.17.3.p286
Grévisse, C., Rothkugel, S., & Reuter, R. A. P. (2019). Scaffolding support through integration of learning material. Smart learning environments, 6(1), 28. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-019-0107-0
Grover, S., & Pea, R. (2013). Computational thinking in k–12. Educational Researcher, 42(1), 38–43. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x12463051
Guven, B. (2012). Using dynamic geometry software to improve eight grade students' understanding of transformation geometry. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 28(2), 364–382. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.878
Hakiki, M., Halomoan, Fadli, R., Hidayah, Y., Zunarti, R., & Yanti, V. Y. (2024). CT-mobile: Enhancing computational thinking via android graphic design app. International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies (iJIM), 18(13), 4–19. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijim.v18i13.47711
Harms, T., Hoeve, A., & den Boer, P. (2017). Pedagogic strategies for improving students’ engagement and development. In E. de Bruijn, S. Billett, & J. Onstenk (Eds.), Enhancing teaching and learning in the Dutch vocational education system: Reforms enacted (pp. 195–218). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-50734-7_10
Herbert, B., Ens, B., Weerasinghe, A., Billinghurst, M., & Wigley, G. (2018). Design considerations for combining augmented reality with intelligent tutors. Computers & Graphics, 77, 166–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cag.2018.09.017
Hsu, T.-C., Chang, S.-C., & Hung, Y.-T. (2018). How to learn and how to teach computational thinking: Suggestions based on a review of the literature. Computers & Education, 126, 296–310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.07.004
Hsu, W.-Y., Lin, S. S. J., Chang, S.-M., Tseng, Y.-H., & Chiu, N.-Y. (2015). Examining the diagnostic criteria for Internet addiction: Expert validation. Journal of the Formosan Medical Association, 114(6), 504–508. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfma.2014.03.010
Hughes, E. M., Powell, S. R., & Stevens, E. A. (2016). Supporting clear and concise mathematics language. Teaching exceptional children, 49(1), 7–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/0040059916654901
Ivers, K. S., & Barron, A. E. (2010). Multimedia projects in education: Designing, producing, and assessing. Bloomsbury Publishing USA.
Jeng, Y.-L., Wu, T.-T., Huang, Y.-M., Tan, Q., & Yang, S. J. (2010). The add-on impact of mobile applications in learning strategies: A review study. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 13(3), 3–11.
Kalelioglu, F., Gülbahar, Y., & Kukul, V. (2016). A framework for computational thinking based on a systematic research review. Baltic Journal of Modern Computing, 4(3), 583–596.
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
Kandaga, T., Rosjanuardi, R., & Juandi, D. (2023). How DGS integrated learning in geometric transformation drives students’ way of thinking and way of understanding. AIP Conference Proceedings, 2734(1), 090005. https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0156651
Krajcik, J., McNeill, K. L., & Reiser, B. J. (2007). Learning‐goals‐driven design model: Developing curriculum materials that align with national standards and incorporate project‐based pedagogy. Science Education, 92(1), 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20240
Lai, C. L., & Hwang, G. J. (2014). Effects of mobile learning time on students' conception of collaboration, communication, complex problem-solving, meta-cognitive awareness and creativity. International Journal of Mobile Learning and Organisation, 8(3-4), 276. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijmlo.2014.067029
Lee, H.-Y., Wu, T.-T., Lin, C.-J., Wang, W.-S., & Huang, Y.-M. (2023). Integrating computational thinking into scaffolding learning: An innovative approach to enhance science, technology, engineering, and mathematics hands-on learning. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 62(2), 211–247. https://doi.org/10.1177/07356331231211916
Lei, H., Chiu, M. M., Li, F., Wang, X., & Geng, Y.-j. (2020). Computational thinking and academic achievement: A meta-analysis among students. Children and Youth Services Review, 118, 105439. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105439
Leopold, C. (2020). Perspective Transformations for Architectural Design. In International Conference Geometrias: Thinking, Drawing, Modelling, Cham (pp. 77–89). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-46804-0_6
Lin, J. (2013). Development of scales for the measurement of principles of design. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 71(12), 1112–1123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2013.08.003
Lu, J. J., & Fletcher, G. H. L. (2009). Thinking about computational thinking Proceedings of the 40th ACM technical symposium on Computer science education, Chattanooga, TN, USA. https://doi.org/10.1145/1508865.1508959
Malik, S. I., Mathew, R., Al-Nuaimi, R., Al-Sideiri, A., & Coldwell-Neilson, J. (2019). Learning problem solving skills: Comparison of e-learning and m-learning in an introductory programming course. Education and Information Technologies, 24(5), 2779–2796. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019-09896-1
Mazgon, J., & Stefanc, D. (2012). Importance of the various characteristics of educational materials: Different opinions, different perspectives. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology-TOJET, 11(3), 174–188.
Mbogo, C., Blake, E., & Suleman, H. (2013). A mobile scaffolding application to support novice learners of computer programming Proceedings of the sixth international conference on information and communications technologies and development,
Nel, L. (2017). Students as collaborators in creating meaningful learning experiences in technology‐enhanced classrooms: An engaged scholarship approach. British Journal of Educational Technology, 48(5), 1131–1142. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12549
Nurlaelah, E., Pebrianti, A., Taqiyuddin, M., Dahlan, J. A., & Usdiyana, D. (2024). Improving mathematical proof based on computational thinking components for prospective teachers in abstract algebra courses. Infinity Journal, 14(1), 85–108. https://doi.org/10.22460/infinity.v14i1.p85-108
Otten, S., Keazer, L. M., & Karaman, R. (2017). Teachers’ talk about the mathematical practice of attending to precision. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 22(1), 69–93. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-017-9375-1
Panorkou, N., & Maloney, A. (2015). Elementary Students' Construction of geometric transformation reasoning in a dynamic animation environment. Constructivist Foundations, 10(3), 338–347.
Park, Y. (2011). A pedagogical framework for mobile learning: Categorizing educational applications of mobile technologies into four types. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 12(2), 78–102. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v12i2.791
Pérez, A. (2018). A framework for computational thinking dispositions in mathematics education. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education JRME, 49(4), 424–461. https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.49.4.0424
Riccomini, P. J., Smith, G. W., Hughes, E. M., & Fries, K. M. (2015). The language of mathematics: The importance of teaching and learning mathematical vocabulary. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 31(3), 235–252. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2015.1030995
Ross, A., & Willson, V. (2012). The effects of representations, constructivist approaches, and engagement on middle school students' algebraic procedure and conceptual understanding. School Science and Mathematics, 112(2), 117–128. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2011.00125.x
Safrida, L. N., Susanto, S., Setiawan, T. B., Ambarwati, R., & Hussen, S. (2021). An analysis of undergraduate students’ higher order thinking skills in Geometry. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1839(1), 012034. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1839/1/012034
Salwadila, T., & Hapizah, H. (2024). Computational thinking ability in mathematics learning of exponents in grade IX. Infinity Journal, 13(2), 441–456. https://doi.org/10.22460/infinity.v13i2.p441-456
Şanal, S. Ö., & Elmali, F. (2023). Effectiveness of realistic math education on mathematical problem-solving skills of students with learning disability. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 39(1), 109–126. https://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2023.2191110
Sánchez, J., & Olivares, R. (2011). Problem solving and collaboration using mobile serious games. Computers & Education, 57(3), 1943–1952. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.04.012
Shurygin, V., Anisimova, T., Orazbekova, R., & Pronkin, N. (2024). Modern approaches to teaching future teachers of mathematics: the use of mobile applications and their impact on students’ motivation and academic success in the context of STEM education. Interactive Learning Environments, 32(6), 2884–2898. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2022.2162548
Shute, V. J., Sun, C., & Asbell-Clarke, J. (2017). Demystifying computational thinking. Educational Research Review, 22, 142–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2017.09.003
Simarmata, J., Solihin, M. D., Hutahaean, H. D., & Isnaini, M. (2024). Development of geometry transformation learning media by utilizing mobile technology. Jurnal Penelitian Pendidikan IPA, 10(SpecialIssue), 209–214. https://doi.org/10.29303/jppipa.v10iSpecialIssue.7913
Somerton, M. (2022). Developing an educational app for students with autism. Frontiers in Education, 7, 998694. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.998694
St. Goar, J., & Lai, Y. (2021). Designing activities to support prospective high school teachers’ proofs of congruence from a transformation perspective. PRIMUS, 32(7), 827–842. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511970.2021.1940403
Sunariah, L., & Mulyana, E. (2020). The didactical and epistemological obstacles on the topic of geometry transformation. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1521(3), 032089. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1521/3/032089
Tang, K.-Y., Chou, T.-L., & Tsai, C.-C. (2019). A content analysis of computational thinking research: An international publication trends and research typology. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 29(1), 9–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-019-00442-8
Tekdal, M. (2021). Trends and development in research on computational thinking. Education and Information Technologies, 26(5), 6499–6529. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10617-w
Terzopoulos, G., Satratzemi, M., & Tsompanoudi, D. (2021). Educational mobile applications on computational thinking and programming for children under 8 years old. In Proceedings of the 13th IMCL Conference: Internet of Things, Infrastructures and Mobile Applications, Cham (pp. 527–538). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-49932-7_50
Townsend, D., Filippini, A., Collins, P., & Biancarosa, G. (2012). Evidence for the importance of academic word knowledge for the academic achievement of diverse middle school students. The elementary school journal, 112(3), 497–518. https://doi.org/10.1086/663301
Uygun, T. (2020). An inquiry-based design research for teaching geometric transformations by developing mathematical practices in dynamic geometry environment. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 32(3), 523–549. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-020-00314-1
Wang, M., Shen, R., Novak, D., & Pan, X. (2009). The impact of mobile learning on students' learning behaviours and performance: Report from a large blended classroom. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(4), 673–695. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2008.00846.x
Weintrop, D., Beheshti, E., Horn, M., Orton, K., Jona, K., Trouille, L., & Wilensky, U. (2015). Defining computational thinking for mathematics and science classrooms. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25(1), 127–147. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-015-9581-5
Wing, J. M. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33–35. https://doi.org/10.1145/1118178.1118215
Yin, C., Song, Y., Tabata, Y., Ogata, H., & Hwang, G.-J. (2013). Developing and implementing a framework of participatory simulation for mobile learning using scaffolding. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 16(2), 137–150.
Yusoff, Z., & Dahlan, H. M. (2013). Mobile based learning: An integrated framework to support learning engagement through augmented reality environment. In 2013 International Conference on Research and Innovation in Information Systems (ICRIIS), (pp. 251–256). https://doi.org/10.1109/ICRIIS.2013.6716718
Zhang, M., Trussell, R. P., Gallegos, B., & Asam, R. R. (2015). Using math apps for improving student learning: An exploratory study in an inclusive fourth grade classroom. TechTrends, 59(2), 32–39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-015-0837-y
Zhang, Y., Wang, P., Jia, W., Zhang, A., & Chen, G. (2023). Dynamic visualization by GeoGebra for mathematics learning: a meta-analysis of 20 years of research. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 57(2), 437–458. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2023.2250886
Zhu, Z., Zhang, Y., Zhu, W., & Ma, J. (2023). Computational thinking and academic achievement: The mediator roles of problem-solving ability and learning anxiety. In 2023 International Symposium on Educational Technology (ISET), (pp. 94–98). https://doi.org/10.1109/iset58841.2023.00027