Implementation Model of Mlearning Based Discovery Learning on Teacher Education

Available online at www.globalilluminators.org

FULL PAPER PROCEEDING

GlobalIlluminators

Multidisciplinary Studies

Full Paper Proceeding GTAR-2014, Vol. 1, 383-401 ISBN: 978-969-9948-30-5

GTAR-14

Implementation Model of Mlearning Based Discovery Learning on Teacher Education Asra1*, Muhammad Ridhuan Tony Lim Abdullah2, Saedah Siraj3 and Siti Aisyah Ha4 1,Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia, 2,Universiti Teknologi Petronas, Malaysia, 3,University of Malaya, 4,Universiti Terbuka Malaysia

Abstract Teachers are key to improving the quality of education. The quality of teachers depends on the quality of teacher’s education. The aim of this paper is to describe how mobile learning (mLearning) could be integrated in teacher education through developing implementation model of mlearning based discovery learning. The study used The Interpretive Structural Modelling (ISM) technique to integrate selected experts’ views to develop the implementation model. The model consists of mobile discovery learning activities determined through Fuzzy Delphi method. The findings resulted in an interpretive structural model of a network of mobile learning activities integrated with discovery learning activities. The model was evaluated by the experts. Through the evaluation, the experts found out the activities in the model could be categorized into four groups: Independent activities, Linkages activities, Dependent activities and Autonomous activities based on their driving powers and dependent powers. The categorization of the activities further complements in guiding the implementation model through how activities influence or depend on other activities. © 2014 The Authors. Published by Global Illuminators. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) Peer-review under responsibility of the Scientific & Review committee of GTAR-2014.

Keywords― Mlearning, Interpretive Structural Modelling, Implementation Model, Discovery Learning, Teacher Education.

Introduction Mobile devices are becoming ubiquitous. This ubiquity and ease of access suggests that their use for mobile learning would be valuable for both students and teachers. In general, information and communication technologies (ICT) have the potential to enhance teachers’ professional learning by optimising opportunities for access to current educational information and experiences as well as providing opportunities for teachers to analyse, and collaboratively reflect on their own practice.Teacher is a key point in educational system. The quality of teachers depends on teacher education. Mobile Learning (mLearning) or learning mediated through mobile devices and technology coupled with robust mobile interaction environment could aid teacher traning learning needs. The study proposes

*All correspondence related to this article should be directed to Asra, Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia Email: [email protected] © 2015 The Authors. Published by Global Illuminators. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) Peer-review under responsibility of the Scientific & Review committee of GTAR-2015.

Asra /GTAR-2015/Full Paper Proceeding/Vol-1,383-401

mLearning to be incorporated in teacher education through developing a model implementation mLearning based discovery learning for teacher education.The Interpretive Structural Modelling (ISM) technique was used to integrate selected experts’ views to develop the model. The model consists of discovery learning activities and mlearning activities determined through fuzzy delphi method. Past researches have evidently stressed on the positive effect of mLearning on students’ learning. For example, a mobile learning tool (MOLT) developed by Cavus and Ibrahim (2009) showed that undergraduate students enjoyed learning new vocabulary using Short Message Service (SMS) text messaging through their mobile phones. A small-scale project, funded by the UK TeacherDevelopment Agency, where all teachers and trainee teachers in one secondaryschool science department were given handheld Personal Digital Assistants(PDAs) for the academic Mohammd Ali (2009). Personal data and mutual interests could be shared and published through robust social softwares (Isman, Abanmy, Hussein, and Al Saadany, 2012). The flexibility of learning which allow students to participate and manage their own learning here stresses the role of the online environment (Isman, 2004) provided by the mobile communication technology. To add, through mLearning as complement to formal classroom learning, students could facilitate own learning (learner’s autonomy) and indirectly allowing a sense of ownership. Sense of ownership is about giving choices in learning and this motivates students to learn as they could do things which they chose to rather than being told to do so (Truby, 2010; Dlodlo, Tolmay, and Mvelase,2012). Nevertheless, this means that the customary role of teacher-student is challenged where students take charge of the learning process instead of the teacher (Isman et al, 2012). In this study, employing mLearning not only could be regarded as a complement to formal classroom learning but also to augment classroom learning (Quinn, 2011; Terras and Ramsay, 2012). Learning activities which are engaged in the classroom could be continued and developed through mobile interaction beyond classroom walls and time, facilitating more students to fulfil course learning outcomes despite of students’ individual different learning needs. As a solution, mLearning could help more students especially the low achievers to improve their competence and teaching skills. However, how mLearning is viable as a solution would depend on how it should be implemented. Thus in this study, this paper seek to illustrate an example how a sustainable mLearning initiative could be employed through the development of a model implementation mLearning based discovery learning on teacher education program. Here, mLearning is incorporated in teacher education program learning as a solution to fulfill learners’ teacher education learning needs. Theoretical Framework Discovery Learning Discovery learning can be defined simply as a learning situation in which the principal content of what is to be learned is not given, but must be independently discovered by the learner, making the student an active participant in his learning. According to van Joolingen (1999:385): “ Discovery learning is a type of learning where learners construct their own knowledge by experimenting with a domain, and inferring rules from the results of these experiments. The basic idea of this kind of learning is that because learners can design their International Conference on Multidisciplinary Trends in Academic Research” (GTAR- 2015)

384


own experiments in the domain and infer the rules of the domain themselves they are actually constructing their knowledge. Because of these constructive activities, it is assumed they will understand the domain at a higher level than when the necessary information is just presented by a teacher or an expository learning environment Discovery learning activities, also referred to as active learning, include inquiry, manipulation of objects or text, problem solving, and often cooperation with peers. These discovery processes provide a path in which students can experience the knowledge; thus leading to a more clear understanding of the intended concepts. Discovery learning is an active process of inquiry-based instruction that encourages learners to build on prior knowledge through experience and to search for new information and relationships based on their interests. In contrast to classical teaching methods in which the learner is usually passive and expected to assimilate the knowledge presented by the teacher, discovery learning offers a learner-centered approach in which the learner discovers new knowledge through active, hand-on experiences and construct new concepts based on his existing knowledge. This kind of learning is oriented on the process of learning, rather then on its content and information. Bicknell-Holmes and Hoffman (2000) describe the three main attributes of discovery learning as 1) exploring and problem solving to create, integrate, and generalize knowledge, 2) student driven, interest-based activities in which the student determines the sequence and frequency, and 3) activities to encourage integration of new knowledge into the learner’s existing knowledge base. Friedler, Nachmias, and Linn (1990) describe the discovery learning processes as: (a) define a problem, (b) state a hypothesis, (c) design an experiment, (d) observe, collect, analyze, and interpret data, (e) apply the results; and (f) make predictions on the basis of results of previous experiment(s). SAMR Model In order to guide the selection of appropriate mobile learning activities for the model, the study employed the SAMR model developed by Ruben R. Puentendura (2006). The model was developed by Puentendura to view how one should use or incorporate educational technology. It is also a system to measure the level of technology usage in education. The model aimed to assist teachers in the design and development of technology based learning to enhance learning experiences among students to reach their highest potential. The model consists of 4 stages: Substitution, Augmentation, Modification, and Redifinition as shown in Figure 2. Coincidentally, SAMR itself is an acronym of the stages.

International Conference on Multidisciplinary Trends in Academic Research” (GTAR- 2015)

385


Figure 1: The SAMR model. Adapted from Transformation, Technology, and Education presented by R. Puentedura, 2006, in Strengthening Your District Through Technology workshops, Maine, US. Retrieved from http://hippasus.com/resources/tte/ part1.html.

The model is employed in this study in view of sustainability incorporation of technology in education. From the model, we could understand that if a technology is employed merely to do the same things differently, the level of use is only at substitution level. For example, if the current practice involves students referring to science articles from books for information, and if this practice is replaced by referring the articles on websites using a computer, the level of technology use is only at substitution level. The use at this level though is essential may not sustain once the novelty of referring to the internet information wears off. This could explain why certain technology incorporations in the formal classroom in the past only sustain for a short period as the use of technology were not developed to higher level of technology use. Based on the SAMR model, to incorporate better mLearning in formal learning which satisfy all levels of technology use, the selection of mLearning activities by the experts would be guided by the model to determine the activities. Method This study seeks to develop an implementation model of mLearning based discovery learning to overcome teacher education learning needs in teacher instruction using experts’ opinion. The model implementation model would consist of discovery learning activities connecting with mobile learning activities and teacher education activities. The discovery learning and mLearning activities would be selected by the experts. Identifying the activities alone is not adequate without determining the relationship among the activities in guiding both teachers and learners. However, determining the appropriate learner’s activities in mobile environment alone especially in augmenting learning could prove a daunting task as the learning situation is complex and dynamic. It would require a great deal of time and commitment to investigate each activity proposed before it could be selected. The task would further become complex as the relationships among the activities selected need to be investigated in order to produce not only a meaningful guide but a practical one for implementers to implement a mobile discovery learning initiative to aid learners to achieve their learning goals. Thus, the elaborated objectives of this study are: International Conference on Multidisciplinary Trends in Academic Research” (GTAR- 2015)

386


  

to identify the appropriate discovery learning activities and mlearning activities in implementation model of mLearning based discovery learning aid learners to be competent in instruction or teaching ; to determine the relationships among the activities in model implementation mLearning based discovery learning in teacher education; to propose a structural model implementation of mLearning based discovery learning activities in teacher education

Based on the circumstances discussed above, Interpretive Structural modeling (ISM) was employed because not only it could facilitate investigation into the relationships among the learning activities but an overall structural model could be extracted based on the relationships. Thus, the study employed the Interpretive Structural Modelling(ISM) to develop the model. ISM was first proposed by J. N. Warfield (1973a; 1974a; and 1976). Warfield (1982b) described ISM as "a computer-assisted learning process that enables an individual or a group user to develop a structure or map showing interrelations among previously determined elements based on a selected contextual relationship'. It could also be viewed as a management decision-making tool that interconnects ideas of individuals or groups to facilitate thorough understanding of a complex situation through a map of relationships between many elements involved in the complex decision situation (Charan et al, 2008). ISM is interpretive because it involves judgment whether there are relationships among elements and if so how they should be connected. The method is structural because an overall structure could be generated using the relationships among the elements. Finally, it is a modeling technique because the overall structure and the relationships among the elements could be illustrated in a graphical model. The various steps involved in the ISM technique are as the following:

1. Identifying elements which are relevant to the problem or issues. In this study, the authors a employed modified fuzzy delphi to identify and rank the elements. The modified fuzzy delphi is an iterative process to integrate multiple individual opinions to reach a consensus in prioritizing issues. The activities which reach positive consensus would be included in the model. The experts would then present additional ideas on the activities which deem fit for the model. 2. Determine the contextual relationship and relation phrase with respect to how the learning activities (elements) should be connected with each other. The contextual relationship defines what is to be accomplished and any boundary conditions or constraints along the way. In other words, the context provides focus on how the learning activities need to be connected while constructing the ISM. The mLearning and discovery learning activities was used to determine the context for the relationship of the activities. The relation phrase determines how the relationships between learning activities are analyzed during construction of the ISM.The contextual relationship and the relation phrase were determined by the consensual experts’ opinion on how the activities (elements) should be connected. 3. Develop a structural self-interaction matrix (SSIM) of the learning activities which shows the connection among elements. This was conducted using the aid of ISM software developed by Concept Star of Sorach Incorporation. Pairs of elements would be displayed by the software to allow the experts to decide through voting on the relationship before the next pair of elements was displayed. This process was repeated until all the elements being paired for relationship. 4. Generate the ISM model. This was done by the software after the pairings of elements was successfully conducted. The software derives the model based on the concept of pair wise comparison as and transitive logic. Transitive Logic states that for any 3 elements (A, B, C) with a given relation when: • A has the relation to B, (written A→ B), • And B has the relation to C, (written B→C), International Conference on Multidisciplinary Trends in Academic Research” (GTAR- 2015)

387


• Then A has the relation to C, (written A→C or A→B→C). 5. The model was then being reviewed by the experts to check for conceptual inconsistency and making the necessary modifications. 6. The final model was then presented after the necessary modifications were made. 7. Develop Reachability matrix and Driver- Dependence Matrixto classify learning activities according to different clusters based on their driving and dependent values. Steps (6) and (7) are essential in the analysis and interpretation of the model. Findings Findings from Step I The results of the findings from the modified fuzzy delphi determined the discovery learning activities and mLearning activities that should be included in the model. The results of fuzzy delphi can find the elements that must be present in the model. It also can determine the level of such elements. The final list of learning Activities to Develop the model of Implementation mLearning based Discovery learning. Table 1 shows the ranking and prioritization of the learning activities based on the experts’ opinions analyzed using fuzzy delphi. The purpose was to rank the degree of the experts’ individual preference for each of the learning activity based on scale 1 to 5. Referring to Table 1, the results of fuzzy delphi value indicates 31 learning activities that were agreed upon by the experts as the element for the construction of the mLearning based discovery learning implementation model. The table also shows the ranking numbers for each learning activity given by the experts. The lowest ranking number indicated by the experts is (30.87), which indicates ‘favorable’ and the highest value given is (39.2) which indicate ‘most favorable’. The accumulated ranking numbers determine the priority value for the learning activities. Table 1: Findings Fuzzy Delphi: Ranking and Prioritization of Learning Activities

Ranking Fuzzy Delphi

Learning activities

1. Membuat kontrak pembelajaran yang disetujui/ disepakati bersama antara mahasiswa dan dosen untuk memenuhi tujuan pembelajaran berdasarkan topik kajian. 2. Mengidentifikasi tujuan pembelajaran berdasarkan topik kajian secara individual dan kelompok melalui diskusi dalam kelas dan online. 3. Mencari bahan-bahan dari berbagai sumber untuk menyelesaikan tugas secara on-line menggunakan peralatan mobil. 4. Mencari bahan-bahan dari berbagai sumber (media cetak dan elektronik) untuk menyelesaikan tugasdi dalam kelas menggunakan peralatan mobil. 5. Mengumpulkan informasi melalui eksperimen dan percobaan di dalam kelas atau di luar kelas (on-line). 6. Mengklasifikasikan informasi yang di dapat secara individual 7. Kegiatan tanya jawab secara on-line (secara synchronous dan asynchronous) dalam menentukan metode menjalankan kajian melalui diskusi dengan dosen dan mahasiswa. 8. Mengumpulkan informasi dengan membuat rujukan, observasi, dan penilaian secara berkelanjutan di dalam dan luar kelas (secara on-line). International Conference on Multidisciplinary Trends in Academic Research” (GTAR- 2015)

388


9. Mengakses informasi/input yang berkaitan dengan topik kajian di dalam dan di luar kelas secara berkelanjutan melalui perangkat mobile 10. Mengembangkan diskusi permasalahan/isu berkaitan dengan topik kajian dengan kelompok mahasiswa lain menggunakan media sosial dengan peralatan mobile dan aplikasi mobile. 11. Merekam dan mengup-load hasil rumusan ke internet untuk diskusi selanjutnya. 12. Mendiskusikan interpretasi informasi dengan teman dan dosen dalam kegiatan pembelajaran di kelas. 13. Merekam informasi yang telah dikumpulkan menggunakan kamera, video streaming atau aplikasi mobile. 14. Mencari informasi untuk menentukan strategi melaksanakan kajian menggunakan perangkat mobile. 15. Mempresentasikan hasil kajian sebagai nilai tambah hasil kajian menggunakan sosial media dengan peralatan mobile. 16. Mengupload hasil temuan baru ke laman web/blog untuk didiskusikan dengan rekan-rekan dan dosen untuk mengkonstruksi pengetahuan baru. 17. Membuat rumusan berdasarkan hasil interpretasi secara perseorangan dan kelompok melalui media sosial. 18. Mengakses topik-topik kajian yang di-upload ke internet oleh dosen dengan menggunakan perangkat mobile (handphone). 19. Mengungkapkan ide tentang sifat hubungan antara hipotesis yang didapat secara individu atau kelompok (berbantukan multimedia/peralatan atau aplikasi mobile. 20. Mendiskusikan interpretasi informasi dengan kawan dan dosen secara on-line (synchronous dan asynchronous) menggunakan peralatan mobile. 21. Diskusi secara ‘synchronous’ melalui media sosial berkaitan informasi, permasalahan, dan trend terkini berdasarkan topik kajian. 22. Penilaian hasil dilakukan oleh dosen secara syncronous dengan peralatan mobile. 23. Melakukan sidang video (video conferencing) dengan mahasiswa lain untuk membahas informasi yang telah diperolehi. 24. Menerjemahkan informasi yang didapat secara individual. 25. Membuat dugaan hipotesis berdasarkan informasi yang diperoleh secara individu atau kelompok berbantukan multimedia/peralatan atau aplikasi mobile 26. Menghasilkan suatu konsep atau pengetahuan baru berdasarkan hasil rumusan melalui diskusi berkelanjutan asyncronous dan syncrononous melalui sosial media. 27. Penilaian hasil dilakukan oleh dosen secara asyncronous dengan peralatan mobile. 28. Mengakses dan membaca catatan dari dosen dengan menggunakan media sosial melalui peralatan mobile 29. Mengupload informasi yang diperoleh sebagai bahan diskusi menggunakan QR code dengan teman yang lain. 30. Penilaian hasil dilakukan oleh mahasiswa secara syncronous dengan peralatan mobile. 31. Diskusi secara ‘asynchronous’ melalui media sosial berkaitan informasi, permasalahan, dan tren terkini berdasarkan topik kajian.

n = 51 experts In the ISM session, the learning activities were inserted in the ISM computer software according to the above priority list. Based on the list, the learning activity ‘Membuat kontrak pembelajaran yang disetujui/ disepakati bersama antara mahasiswa dan dosen untuk memenuhi tujuan pembelajaran berdasarkan topik kajian (Creating an approved learning contract / agreements between students and lecture to meet the topic of learning objectives'’ is in the top list. Janes (1988) stated that the most important element should lead the pairing with other elements during the ISM session. Hence, the priority list was generated in Fuzzy Delphi analisis Findings from Step 2 International Conference on Multidisciplinary Trends in Academic Research” (GTAR- 2015)

389


Based on discovery learning activitiesand the mLearning activities agreed upon, the experts identified ‘In order to enable more teacher education student to be teacher competent and effective learning , the learning activity ‘i’ MUST be conducted BEFORE learning activity ‘j’ to guide through the SSIM process. The phrase ‘In order to enable more teacher education students to be teacher competent and effective learning, the learning activity …’ is the contextual phrase for the study while the phrase MUST be conducted BEFORE’ is the relation phrase to relate the elements of the model. Findings from Steps3, 4, 5, and 6 These steps involved development of the model through experts’ decision on the relationships of the elements using pair wise technique with the aid of ISM software. The model was reviewed by the experts and the final model is shown in Figure 3 below. The model serves as a guide to implementers to implement mLearning based discovery learning for teacher education . However, as discussed in the earlier section, the implementation is based on the concept of mobile learning as a tool to augment learning experience and not a model for a fully fledged mLearning (e.g. students learn entirely through mobile tools and network). Although mLearning could be used to deliver full courses, but the primary advantage of mLearning is about performance support and complementing learning (Quinn, 2011). In line with this concept, the model should be a guide on how formal classroom learning and informal mLearning could be bridged as a solution to a wide range of learners’ learning needs in teacher education. The argument is that mLearning as a solution or as a support to a learning problem could be more sustainable in its adoption compare to it as a learning replacement to conventional learning (Abdullah, 2013).The model is structural in nature which was developed interpretively by experts constructed through a network of relationships among the learning activities identified as elements of the model. The relationship among the activities was based on the contextual phrase and the relation phrase determined earlier in step 2 of the study. The learning activities, the contextual phrase, and the relation phrase were determined according to the teacher education program. The Program outcomes aim to produce students who are competent in teaching and and effective learning as profesional teacher. The experts found out the activities in the model could be categorized into four groups: Independent activities, Linkages activities, Dependent activities and Autonomous activities based on their driving power and dependent power. The categorization of the activities further complements in guiding the implementation model through how activity influence or depend on other activitis. Based on the contextual and the relation phrase (as mentioned in findings of Step 2), the arrows show the sequence of the activities for the whole mLearning based discovery learning implementation. For example, based on Figure 2, activities 1 or 12 need to be conducted before activities 9 and 28. The activities which share a single box such as learning activities 1 and 12, 5 and 19, 6,7,13,20 and 23, 3,4,8,10 and 14, 11, 15 and 22 means that the activities could be conducted in any sequence or concurrently as the pairs of activities complement each other.


390


To explain on how this model could be further interpreted and used as a guide, the reachability matrix of the learning activities need to be developed to classify the learning activities as presented in step 7. Findings from Step 7 Based on the model in Figure 2, the reachability matrix for the learning activities was developed as shown in Table 2. The reachability matrix as shown in Table 2 defines the driving power and the dependence power of each learning activity. Horizontally, the total numbers on the right hand side of the table indicates the driving power for each learning activities. It is the total number of all learning activities which the learning activity may help to achieve including itself. Vertically, the dependence power of learning activities is the total number of learning activities (including itself), which may help achieve it. For example, for learning activity 2, the driving power is 31, indicating that this learning activity must be conducted before the other activities. The dependence power of activity 1 is 9 and 28 which indicate that activities 1 and 12 (also based on the model in Figure 2) need to be conducted concurrently. However, this does not mean that the total dependence power always indicate that the activities need to be conducted concurrently. For example for learning activity 5 and 19 -, the dependence power 13 indicates that it should be conducted after learning activities 28 and 3, 4,8,10, 14. Reference to the model in Table 2 would determine the status of the driving power and dependence power. *LA- Learning activities; DP-Driving Power, DEP- Dependence power Based on Table 2, the learning activities are further classified according to clusters based on their driving power and dependence power. The classification are divided into four categories (Mandal and Deshmukh, 1994): a) Autonomous activities; b) Dependent activities; c) Linkage activities; and d) Independent activities as shown in Figure 3. Based on Figure 3, it is observed that learning activities 1 and 12 share a driving power of 30 and dependence power of 3 and thus, they are positioned in the box which corresponds to a driving power of 30 and a dependence power of 3. The aim of this classification of learning activities is to analyze the driving powerand dependence power of the activities. The first cluster which is the Autonomous activities cluster classifies activities which have both weak driving power and dependence power. This means that any activities classified under this cluster are relatively disconnected from the mLearning based discovery learning implementation. However, based on Figure 3, there is only one activity under this cluster for the present study. The second cluster consists of Dependence activities that have weak driving power but strong dependence power. Learning activities 11, 15, 16, 17, 18, 22, 26, 27, 29, 30 and 31are classified in this category. The third cluster or the Linkage activities consists of learning activities that have strong dependence and driving power. The learning activities 6, 7, 13, 20 and 23 fall into this category. The final cluster consists of Independent activities. Learning activities which fall into this cluster have the highest driving power but with weaker dependence power. Nevertheless, activities under this cluster need to be conducted before other activities. As observed in Figure 3, learning activities 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 12, 14, 19, 21, 25 and 28 are classified under this category.Figure 3. International Conference on Multidisciplinary Trends in Academic Research” (GTAR- 2015)

391


PENGEBANGAN MODEL PENYELENGGARAAN MLEARNING BERASASKAN DISCOVERY LEARNING BERDASARKAN PANDANGAN PAKAR BAGI PENDIDIKAN GURU

2. Meng identifikasi tujuan pembelajaran berdasarkan topik kajian secara individual dan kelompok melalui diskusi dalam kelas dan online.

28. Meng akses dan membaca catatan dari dosen dengan meng g unakan media sosial melalui peralatan mobile.

1. Membuat kontrak pembelajaran yang disetujui/ disepakati bersama antara mahasiswa dan dosen untuk memenuhi tujuan pembelajaran berdasarkan topik kajian.

12. Mendiskusikan interpretasi informasi deng an teman dan dosen dalam kegiatan pembelajaran di kelas.

21. Diskusi secara ' synchronous' melalui media sosial berkaitan informasi, permasalahan, dan trend terkini berdasarkan topik kajian. 5. Meng umpulkan informasi melalui eksperimen dan percobaan di dalam kelas atau di luar kelas (on-line). 19. Meng ungkapkan ide tentang sifat hubungan antara hipotesis yang didapat secara individu atau kelompok (berbantukan multimedia/peralatan atau aplikasi mobile)

9. Meng akses informasi/input yang berkaitan deng an topik kajian di dalam dan di luar kelas secara berkelanjutan melalui perang kat mobile

25. Membuat dugaan hipotesis berdasarkan informasi yang diperoleh secara individu atau kelompok berbantukan multimedia/peralatan atau aplikasi mobile.

3. Mencari bahan-bahan dari berbagai sumber untuk menyelesaikan tugas secara on-line meng g unakan peralatan mobil.

4. Mencari bahan-bahan dari berbagai sumber (media cetak dan elektronik) untuk menyelesaikan tug asdi dalam kelas meng gunakan peralatan mobil.

6. Meng klasifikasikan informasi yang di dapat secara individual 7. Kegiatan tanya jawab secara on-line (secara synchronous dan asynchronous) dalam menentukan metode menjalankan kajian melalui diskusi deng an dosen dan mahasiswa.

8. Meng umpulkan informasi dengan membuat rujukan, observasi, dan penilaian secara berkelanjutan di dalam dan luar kelas (secara on-line).

13. Merekam informasi yang telah dikumpulkan meng g unakan kamera, video streaming atau aplikasi mobile.

10. Meng embang kan diskusi permasalahan/isu berkaitan deng an topik kajian dengan kelompok mahasiswa lain meng g unakan media sosial deng an peralatan mobile dan aplikasi mobile. 14. Mencari informasi untuk menentukan strateg i melaksanakan kajian mengg unakan perang kat mobile.

20. Mendiskusikan interpretasi informasi dengan kawan dan dosen secara on-line (synchronous dan asynchronous) meng g unakan peralatan mobile.

23. Melakukan sidang video (video conferencing ) deng an mahasiswa lain untuk membahas informasi yang telah diperolehi.

18. Meng upload hasil diskusi dan perbahasan informasi ke medan sosial dengan perangkat mobile.

24. Menerjemahkan informasi yang didapat secara individual.

29. Meng up load informasi yang diperoleh sebag ai bahan diskusi meng g unakan QR code deng an teman yang lain.

17. Membuat rumusan berdasarkan hasil interpretasi secara perseorang an dan kelompok melalui media sosial.

11. Merekam dan meng up-load hasil rumusan ke internet untuk diskusi selanjutnya. 15. Mempresentasikan hasil kajian sebag ai nilai tambah hasil kajian meng gunakan sosial media dengan peralatan mobile.

31. Diskusi secara ' asynchronous' melalui media sosial berkaitan informasi, permasalahan, dan tren terkini berdasarkan topik kajian

22. Penilaian hasil dilakukan oleh dosen secara syncronous deng an peralatan mobile.

30. Penilaian hasil dilakukan oleh mahasiswa secara syncronous deng an peralatan mobile

27. Penilaian hasil dilakukan oleh dosen secara asyncronous deng an peralatan mobile.

16. Meng upload hasil temuan baru ke laman web/blog untuk didiskusikan dengan rekan-rekan dan dosen untuk meng konstruksi peng etahuan baru.

26. Meng hasilkan suatu konsep atau peng etahuan baru berdasarkan hasil rumusan melalui diskusi berkelanjutan asyncronous dan syncrononous melalui sosial media.

Interpretive Structural Model - Model Completed

Figure 2: Interpretive Structural Modeling(ISM) based MlearningImplementation Model based Discovery Learning for Teacher Education International Conference on Multidisciplinary Trends in Academic Research” (GTAR- 2015)

392


Table 2: Final Reachability Matrix


393


31

2

1.12

INDEPENDET ACTIVITIES

30 29 28 27 26 D 25 R I 24 V 23 I 22 N 21 G 20 19 P 18 O 17 W 16 E R 15

LINKAGES ACTIVITIES

9 25

3.4.8.10.14 28

21

5.19 6,7,13,20,23

AUTONOMOUS ACTIVITIES

14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

DEPENDENT ACTIVITIES

24 18 17 11,15,22

30 29

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14 15 16 DEPENDENCE

17

18

19

20

21

22

31

23

24

25

26

27

27

28

29

16

26

30

31

Figure 3: Cluster of Learning Activities for Implementation model mLearningBased Discovery Learning for Teacher Education. Discussions The levels of the learning activities as presented in the findings of Step 7 and the cluster classifications of Step 8 above are the most important sections in understanding of successful mLearningbased discovery learning implementation. The driving power and the dependence power as presented in the driving power-dependence diagram in Figure 4 give valuable insights in the importance and the interrelationship among activities. For example, if we would to solely rely on the model in Figure 3, we would assume that to implement the mLearning based discovery learning, we should begin with the activities 2 followed by subsequent activities below them. However, based on Table 2, activity 26 is positioned at the highest level 31. This indicates that these activities are the most important activities due to their high driving power and low dependence power among all identified learning activities in the implementation of mLearningbased discovery learning for teacher education. These activities are identified as the main driving factors in initiation of the rest of other mLearning activities and interestingly they fall under the domain in the model (refer to Figure 2). In other words, in terms of importance, activities 2 (Mengidentifikasi tujuan pembelajaran berdasarkan topik kajian secara individual dan kelompok melalui diskusi dalam kelas dan online).Though mLearning could be about content delivery, but it is not everything about content (Quinn, 2011). According to Quinn, as it is interactive, mLearning should be more on communication, connecting learners with the right people and resources when and where it is most needed. In learning instruction, it is critical in giving help to learners when and where it is needed and this is the main advantage of mLearning over other technology-based learning.. These are the activities proposed to be conducted at the beginning of the mLearning discovery learning implementation before other activities. International Conference on Multidisciplinary Trends in Academic Research” (GTAR- 2015)

394


Referring back to the driving power-dependence diagram in Figure 4, the Linkages cluster includes activities 6, 7, 13, 20 and 23. Activities in this cluster have both high driving power and dependence power. The conduct of these activities while depending on the upper activities (Independent activities) would influence the lower subsequent activities of the model. In other words, linkage activities play an important role in connecting the precedent activities and the subsequent activities together Based on the social constructivist theory, the Linkages activities, activities 6, 7, 13, 20 and 23could also serve as examples on how low achievers could be assisted by their more capable peers or the lecturer to solve their learning needs as described by Vygotsky’s (1978). Based on the discovery learning theory, the Linkages activities, activities 6, 7, 13, 20 and 23 could also serve as examples on how learners construct their own knowledge (Bruners 1961). And the Dependent activities 16 and 26 learners has a new concept or a new knowledge. Based on the theory, the interaction between the learner and other more skilful peers could be augmented through mLearning and effectively develop learner’s skills and learning strategies. In the context of this study, lecturers as facilitor for the student, the learner discovers new knowledge through active, hand-on experiences Learning activities which are in Independent activities and Linkages activities cluster are also known as strategic activities. These activities play a key role in the implementation of mLearning based discovery learning in augmenting the conventional classroom learning experience. Hence, activities in these clusters require greater attention by the lecturer/instructors. The next cluster in the driving power-dependence diagram (Figure 4) would be the Dependence cluster. Learning activities classified in this cluster have weak driving power but with strong dependence power. In this study, activities 11, 15, 16, 17, 18, 22, 26, 27, 29, 30 and 31 fall under this cluster. The final cluster as shown in the driving power-dependence diagram (Figure 4) is the Autonomous activities cluster. Activities which are classified under this cluster have both weaker driving power and dependence power relatively to activities in other clusters. Autonomous activities do not have any influence in the implementation of mLearning based discovery learning or somewhat detached from the whole system. However, in this study, there is one activity under autonomous cluster. This indicates that the lecturer/instructors need to pay attention to 30 activities as they individually and connectedly have influence to the implementation of mLearning based discovery learning for teacher education. The classified activities as discussed above were based on experts’ collective decision with reference to the discovery learning theory. Thus, the model derived would guide how the learning activities individually and interconnectedly help in aiding the learners to achieve the outcomes. However, the activities are not exclusively implemented to serve a particular course outcome. An activity or a set of activities would help fulfilling multiple course outcomes during the learners’ learning process. Besides the classification of activities as discussed above, we could also observed that the activities could also fall into types of technology based learning activity as described in the SAMR model (Figure 2) as shown in Table 3: Distribution of Learning activities to SAMR stages

SAMR Model stagesImplementation mLearning based Discovery Learning International Conference on Multidisciplinary Trends in Academic Research” (GTAR- 2015)

395


Substitution 1. Membuat kontrak pembelajaran yang disetujui/ disepakati bersama antara mahasiswa dan dosen untuk memenuhi tujuan pembelajaran berdasarkan topik kajian. 2. Mengidentifikasi tujuan pembelajaran berdasarkan topik kajian secara individual dan kelompok melalui diskusi dalam kelas dan online 3. Mencari bahan-bahan dari berbagai sumber untuk menyelesaikan tugas secara on-line menggunakan peralatan mobil. 9. Mengakses informasi/input yang berkaitan dengan topik kajian di dalam dan di luar kelas secara berkelanjutan melalui perangkat mobile 12. Mendiskusikan interpretasi informasi dengan teman dan dosen dalam kegiatan pembelajaran di kelas. 14. Mencari informasi untuk menentukan strategi melaksanakan kajian menggunakan perangkat mobile. 18. Mengakses topik-topik kajian yang di-upload ke internet oleh dosen dengan menggunakan perangkat mobile (handphone). 22. Penilaian hasil dilakukan oleh dosen secara syncronous dengan peralatan mobile. 28. Mengakses dan membaca catatan dari dosen dengan menggunakan media sosial melalui peralatan mobile Augmentation 4. Mencari bahan-bahan dari berbagai sumber (media cetak dan elektronik) untuk menyelesaikan tugasdi dalam kelas menggunakan peralatan mobil. 6. Mengklasifikasikan informasi yang di dapat secara individual 7. Kegiatan tanya jawab secara on-line (secara synchronous dan asynchronous) dalam menentukan metode menjalankan kajian melalui diskusi dengan dosen dan mahasiswa. 11. Merekam dan meng up-load hasil rumusan ke internet untuk diskusi selanjutnya. 15. Mempresentasikan hasil kajian sebagai nilai tambah hasil kajian menggunakan sosial media dengan peralatan mobile. 19. Mengungkapkan ide tentang sifat hubungan antara hipotesis yang didapat secara individu atau kelompok (berbantukan multimedia/peralatan atau aplikasi mobile. 20. Mendiskusikan interpretasi informasi dengan kawan dan dosen secara on-line


396


(synchronous dan asynchronous) menggunakan peralatan mobile. 21. Diskusi secara ‘synchronous’ melalui media sosial berkaitan informasi, permasalahan, dan trend terkini berdasarkan topik kajian. 24. Menerjemahkan informasi yang didapat secara individual. 27. Penilaian hasil dilakukan oleh dosen secara asyncronous dengan peralatan mobile. 30. Penilaian hasil dilakukan oleh mahasiswa secara syncronous dengan peralatan mobile. Modification 5. Mengumpulkan informasi melalui eksperimen dan percobaan di dalam kelas atau di luarkelas (on-line). 8. Mengumpulkan informasi dengan membuat rujukan, observasi, dan penilaian secara berkelanjutan di dalam dan luar kelas (secara on-line) 13. Merekam informasi yang telah dikumpulkan menggunakan kamera, video streaming atau aplikasi mobile 17. Membuat rumusan berdasarkan hasil interpretasi secara perseorangan dan kelompok melalui media sosial. 25. Membuat dugaan hipotesis berdasarkan informasi yang diperoleh secara individu atau kelompok berbantukan multimedia/peralatan atau aplikasi mobile 29. Meng up load informasi yang diperoleh sebagai bahan diskusi menggunakan QR code dengan teman yang lain. 31. Diskusi secara ‘asynchronous’ melalui media sosial berkaitan informasi, permasalahan, dan tren terkini berdasarkan topik kajian. Redefinition 10. Mengembangkan diskusi permasalahan/isu berkaitan dengan topik kajian dengan kelompok mahasiswa lain menggunakan media sosial dengan peralatan mobile dan aplikasi mobile. 16. Mengupload hasil temuan baru ke laman web/blog untuk didiskusikan dengan rekanrekan dan dosen untuk mengkonstruksi pengetahuan baru. 23. Melakukan sidang video (video conferencing) dengan mahasiswa lain untuk membahas informasi yang telah diperolehi. 26. Menghasilkan suatu konsep atau pengetahuan baru berdasarkan hasil rumusan melalui diskusi berkelanjutan asyncronous dan syncrononous melalui sosial media.


397


As proposed in the SAMR model, the learning activities should allow function of technology use (mobile devices and technology) according to all stages as shown in Table 3 to optimize the full capabilities of the technology. Through the advantage of the full capabilities of technology, students would be able to fulfil their diverse learning goals as well as the course outcomes to help them to reach their highest potential (Goth, Frohberg, & Schwabe, 2006; Quinn, 2011a; Quinn, 2011b). For example, as shown in Table 3, at the augmentation level, we have activities 4, 6. 7, 11, 15, 19, 20, 21, 24, 27 and 30. Based on the SAMR model, the augmentation level describes technology as a tool substitute but with some functional improvement. For another example, based on Figure 1, the Transformationlevel consists of ‘Modification and Redefinition’ levels. Here, through technology mediation, learners’ autonomy reached another learning stage which is inconceivable without the use of technology. Based on Table 3, activities 5, 8, 13, 17, 25, 29 and 31are categorized under the modification level. At this level, the capabilities of technology allow students to modify their learning tasks or process, which suits best to their interest. Conclusion The key significance of employment of technology in education is not about how exciting it is in doing things differently compared to conventional practice. Although immediate and positive impact could be realized in the introduction of certain technology and its convenience value is highly appreciated, the key significance in the end is about sustainability. Formal classroom learning has a long history since its introduction as new learning technology replacing the informal education in the past. Back then, learners have to travel far to meet teachers to acquire knowledge. When, formal schooling was introduced, it gave immense positive impact and revolutionized learning and reshape communities and societies globally till to the present. Formal schooling sustains till today not primarily due to its impact or convenience but because it became a solution to the learning needs at large. It solves learners’ global problems in attaining knowledge where they do not have to travel far and frequently to meet their mentors anymore. Schools were formed as an institution to gather learners and teachers at one place and this act as a solution. The same notion should apply in the incorporation of technology in mainstream education, which is it should be incorporated as a solution. However, whether technology is a viable solution depends on how it is implemented. Thus this study was conducted to describe how mLearning as new technology tool of learning could be used as a guidepost in aiding learners to achieve their learning goals. As a result, an interpretive structural model mlearning based discovery learning implementation model was developed to guide how mLearning could augment formal classroom learning in catering the learning needs of student teacher education. The model as discussed in this paper not only shows how mLearning could be implemented but could be bridged as a solution to cater the students’ learning needs. In the process, the model redefines what mLearning as a tool to augment learning and as performance support (Quinn, 2011; Terras and Ramsay, 2012) rather merely as a system to deliver a course. In directing the development of the model, Discovery learning theory was employed as theoretical framework on selection of appropriate learning activities to be included in the model. Based on the framework, learning activities which are selected should describe how students could International Conference on Multidisciplinary Trends in Academic Research” (GTAR- 2015)

398


interact and collaborate with each other to learn and how they could be aided to achieve their learning goals with the help of others. Besides this, the learning activities should also involve the full capabilities of the mLearning technology (Abdullah &Siraj, 2011). Thus, the SAMR model was employed to guide the experts in selection of relevant learning activities which accommodates all four (4) stages (refer to Figure 2). As discussed earlier, learning activities beyond substitution level would significantly justifies the incorporation of technology as activities in subsequent stages (Augmentation, Modification and Redefinition) describes activities which could not be accomplished by the conventional formal classroom but very relevant in aiding the students to reach their highest achievement. Although the model guides how mLearning could be implementedin teacher education , the study could contribute as a proposal on how mLearning implementation models could be developed for other areas of learning disciplines for other types of learners learning using mobile technology-one which is sustainable especially in view of future prospect of mLearning in future. References Abdullah, M. R. T. L. (2013). MLearning scaffolding model for undergraduate English Language learning: Bridging formal and informal learning. TOJET, 12(2), 217-233. Abdullah, M. R. T. L., &Siraj, S. (2011). The four c’s of mobile capability as guiding principle for mlearning design: a shift of learners’focus away from technology. Masalah Pendidikan (Issues in Education), 105-114. Bicknell-Holmes, T. & Hoffman, P. S. (2000). Elicit, engage, experience, explore: Discovery learning in library instruction. Reference Services Review, 28(4), 313-322. Bruner, J. (1960). The Process of Education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UniversityPress. Bruner, J. S. (1961). The art of discovery. Harvard Educational Review, 31,21–32. Cavus, N., &Ibrahim, D. (2009) .M-Learning: An experiment in using SMS to support learning new English language words, British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(1),78-91. Chang, P.T. and H.J. Liang-Chih, 2000. The fuzzy Practices. Delphi method via fuzzy statistics and membership Using Fuzzy function fitting and an application to the human Delphi Method in Analytic Hierarchy Process toresources, Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 112, 511-520. Charan, P., Shankar, R., &Baisya, R. K. ( 2008). Analysis of interactions among the variables of supply chain performance measurement system implementation. Business Process Management Journal, 14(4), 512-529. Cook, J. (2010). Mobile phones as mediating tools within augmented contexts fordevelopment. International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning (IJMBL), 2(3), 1-12. Delbecq, A. L., Van de Ven, A. H., & Gustafson, D. H. (1975). Group techniques for program planning. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman, and Co. Dlodlo, N, Tolmay, JP and Mvelase, P. (2012). Handing over ownership of schools to learners. 4th International Conference on ICT for Africa 2012, Kampala, Uganda, 2124 March 2012. Retrieved on 24 September 2012 at http://researchspace.csir.co.za/dspace/bitstream/10204/5967/1/DloDlo1_2012.pdf Goth, Frohberg&Schwabe, (2006). The Focus Problem in Mobile Learning. presented at IEEE International Workshop on Wireless and Mobile Technologies in Education(WMTE 2006) International Conference on Multidisciplinary Trends in Academic Research” (GTAR- 2015)

399


Greenberg, A.D. and Zanetis, J. (2012). The Impact of Broadcast and Streaming Video in Education.Report commissioned by Cisco Systems Inc. to Wainhouse Research, LLC, pp. 11. Retrieved on 1 December 2012 at http://www.cisco.com/web/strategy/docs/education/ciscovideowp.pdf Ishikawa, A., M. Amagasa, T. Shiga, G. Tomizawa, R. Tatsuta and H. Mieno, 1993. The max-min Delphi The method and fuzzy Delphi method via fuzzy integration, Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 55, 241-253. Isman, A. (2004). Roles of the Students and Teachers in Distance Education. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education 4(5). Retrieved from http://tojde.anadolu.edu.tr/tojde16/pdf/isman.pdf. Isman, A., Abanmy,F.A., Hussein,H.B. and Al Saadany, M.A. (2012). Using Blended Learning In Developing Student Teachers Teaching Skills. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education 11(4). 336-345 Keast, D.A. (1997): Toward an effective model for implementing distance education programs, American Journal of Distance Education, 11(2), 39-55 Keeling, R. P., & Dungy, G. J. (2004). Learning reconsidered: A campus-wide focus on The student experience. National Association of Student Personnel Administrators, American College Personnel Association. Mandal,A. and Deshmukh, S.G. (1994). Vendor Selection Using Interpretive Structural Modelling (ISM). International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 14 (6), 52 – 59. Terras, M. and Ramsay, J. (2012). The five central psychological challenges facing effective mobile learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(5), 820–832. Mooney, Carol Garhart. 2000. Theories of Childhood: An Introduction to Dewey, Montessori, Erikson, Piaget, and Vygotsky. Redleaf Press. 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 Distance Learning, 12(2), 78–102. Ruben R. Puentedura. (2006).Transformation, Technology, and Education. Retrieved on 12 September 2012 at http://hippasus.com/resources/tte/. Quinn, C. N. (2011). Designing mLearning: tapping into the mobile revolution for organizational performance. San Francisco, CA: Pfieffer SaedahSiraj, FadzilahSiraj, & Muhammad Helmi Norman (Eds.). (2011). mLearning: a new dimension of Curriculum advancement (1st ed.).Kuala Lumpur: University Malaya Press. Saran, M., Cagiltay, K., &Seferoglu, G. (2008). Use of mobile phones in language learning: Developing effective instructional materials. 5th International Conference on Wireless, Mobile and Ubiquitous Technologies in Education-WMUTE2008, p.39-43. Smidts, M., Hordijk, R., & Huizenga, J. (2008). The world as a learning environment– playful and creative use of GPS and mobile technology in education. Retrieved from http://www.mobieleonderwijsdiensten.nl/attachments/1765201/World_as_learningenv ironment.pdf So, H. J., Kim, I. S., &Looi, C. K. (2008). Seamless mobile learning: Possibilities and challenges arising from the Singapore experience. Educational Technology International, 9(2), 97-121. Traxler (2007). Current State of Mobile Learning. International Review on Research in Open and Distance Learning (IRRODL), 8(2). Truby, D. (2010). What Really Motivates Kids. Instructor, 119(4), 26-29.


400


Warfield, J. N. (1973a). An assault on complexity, Battelle Monograph No 3, Battelle Memorial Institute, Columbus. Ohio, USA. Warfield, J. N. (1 973b). 'Intent structures'. IEEE Trans on System, Man and Cybeni, SMC3(2), 133-140. Warfield, J. N. (1974). Structuring complex systems, Battelle Monograph No 4, Battelle Memorial Institute, Columbus. Ohio, USA. Warfield, J. N. (1974b). 'Developing subsystems matrices in structural modelling', IEEE Trans Syst, Man and Cybem.SMC 4(1), 74-80, 81-87. Warfield, J. N. (1976). Societal systems: planning. policyand complexity, John Wiley & Sons Inc. New York, USA. Warfield, J. N. (1982). 'Interpretive structural modelling'. In: Olsen, S. A. (ed), Group planning and problem solving methods in engineering management. John Wiley and Sons, Inc, New York, USA. Zijian, G. and Wallace, J.D. (2012). A Comparative Analysis of iPad and Other M-learning Technologies: Exploring Students’ View of Adoption, Potentials, and Challenges. Journal of Literacy and Technology, 13(1), 2-29.


401

Implementation Model of Mlearning Based Discovery Learning on Teacher Education

Recommend Documents