DEVELOPMENT OF A PROBLEM-POSING MULTIMEDIA MODULE AND
ITS EFFECTIVENESS TO ENHANCE STUDENT PERFORMANCE IN FORM
FOUR BIOLOGY
By
NOR TUTIAINI BT AB. WAHID
Thesis Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies, Universiti
Putra Malaysia, in Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
May 2019
All material contained within the thesis, including without limitation text, logos,
icons, photographs and all other artwork, is copyright material of Universiti
Putra Malaysia unless otherwise stated. Use may be made of any material
contained within the thesis for non-commercial purposes from the copyright
holder. Commercial use of material may only be made with the express, prior,
written permission of Universiti Putra Malaysia.
Copyright © Universiti Putra Malaysia
Abstract of thesis presented to the Senate of Universiti Putra Malaysia in
fulfilment of the requirement for Doctor of Philosophy
DEVELOPMENT OF A PROBLEM-POSING MULTIMEDIA MODULE AND
ITS EFFECTIVENESS TO ENHANCE STUDENT PERFORMANCE IN FORM
FOUR BIOLOGY
By
NOR TUTIAINI BT AB. WAHID
May 2019
Chair: Othman Talib, EdD
Faculty: Educational Studies
Learning and teaching activities in education are crucial in presenting
permanent and meaningful learning to science students. This study aims to
develop Problem-Posing Multimedia Module (PROPOSE-M) and to test its
effectiveness in enhancing students‘ performance in Biology subject as
compared to the traditional teaching method (TRAD). This study extends the
Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning (CTML) by integrating it with the
problem-posing instructional strategy (PPIS) that championed the skills of
communication, collaboration, creativity, and critical thinking. This study applied
Design and Development Research (DDR) approach. ADDIE model (Analyse,
Design, Develop, Implement and Evaluate) was used to develop PROPOSE-M.
Three research questions were formulated for this study; (1) What are the
components needed to develop PROPOSE-M for teaching the concept of
osmosis and diffusion among Form Four Biology Students? (2) Is there any
significant difference in the mean score between the PROPOSE-M and the
traditional teaching method (TRAD) group? (3) To what extent PROPOSE-M
could enhance student‘s conceptual change compared to TRAD? To seek the
answers, a sequential mixed method approach encompassing interview, survey
and quasi-experimental techniques was adopted. Two groups of students from
two different schools in Petaling Perdana District were involved in the study of
which are the experimental group (PROPOSE-M) (n=31) and one control group
(TRAD) (n=30), and both groups have equivalent characteristics. Students'
performance was analysed using the mean score of pre-test, post-test and
retention-test. The main findings show that the mean scores of students who
were exposed to newly-developed PROPOSE-M are significantly higher to
students who were exposed to TRAD in post-test with t (47) = 2.866, p < .05.
The results from retention-test also revealed that PROPOSE-M has not just
enhanced students' conceptual understanding but also retained students'
i
memory longer compared to TRAD with t (59) = 3.845, p < .05. PROPOSE-M
also could enhance students' performance in both LOTS and HOTS as it builds
conceptual change among students. The implication of this study can be seen
in terms of practice in the school context in which it provides an alternative tool
for teaching and learning Biology. Further, this study also provides an
instructional model as a guideline that could benefit teacher in planning steps
to be taken to encourage problem-posing in Biology curriculum.
ii
Abstrak tesis yang dikemukakan kepada Senat Universiti Putra Malaysia
sebagai memenuhi keperluan untuk ijazah Doktor Falsafah
PEMBANGUNAN MODUL PROBLEM-POSING MULTIMEDIA DAN
KEBERKESANANNYA UNTUK MENINGKATKAN PENCAPAIAN PELAJAR
DI DALAM BIOLOGI TINGKATAN EMPAT
Oleh
NOR TUTIAINI BT AB. WAHID
Mei 2019
Pengerusi: Othman Talib, EdD
Fakulti: Pengajian Pendidikan
Aktiviti pengajaran dan pembelajaran merupakan faktor penting dalam dunia
pendidikan untuk menyampaikan pembelajaran yang berkesan dan bermakna
kepada pelajar sains. Kajian ini bertujuan membangun satu modul pengajaran
dinamakan modul Problem-Posing Multimedia (PROPOSE-M) dan menguji
keberkesanan modul ini dalam meningkatkan pencapaian pelajar di dalam
subjek Biologi berbanding kaedah pengajaran tradisional (TRAD). Kajian ini
mengembangkan aplikasi Teori Pembelajaran Kognitif Multimedia dengan
menggabungkan teori tersebut dengan strategi pengajaran problem-posing
dengan memasukkan elemen komunikasi, kolaborasi, kreativiti dan pemikiran
kritis. Kajian ini menggunakan pendekatan penyelidikan pembangunan (DDR).
Model reka bentuk pengajaran ADDIE (Analyse, Design, Develop, Implement,
Evaluate) digunakan untuk membangunkan PROPOSE-M. Tiga soalan kajian
telah diformulasi iaitu (1) Apakah komponen dalam kajian yang diperlukan
untuk membangunkan PROPOSE-M bagi mengajar konsep osmosis dan
resapan di kalangan pelajar Biologi Tingkatan 4? (2) Adakah terdapat
perbezaan skor min yang signifikan di antara kumpulan PROPOSE-M dan
kumpulan TRAD? (3) Sejauh manakah PROPOSE-M berupaya meningkatkan
perubahan konsep kumpulan PROPOSE-M berbanding kumpulan TRAD?
Soalan kajian akan dijawab menggunakan pendekatan kuantitatif dan kualitatif
secara berturutan merangkumi temubual, tinjauan dan kuasi-eksperimen. Dua
kumpulan pelajar dari dua buah sekolah di Daerah Petaling Perdana iaitu
kumpulan eksperimen (PROPOSE-M) (n=31) dan kumpulan kawalan (TRAD)
(n=30) yang mempunyai ciri-ciri setara terlibat di dalam kajian ini. Pencapaian
pelajar di analisis menggunakan skor ujian pra, ujian pasca dan ujian
pengekalan. Keputusan kajian menunjukkan pelajar yang didedahkan kepada
PROPOSE-M mendapat min skor yang lebih tinggi secara signifikan di dalam
ujian pasca berbanding pelajar yang didedahkan kepada TRAD dengan nilai t
iii
(47) = 2.866, p < .05. Keputusan ujian pengekalan juga menunjukkan modul
PROPOSE-M berpotensi bukan sahaja meningkatkan pemahaman konsep
tetapi membolehkan pelajar menyimpan maklumat dalam ingatan jangka
panjang lebih lama berbanding strategi pengajaran TRAD dengan nilai t (59) =
3.845, p < .05. Implikasi kajian ini boleh dilihat dari segi praktikal di dalam
konteks sekolah dimana PROPOSE-M boleh digunakan sebagai alat bantu
mengajar alternatif untuk Biologi. Kajian ini juga menyediakan model strategi
pengajaran yang bertindak sebagai garis panduan bagi guru untuk
melaksanakan problem-posing di dalam kelas.
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I would like to first say a very big thank you to my supervisor Dr Othman Talib
who has been a big supporter of me through the ups and the downs for the
past three years and his support has kept me sane and determined to get to
the finish line. Without his guidance and constant feedback, this PhD would not
have been achievable. Thank you to my supervisory committee, Dr Tajularipin
Sulaiman and Dr Mohd Hazwan Mohd Puad for their constructive supervision
and have consistently provided me with excellent feedback to improve the end
product.
I gratefully acknowledge the funding received towards my PhD from Universiti
Putra Malaysia (UPM) through UPM Grant GP-IPS/2018/9636800 that has
partially funded my research.
My thanks also go out to the Ministry of Education (MOE) and Selangor State
Education Department for their approvals to conduct my research at schools in
Selangor. I am also very grateful to all those teachers and students at schools
where I conducted my study who were always helpful and provided me with
their assistance throughout my fieldwork. My deep appreciation goes out to all
the experts who were involved in my study for providing me with excellent
feedback and valuable advice in completing my module development.
I am also very grateful to my best friend, Nor Hafizah, who helped me in
numerous ways during various stages of my PhD. I would also like to say a
heartfelt thank you to my Mum and my late Dad for always believing in me and
encouraging me to follow my dreams. And finally, to my dear husband, Irfan
who has been by my side throughout this PhD, living every single minute of it,
and without whom, I would not have had the courage to embark on this journey
in the first place. And to my darling Rayyan and Iris for being such good little
babies (they will always be my babies) and making it possible for me to
complete what I started.
v
vi
This thesis was submitted to the Senate of Universiti Putra Malaysia and has
been accepted as fulfilment of the requirement for the degree of Doctor of
Philosophy. The members of the Supervisory Committee were as follows:
Othman bin Talib, EdD
Senior Lecturer
Faculty of Educational Studies
Universiti Putra Malaysia
(Chairman)
Tajularipin bin Sulaiman, PhD
Associate Professor
Faculty of Educational Studies
Universiti Putra Malaysia
(Member)
Mohd Hazwan bin Mohd Puad, PhD
Associate Professor
Faculty of Educational Studies
Universiti Putra Malaysia
(Member)
_______________________________
ROBIAH BINTI YUNUS, PhD
Professor and Dean
School of Graduate Studies
Universiti Putra Malaysia
Date:
vii
Declaration by graduate student
I hereby confirm that:
this thesis is my original work;
quotations, illustrations and citations have been duly referenced;
this thesis has not been submitted previously or concurrently for any other
degree at any other institutions;
intellectual property from the thesis and copyright of thesis are fully-owned
by Universiti Putra Malaysia, as according to the Universiti Putra Malaysia
(Research) Rules 2012;
written permission must be obtained from supervisor and the office of
Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Research and Innovation) before thesis is
published (in the form of written, printed or in electronic form) including
books, journals, modules, proceedings, popular writings, seminar papers,
manuscripts, posters, reports, lecture notes, learning modules or any other
materials as stated in the Universiti Putra Malaysia (Research) Rules
2012;
there is no plagiarism or data falsification/fabrication in the thesis, and
scholarly integrity is upheld as according to the Universiti Putra Malaysia
(Graduate Studies) Rules 2003 (Revision 2012-2013) and the Universiti
Putra Malaysia (Research) Rules 2012. The thesis has undergone
plagiarism detection software.
Signature: ________________________ Date: __________________
Name and Matric No.: _______________________________________
viii
Declaration by Members of Supervisory Committee
This is to confirm that:
the research conducted and the writing of this thesis was under our
supervision;
supervision responsibilities as stated in the Universiti Putra Malaysia
(Graduate Studies) Rules 2003 (Revision 2012-2013) are adhered to.
Signature: __________________________
Name of Dr. Othman bin Talib
Chairman of
Supervisory
Committee:
Signature: __________________________
Name of Assoc. Prof. Dr. Tajularpin bin Sulaiman
Chairman of
Supervisory
Committee:
Signature: __________________________
Name of Dr. Mohd Hazwan bin Mohd Puad
Chairman of
Supervisory
Committee:
ix
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page
ABSTRACT i
ABSTRAK iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT v
APPROVAL vi
DECLARATION viii
LIST OF TABLES xiii
LIST OF FIGURES xv
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS xviii
LIST OF APPENDICES xix
CHAPTER 1
1
1 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Introduction 4
1.2 Research Background 6
1.3 Problem Statement 6
1.4 Research Objective 7
1.5 Research Question 7
1.6 Hypothesis 7
1.7 Operational Definition 8
1.7.1 Problem Posing Multimedia Module (PROPOSE-M) 8
1.7.2 Traditional Teaching Method (TRAD) 8
1.7.3 The Validation of PROPOSE-M 8
1.7.4 Lower Order Thinking Skills (LOTS) 9
1.7.5 Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) 9
1.7.6 Students‘ Performance 9
1.7.7 Conceptual Change 10
1.8 Significant of Study 11
1.9 Limitation of Study 11
1.10 Thesis Structure
1.11 Conclusion 12
12
2 LITERATURE REVIEW 12
2.1 Introduction 15
2.2 Biology Curriculum in Malaysia 17
2.2.1 Why Osmosis and Diffusion? 18
2.2.2 Multimedia in Biology Curriculum 20
2.2.3 Problem-Posing and Biology Curriculum 22
2.3 Design and Development Research (DDR) 22
2.4 Theory Related to Study 23
2.4.1 A Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning 24
2.4.2 Problem-Posing Theory 26
2.4.3 Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS)
2.5 Theoretical Framework
x
2.6 Conceptual framework 27
2.7 Conclusion 29
3 METHODOLOGY 30
3.1 Introduction 30
3.2 Research Design 30
3.3 Data Collection Technique 31
3.4 Module Development 31
3.4.1 Analysis 32
3.4.2 Design 35
3.4.3 Development 36
3.4.4 Implementation 38
3.4.5 Evaluation 40
3.5 Minimizing the Potential Threats in Quasi-Experiment 42
3.5.1 External Validity 43
3.5.2 Internal Validity 43
3.6 Sampling and Population 46
3.7 Instrumentation 48
3.7.1 Instruments for Module Development 48
3.7.2 Instruments for Evaluation 49
3.8 Data Analysis 50
3.8.1 Content Analysis 50
3.9 Conclusion 55
4 MODULE DEVELOPMENT 56
4.1 Introduction 56
4.2 Analysis Phase 56
4.3 Design Phase 70
4.4 Development Phase 75
4.4.1 Expert Validation of PROPOSE-M 82
4.5 Implementation Phase 86
4.5.1 Classroom Observation 86
4.6 Evaluation Phase 94
4.7 Conclusion 94
5 FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION 96
5.1 Introduction 96
5.2 The Effectiveness of PROPOSE-M 96
5.2.1 Preliminary Analysis 96
5.2.2 Results of Pre-test, Post-test and Retention-test 98
5.2.3 Results of HOTS and LOTS Questions 103
5.3 Students‘ Conceptual Change 111
5.3.1 Open-ended Questionnaire 111
5.3.2 Clinical Interview 118
5.4 Discussion 136
5.5 Conclusion 143
6 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 144
FOR FUTURE RESEARCH 144
6.1 Introduction
xi
6.2 Summary 144
6.3 Implications 145
145
6.3.1 Theoretical Implications 147
6.3.2 Practical Implications 148
6.4 Recommendation for further research 149
6.5 Conclusion
151
REFERENCES 162
APPENDICES 270
BIODATA OF STUDENT 271
LIST OF PUBLICATIONS
xii
LIST OF TABLES
Table Students‘ Enrolment in Science Subjects Page
1.1 Scientific Skills and Thinking Skills That Correlate 2
2.1 Percentage of HOTS Questions Implemented in SPM 13
2.2 Themes and Chapters in Form 4 Biology 13
2.3 Two Types of DDR 15
2.4 DDR and ADDIE Model Relationship 21
3.1 Characteristics in PROPOSE-M and TRAD Group 32
3.2 A Summary of Data Analysis Technique Employed 46
3.3 Problem-posing Strategies and Activities by Paper 52
4.1 Findings Summary for Design Phase 63
4.2 Content Validity Measurement 74
4.3 Contents Validity Measurement for Language Used 82
4.4 Content Validity Measurement for Suitability of 83
4.5 Session and Activities 84
Analysis of Missing Data
5.1 Analysis of Compute Empirical Data 97
5.2 Test of Normality (Shapiro Wilk) 97
5.3 Test of Normality (Skewness and Kurtosis) 98
5.4 Mean Score and Standard Deviation (Pre-test) 98
5.5 Descriptive Analysis (Pre-test) 99
5.6 Mean Score and Standard Deviation (Post-test) 99
5.7 Descriptive Analysis (Post-test) 100
5.8 Mean Score and Standard Deviation (Retention-test) 100
5.9 101
xiii
5.10 Descriptive Analysis (Retention-test) 101
5.11 Means Score and Standard Deviation 102
5.12 Descriptive Analysis (PROPOSE-M Group) 102
5.13 Mean Score and Standard Deviation 103
5.14 Descriptive Analysis (TRAD Group) 103
5.15 Mahalanobis Distance Critical Value 104
5.16 Levene‘s Test Analysis 104
5.17 Analysis of Mean 105
5.18 Descriptive Analysis for Pre-test (LOTS and HOTS) 105
106
5.19 Levene‘s Test Analysis
5.20 Analysis of Mean 107
5.21 Descriptive Analysis for Post-test (LOTS and HOTS) 107
5.22 Levene‘s Test Analysis 108
5.23 Analysis of Mean 108
5.24 Descriptive Analysis for Retention-test (LOTS and 109
HOTS)
5.25 Analysis of Mean 109
5.26 MANOVA Repeated Measures (PROPOSE-M 110
Group)
5.27 Analysis of Mean 110
5.28 MANOVA Repeated Measures (TRAD Group) 111
5.29 Students Gained Score 119
5.30 Results of Hypothesis Testing 139
xiv
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Thinking Skills and Thinking Strategies (TSTS) Model Page
2.1 Lower Order Thinking Skills (LOTS) 14
2.2 Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) 25
2.3 Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning 25
2.4 Conceptual Framework 27
2.5 Summary of SLR Method 28
3.1 ADDIE-DDR Type 1 and Type 2 Integration (Phase 35
3.2 Summarisation) 41
Qualitative Data Analysis
3.3 The Importance of Osmosis and Diffusion Theme 51
4.1 The Problems in Teaching and Learning Biology 57
4.2 Theme 58
The Teaching Strategy Theme
4.3 The Desired Improvement Theme 60
4.4 Critical Thinking Theme 62
4.5 Communication Theme 67
4.6 Collaboration Theme 68
4.7 Creativity Theme 68
4.8 Strategies and Activities Implemented in PROPOSE-M 68
4.9 Main Interface 70
4.10 Contents Interface 71
4.11 PROPOSE-M Instructional Strategy Model 72
4.12 Main Interface 74
4.13 Subtopic Interface 76
4.14 76
xv
4.15 Arrow Indicator on Clicking 77
77
4.16 Interactive Button 78
79
4.17 Facilitated Diffusion Animation 79
81
4.18 3D Animation of ‗Fluid Mosaic Model‘ 87
89
4.19 Animation Presentation in Bahasa Melayu 89
90
4.20 Posing a Problem Activity 90
91
4.21 PROPOSE-M Classroom 91
92
4.22 Students Participated in Problem-Posing Activities 93
112
4.23 LOQ Created by Student1 113
114
4.24 HOQ Created by Student1 115
4.25 LOQ Created by Student2 115
116
4.26 HOQ Created by Student2 117
118
4.27 Student‘s Answers for HOTS Task
120
4.28 TRAD Classroom
4.29 Lecturing Session in TRAD Classroom
5.1 Strength in PROPOSE-M
5.2 Weaknesses in PROPOSE-M
5.3 Improvements for PROPOSE-M
5.4 Factors in PROPOSE-M that Improve Students
Understanding
5.5 Strength in TRAD
5.6 Weaknesses in TRAD
5.7 Improvements for TRAD
5.8 Factors in TRAD that Improve Students‘
Understanding
5.9 Amirah‘s Answer for Concept of Osmosis
xvi
5.10 Sarah‘s Misconception about Osmosis 122
5.11 Ayu‘s Answer for Concept of Diffusion 124
5.12 Maria‘s Answer for Concept of Diffusion 125
5.13 Siti‘s Answer for Hypertonic Solution Concept 127
5.14 Amirah‘s Answer for Hypertonic Solution Concept 128
5.15 Siti‘s Answer for Hypertonic Solution Concept 129
5.16 Syafiq‘s Answer for Hypertonic Solution Concept 130
5.17 Syafiq‘s Answer for Hypertonic Solution Concept 131
5.18 Maria‘s Answers for Hypertonic Solution Concepts 132
5.19 Siti‘s Answer for Permeability Concept 133
5.20 Azreena‘s Answer for Permeability Concept 134
5.21 Sarah‘s Answer for Permeability Concept 135
5.22 Mean Scores for Pre-test, Post-test and Retention-test 137
5.23 Mean Scores for LOTS Questions 138
5.24 Mean Scores for HOTS Questions 138
xvii
MOE LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
HOTS
LOTS Ministry of Education
CTML Higher Order Thinking Skills
PPIS Lower Order Thinking Skills
PROPOSE-M Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning
TRAD Problem-posing Instructional Strategy
DDR Problem-posing Multimedia Module
SPM Traditional Teaching Method
TSTS Design and Development Research
ADDIE Malaysia Certificate of Education
Thinking Skills and Thinking Strategies
RBT Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation and
SLR Evaluate
PCM Revised Bloom Taxonomy
LOQ Systematic Literature Review
HOQ Percentage Calculation Method
Lower Order Questions
Higher Order Questions
xviii
LIST OF APPENDICES Page
164
Appendix 166
A Personal Details Form 167
B Consent Form 168
C Letter of Appointment for Experts 169
D Approval Letter from MOE
E Approval Letter from Selangor State Education 170
Department 171
F Approval Letter for Students‘ Data 172
G Approval Letter for Selangor Data 173
H Letter of Appointments for Teachers 174
I Semi-structured Interview Questions 179
J Questionnaire for Content Validation
K Questionnaire for Suitability of Session and 185
Activities 187
L Questionnaire for Content Validation (Language) 191
M Questionnaire for Reliability Measurement 197
N Validation Form 221
O PROPOSE-M (Booklet) 247
P Assessment Sheet 249
Q Class Observation List 251
R Open-ended Questionnaire 251
S Descriptive Statistic (Pilot Study) 254
T Implementation Activities 255
U Descriptive Statistic (Independent t-test)
V Descriptive Statistic (Paired T-test)
xix
W Descriptive Statistic (One Way MANOVA) 256
268
X Descriptive Statistic (MANOVA Repeated
Measures)
xx
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Introduction
This chapter discusses the main concepts of the research. It starts by
presenting the research background in problem-posing instructional strategy
before addressing and associating the strategy with problems pertaining to
teaching and learning Biology. Arguing the need to address the issue, the
research goal and aims are discussed. In the succeeding sections, the
research questions and research hypothesis are presented respectively. Later,
the operational definition, significance and limitation of the study are expanded
in subsequent sections. The chapter closes with a summary of the thesis
organisation.
1.2 Research Background
It has been a profound global understanding that science plays a major role to
promote technological innovation and to prepare competitive and marketable
future students (Borrego & Henderson, 2014; Rahman, Halim, Ahmad, & Soh,
2018; Xie, Fang, & Shauman, 2015). With the advancement of technology that
inevitably impacted education, science education and technology are
undeniably inseparable. Looking at the urgent need to answer the demand for
science-based students to accelerate the development of the nation, teachers
are put in a critical role to produce quality teaching and learning aids. This
demand has forced teachers to be equipped with technological-pedagogical
content knowledge and skills; as it is to be used in integrating the technology to
instruct students, namely, the pedagogical part, and provide students with deep
meaningful learning (Kincheloe & Berry, 2004; Sousa, 2016).
To meet those challenges in science education, Malaysia, like other nations,
has been witnessing series of drastic and dynamic reform in its educational
system. One great example is the newly revamped curriculum specification for
science subjects to fit local students (Mansor et al., 2015; Raub, Shukor,
Arshad, & Rosli, 2015; Sumintono, 2013). Noteworthy, students‘ performance
in science subjects has been deteriorating in the local educational system, and
debates have heated up in local and international literature to pinpoint its
cause. Historically, the Curriculum Development Centre, Ministry of Education
(MOE) was established, and it is assigned to implement research and
development, illuminated by examination syndicate reports and a vast number
of research papers and literature that highlighted the issue. However, despite
the modifications and exhausting effort to revamp the curriculum, students‘
performance in science subjects kept deteriorating year after year.
The circumstance has worsened after it was found that students enrolment in
science stream was in the declining rate over the years (Alias, Masek, &
1
Salleh, 2015; Hiong & Osman, 2013). This has created a wakeup call for the
government to look into their current policy that was set in 1967, targeted to
achieve a ratio of 60:40 science to non-science students at the Upper
Secondary School (Hiong & Osman, 2013). This policy is set as a measure to
encourage student‘s enrolment in science stream. However, more than fifty
decades later, instead of coming closer to that ratio, Malaysia is critically way
behind to achieve the target ration.
In the Malaysian education system, the secondary education system is divided
to two levels, the Lower Secondary level consists of Form One to Form Three
students, and Upper Secondary level for Form Four and Form Five. During
enrolment to the Upper Secondary level, they must choose at least two science
subjects from these options: Chemistry, Physics or Biology. However, statistic
data by MOE has found that students‘ enrolment in Biology is ranked as the
lowest, compared to Physics and Chemistry. This indicates that Biology subject
is the least favourable among students at Upper Secondary level. The
unanimous reason for the disinterest is due to students‘ misperception of the
Biology subject as a tough subject and involves lots of memorising facts
(Hasni, Roy, & Dumais, 2016; Miri, David, & Uri, 2007; Zeidan, 2010). Table
1.1 shows the students‘ enrolment in Chemistry, Physics and Biology subjects
for three consecutive years in Malaysia and Selangor state.
Table 1.1. Students’ Enrolment in Science Subjects
Students Enrolment
Malaysia Selangor
Year Biology Physics Chemistry Biology Physics Chemistry
2015 96,404 117,215 119,645 17,303 21,445 21,653
2016 78,540 97,141 99,225 14,130 18,220 18,440
2017 76,484 95,342 97,095 14,032 18,188 18,407
(Source: Malaysian Examination Syndicates, MOE, 2018)
Another indicator for Malaysian students‘ worrying performance in science
education comes from international studies such as the Trends in International
Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) and Programme for International
Student Assessment (PISA). From TIMSS and PISA results, Malaysian
students‘ performance is below par; this has become a wake-up call for the
Malaysian government to improve the quality of teaching in Science and
Mathematics. Once again, in 2013, the Science curriculum was changed as
The Malaysian Education Blueprint produced by MOE (2013) introduced the
cultivation of higher order thinking skills (HOTS). This forces teachers to
strategically embed these skills when planning and implementing their
instructional strategy.
The decision was made upon debates fuelled in numerous platforms, including
the body of literature pertaining to education, political and research
2
conferences, that urge the inclusion of HOTS to produce students as adaptable
citizens in the challenging workforce and life (e.g. Ansari, Abd Rahman,
Badgujar, Sami, & Abdullah, 2015; Cho & Brown, 2013; Nardone & Lee, 2010;
Wang, Moore, Roehrig, & Park, 2011). In the perspectives of scholars and
educationists, HOTS mirror the extent problem solving and critical thinking
skills among many other good values, are the prerequisites for learning science
subjects.
In relation to technology, as aforementioned, there are significant studies
suggesting the role of technology to facilitate students learning and enhancing
HOTS during teaching and learning (Aksoy, 2012; Alias et al., 2014; Hopson,
Simms, & Knezek, 2001). Realising the importance of technology, witnessed
the new curriculum infusing the elements of technology, or better known as
ICT. The introduction of new ICT subject known as ‗Information and
Communication Technology Literacy‘ for Form One and Form Two is a
testament that was seen in the words of Elliot, Wilson, and Boyle (2014), that
the use of technology encourages constructive and meaningful learning.
Students must learn beyond receiving information, but they must manage,
analyse, critique and transform the information into meaningful and usable
knowledge. Hence, learning using technology as tools seems reasonable for
engaging students in problem-solving and critical thinking since it serves a dual
role: as the delivery mechanisms for instruction and the future platforms for
students‘ activity.
Interestingly, technology-based Biology courseware has been provided by the
MOE. Nevertheless, a quick look at the software indicates that there seems to
be plenty of rooms for improvements. For example, a plain 2D format
presentation in the courseware content felt unfit to illustrate a complex and
complicated biological process that occurs at a molecular stage, and this begs
the question on how students can imagine the process and grasp the idea and
concepts meaningfully.
The evolution of teaching approaches, for example, the inquiry-based learning
(IBL) and problem-based learning (PBL) shows that teaching strategy also
needs to evolve to adapt to the changes in the learning ecosystem. There is
numerous call for educators to embed HOTS in teachings using inquiry-based
learning (IBL) to promote HOTS. It is argued that IBL encourages learning by
asking students to ask questions in order to solve problems, but, thus far, the
statistics show not many students are brave enough to ask questions in
classroom (Crippen & Archambault, 2012; Jones et al., 2012; Kojima, Miwa, &
Matsui, 2013). It is found that teachers normally provide students with
questions or problems to be solved to encourage HOTS (e.g.,Crippen &
Archambault, 2012; Fensham & Bellocchi, 2013; Mishra & Iyer, 2015; Saido,
Siraj, Nordin, & Amedy, 2015; Wang et al., 2011). With the intensifying call for
HOTS-infused teaching, it is therefore timely to also reflect on the teaching aids
that could be used to help teachers to teach to their students better.
One way of doing it is by shifting the role of asking questions, to students
instead of the teacher as done in Mathematics (Akay & Boz, 2010; Chen, Dorn,
3
Krawitz, Lim, & Mourshed, 2017; Land, 2017; Leung, 2013; Rosli, Capraro, &
Capraro, 2014) but is lacking in science subjects to date. Better still, with the
emerging of technology trend in learning, students now can be creative in
posing their own questions and solve their own problems in understanding a
specific topic. Thus, it is just in time to rebrand the instructional strategy and
teaching aids to teach science subjects, specifically Biology, to address the
new challenges in education.
1.3 Problem Statement
The worrying degree of students‘ level to use HOTS is shown in TIMSS and
PISA standard international reference that evaluate students‘ science and
mathematics level. Many studies reported that teachers view students today do
not possess the capacity to think critically and unable to solve the problem
creatively (Fensham & Bellocchi, 2013; Gough, 2014; Haahr, 2005; Ritz & Fan,
2014; Siew, Amir, & Chong, 2015). Therefore, to many scholars and
educationist, it seems vital to revisit the current teaching approach and strategy
at school level (Fensham & Bellocchi, 2013; Gough, 2014). Critical elements
are highlighted such as communication, and critical thinking, that allows for
problem-solving and meaningful learning and prepare them for attainable future
life and career. In this regard, science appears to be the most affected subject
because the scientific skills embedded within, such as experimenting,
interpreting data and making a hypothesis that encourages the ability to plan
for solutions and solve problems.
Malaysian curriculum starts to embed instructional strategies that aim to
nurture thinking skills in the classroom. However, there are concerns that the
dominated teacher-centred practised by science teachers by just giving direct
instruction to students has resulted to rote-learning method that makes
students tend to memorise the facts rather than understand the concepts being
taught (Fensham & Bellocchi, 2013; Hasni et al., 2016; Miri et al., 2007). This
situation creates a struggle for students to apply the knowledge to solve higher
order thinking problems which require HOTS such as analysing, evaluating and
creating. However, it is required that students need to occupy lower order
thinking skills (LOTS) such as remembering, understanding and applying prior
to acquire HOTS. Thus, LOTS and HOTS needed to be reconciled during
teaching and learning processes to promote meaningful learning among
students.
Biology is considered as a tough subject because it consists a lot of dynamic
and abstract processes and it is often misunderstood by students as the
subject that requires a lot of memorising facts (Yarden & Yarden, 2010).
Students face difficulties in understanding the concepts and various biological
events that are unfamiliar and cannot be seen by the naked eye (Çimer, 2012).
Further, it is acknowledged static illustration is not adequate to explain the
dynamic and abstract concept in Biology, which leads to a misconception
among students (Artun & Coştu, 2013).
4
Research has found that students‘ misconceptions were due to different
experience possessed by students and their ideas and explanations of the
natural world are often different from those presented by scientists (Tekkaya,
2003). It is reported that misconceptions are hard to break, especially through
traditional teaching methods (Fisher, 1985). When the abstracts processes
were presented to students in a way that is difficult to be understood, they will
tend to ignore the new concepts and choose to stick to their beliefs that were
already developed based on their own experiences. During the examination,
students who are unable to grasp accurate concepts would be unable to
answer HOTS questions correctly, and this subsequently would affect their
performance in Biology.
This problem is further intensified by the time constraint issue faced by
teachers to develop and prepare alternative tools to teach, resulting in
instructional strategy to be stereotyped (Rahman et al., 2018; Seman, Yusoff, &
Embong, 2017). Despite the challenges, there have been some initiatives to
modify and innovate the way the topics were taught as teachers start to use
multimedia in the classroom. However, not all multimedia elements can help
students to have a better understanding because some of them may increase
the cognitive load of students hence reducing their learning experience (Mayer,
2010). The effective multimedia module should be mindful on how it is able to
enhance students‘ cognitive abilities and reduce the cognitive load among
students.
A study by Beal and Cohen (2012) in US found that traditional instructional
practice commonly used in the classrooms provide students with questions
prepared by teacher or taken from the textbook. This situation is similar to the
situation in the classroom in Malaysia as described by Dewitt, Alias, & Siraj,
(2016). There is an urging need to blend in problem-solving with another
instructional strategy to enable students to think across the lower to the higher
cognitive levels. It is noted that, in Mathematics, it is now becoming a trend to
use a problem-posing strategy to engage the student in thinking activity.
However, studies on problem-posing implementation in Biology subject has not
been picked up intensively. Thus, more studies are needed to gauge the
effectiveness of problem-posing as an instructional strategy in Biology.
Hence, this study focuses on the development of a multimedia module that can
facilitate students to visualise the abstract and dynamic processes regarding
the concepts and applications in Biology. This module was also designed to
help teachers deliver the content of the subject without worrying about time
constraint to develop teaching materials. This module integrates the cognitive
theory of multimedia learning (CTML) and inquiry learning through problem-
posing instructional strategy (PPIS) to deliver the topic and subsequently
enhances LOTS and HOTS among students.
5
1.4 Research Objective
This research is designed to:
1. develop a teaching and learning module applying a problem-posing
instructional strategy (PPIS) integrated into a multimedia-based
presentation for teaching Biology namely as Problem-Posing Multimedia
Module (PROPOSE-M).
2. compare the effectiveness of Problem-Posing Multimedia Module
(PROPOSE-M) to the traditional teaching method (TRAD) with regards to
lower order thinking skills (LOTS) and higher order thinking skills (HOTS)
ability achievement in learning Biology.
3. explore the conceptual change on students in analysing the concept of
Biology after undergoing Problem-Posing Multimedia Module (PROPOSE-
M) and traditional teaching method (TRAD).
1.5 Research Question
From the objectives of this study, three main research questions (RQ) have
been prepared to complete the study. Further, to fill the gaps, RQ1 and RQ2
are subdivided into the sub-research questions. Research questions (RQ) for
this study are:
RQ1: What are the components needed to develop PROPOSE-M for teaching
the concept of osmosis and diffusion among Form Four Biology Students?
RQ1.1: Based on experts‘ opinion, to what extent developing
PROPOSE-M for teaching osmosis and diffusion concepts is necessary?
RQ1.2: How do the previous studies have implemented a problem-
posing instructional strategy in their studies?
RQ1.3: To what extent the validity and reliability of the module among
raters achieved?
RQ2: Are there any significant difference in the mean scores between the
PROPOSE-M and the TRAD group?
RQ2.1: Is there any significant difference in the mean score of pre-test,
post-test and retention-test between the PROPOSE-M and the TRAD
group?
RQ2.2: Is there any significant difference in the mean score of pre-test,
post-test and retention-test for LOTS and HOTS questions between the
PROPOSE-M and the TRAD group?
RQ3: To what extent PROPOSE-M could enhance student‘s conceptual
change compared to TRAD?
6
1.6 Hypothesis
Based on RQ2, ten hypotheses have been developed and tested through
statistical analysis.
H1 : There is a significant difference in the mean score of the pre-test
between PROPOSE-M and TRAD group.
H2 : There is a significant difference in the mean score of the post-test
between PROPOSE-M and TRAD group.
H3 : There is a significant difference in the mean score of the retention-test
between PROPOSE-M and TRAD group.
H4 : There is a significant difference in the mean score of the pre-test and
post-test for PROPOSE-M group.
H5 : There is a significant difference in the mean score of the pre-test and
post-test for the TRAD group.
H6 : There is a significant difference in the mean score of the pre-test LOTS
questions and the pre-test HOTS questions between PROPOSE-M and
TRAD group.
H7 : There is a significant difference in the mean score of the post-test LOTS
questions and the post-test HOTS questions between PROPOSE-M and
TRAD group.
H8 : There is a significant difference in the mean score of the retention-test
LOTS questions and the retention-test HOTS questions between
PROPOSE-M and TRAD group.
H9 : There is a significant difference in the mean score of pre-test, post-test
and retention-test for LOTS and HOTS questions for PROPOSE-M
group.
H10: There is a significant difference in the mean score of pre-test, post-test
and retention-test for LOTS and HOTS questions for TRAD group.
1.7 Operational Definition
1.7.1 Problem Posing Multimedia Module (PROPOSE-M)
Problem-posing is an instructional strategy where students generate their own
questions based on the content taught by their teacher (Cankoy, 2014). To
deliver the content of the lesson efficiently, multimedia presentation
underpinned by CTML was used as the main tool during content delivery. This
was then followed by hands-on activities outlined in a written module whereby
students used 4C element, namely, communication, collaboration, critical
thinking and creativity to complete the tasks in the module.
In this study, Problem-posing Multimedia Module (PROPOSE-M) is the module
that applies problem posing instructional strategy embedded in a package of
multimedia component and classroom activities. PROPOSE-M consists of two
parts, multimedia module and activity module. PROPOSE-M is developed by
integrating CTML with problem-posing instructional strategy (PPIS).
7
1.7.2 Traditional Teaching Method (TRAD)
Traditional teaching method (TRAD) is focused on rote-learning and
memorisation. In this approach, a lesson is dominated by teacher-centred
instruction, whereby students receive direct instruction from the teacher
(Peterson, 2016). Most of the classroom time, students will learn through
listening and observation (Richland & Simms, 2015) and it is majorly lecture-
based by which teacher is the sole knowledge-transmitter who delivers
knowledge by referring to the textbook (Çimer, 2012).
In this study, the TRAD group was taught using PowerPoint presentation that
showed notes and diagrams. Students copied the notes, and at certain
sessions, students worked in a group to discuss certain topic assigned by the
teacher and they then present their findings.
1.7.3 The Validation of PROPOSE-M
Validation is defined as the extent to which the module is accurate to measure
the content supposed to be measured during the teaching and learning
processes (Marshall, Smart, & Alston, 2016). In this study, the content validity
that inspected the content of the multimedia and the activity module took place
before the implementation of PROPOSE-M. This process involved experts in
the field of multimedia module and pedagogy. Apart from that, reliability, which
is referred to as the consistency and trustworthy of the measurement tools in
giving the same score to many individuals at the different time of exposure,
was also executed. In this study, reliability is determined during the pilot test
using one set of questionnaires with 31 items, developed based on objectives
in PROPOSE-M.
1.7.4 Lower Order Thinking Skills (LOTS)
Lower order thinking skills (LOTS) are the basic thinking skills that students
require before they move on to higher order thinking skills (HOTS). LOTS
involve knowledge, understanding and simple application level (Fensham &
Bellochi, 2013). In LOTS, students need to memorise, define, understand and
repeat the information they have learned in the classroom (Chiu & Mok, 2017).
In this study, students were tested using LOTS questions in the pre-test, post-
test and retention-test encompassing remembering, understanding and
applying as determined based on Revised Bloom Taxonomy (RBT) by
Anderson and Krathwol (2001).
1.7.5 Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS)
Higher order thinking skills (HOTS) is a concept of education based on learning
taxonomies that focus in the idea that some types of learning will require more
cognitive processing than others and this requires different learning and
teaching methods than the learning of LOTS (Fensham & Bellochi, 2013; Chiu
& Mok, 2017). Higher-order thinking involves the learning of complex
8
judgmental skills such as problem-solving and critical thinking that are usable in
other situations outside the learning context (Raub, Shukor, Arshad, & Rosli,
2015). In this study, students were tested using HOTS questions that involve
higher-level cognitive processes in the pre-test, post-test and retention-test
encompassing analysing, evaluating and creating skills which required them to
solve problems, plan and create solutions.
1.7.6 Students’ Performance
Students‘ performance can be defined as the extent to which students‘
academic performance meets the standards stipulated earlier in the curriculum,
which is demonstrated in their assignments, homework or written report (Lepp,
Barkley, & Karpinski, 2015; Haahr, 2005). In this study, students‘ performance
is represented by their scores in the pre-test, post-test and retention test. The
questions were separated into two levels: LOTS and HOTS questions. The
questions were marked and scored according to the marking scheme provided
by Malaysian Examination Syndicates.
1.7.7 Conceptual Change
Conceptual change can be defined as restructuring and modifying an old
concept into a new concept that can be logically entire, plausible and fertile
(Franke & Bogner, 2011). Students will learn and accept new concepts when
they feel unsatisfied with the old concepts that they understand previously
(Johnson & Sinatra, 2014). The new concepts than will become their new
beliefs and students will adopt these new beliefs in the lesson and in a daily
situation. In this study, the reconstruction of the information about osmosis and
diffusion between students exposed to PROPOSE-M and TRAD was explored.
The conceptual change occurs among students was explored through a clinical
interview conducted with students that have the highest gained score in pre-
test and post-test.
1.8 Significance of Study
Problem-posing is widely used as a pedagogical approach in mathematics
education (Singer & Voica, 2013) to promote critical thinking skills among
students. However, the usage is still at infant stage in Biology education.
Through previous studies pertaining to Mathematics, it is posited that through
problem-posing, students can use higher order thinking skills in completing the
challenging tasks. Therefore, it is believed that, by using problem-posing in
Biology, students will demonstrate similar capabilities.
Besides, to date, attempts to integrate multimedia presentation and problem-
posing in one instructional package is still at an infant stage in Malaysia.
Theoretically, this study aims to extend the literature by integrating a unique
problem-posing instructional strategy (PPIS) with the cognitive theory of
multimedia learning theory (CTML) to teach Biology subject.
9
Methodologically, this study took a different avenue by integrate DDR Type 1
and Type 2 which explained both: the systematic process to develop the
PROPOSE-M and simultaneously, focusing on the experimental design to test
the effectiveness of the module to the real respondents. This study perhaps will
enrich the literature review on how the integrating of DDR Type 1 and Type 2
can be done in one study.
Practically, this study potentially will provide an alternative tool to promote
LOTS and HOTS in the Biology classroom. This study would also provide an
alternative module for a Biology teacher to teach Biology in their classroom and
subsequently can overcome the time constraint issue to prepare teaching
material. This study would also provide a framework that acts as a guideline for
teachers on how they want to perform problem-posing activity in their
classroom. As past literature has shown that problem-posing will produce
promising proven results among students (Çildir & Sezen, 2011; Gonzales,
1998; Kojima et al., 2013; Sung, Hwang, & Chang, 2013), this study would
provide an empirical explanation for the effects of problem-posing to students‘
academic performance in Biology.
1.9 Limitations of Study
The samples for this study involved students from two equivalent daily schools
in Petaling Perdana district. This study involves Form Four students who were
enrolled in the Biology subject. The focus of this study is on the students‘
performance that acts as the dependent variable of this study, and the variable
is based on the test score gained during the pre-test, post-test and retention-
test that was administered to students from both schools. Further, the
conceptual change that occurs among students was explored based on the
basic and specific concepts of osmosis and diffusion, which were pre-
determined according to the curriculum.
The topic covered in this study is ‗The Movement of Substances across the
Plasma Membrane‘. This topic has been chosen because it contains
fundamental concepts of osmosis and diffusion that need to be applied later in
other topics across the curriculum in Biology. Based on study needs, the
cognitive theory of multimedia learning (CTML) by Mayer and Moreno (2002)
was employed and was integrated with the problem-posing instructional
strategy theory. The types of problem-posing activities employed in this study
would only focus on semi-structured and structured problem-posing because
the students involved in this study is considered as novice students.
10
1.10 Thesis Structure
This thesis is organised into five chapters. Chapter 1 introduces the issue
related to the topic under investigation. Chapter 2 critically reviews the relevant
literature in the research area, by particularly highlighting the absence of
studies which focus on the problem-posing instructional strategy with the aid of
the multimedia in Biology. To overcome this gap, a multimedia module
embedding problem-posing strategy is justified. It is then followed by an
explanation of how the significant variables are determined and included in the
framework.
Chapter 3 elaborates on the research methodology adapted to develop
PROPOSE-M, encompassing the theory that underpins the development, how
the tests were selected and executed for the hypothesis testing, including the
procedures for the quasi-experiment and clinical interview. While in Chapter 4,
elaborates on the module development processes encompassing five phases
of ADDIE. Chapter 5 drawing upon the implementation phase of the module,
interpretation of the empirical results is expanded. Chapter 5 also discusses
the qualitative findings to support the quantitative data and discusses the
overall findings of the research. Chapter 6 summarises the research
implication, provides recommendations for future research and draws
conclusions.
1.11 Conclusion
This chapter introduces the issue related to the topic under investigation.
Particularly, this chapter briefly explains the current scenario in the issue of
problem-posing strategy in the related area, hence rooms for addressing the
issues pertaining to Biology. Based on the argument presented, the research
objectives, the expected contributions, the operational definition and the overall
structure of this research are outlined. The next chapter offers discussion on
the existing literature and detailed explanation of the underpinning theories and
issues surrounding problem-posing strategy.
11
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Introduction
This chapter opens a discussion on the issues pertinent to the Biology
curriculum encompassing the teaching and learning process. In the initial
section, a brief overview of the Biology curriculum in Malaysia is presented,
followed by the emerging issues identified by the researcher, namely the lack
of thinking skills to solve problems. Based on the experience and readings, a
review on the literature that argues for the necessity to develop a learning
module emphasising HOTS for Biology subject is elaborated. As such, it paves
to a discussion on the body of literature pertaining to design and development
research (DDR) to show the need to develop a module that is paralleled with
the emerging trend of technological advancement in instructional strategy. This
has then led to a discussion on the related theory to develop a multimedia-
based module with the emphasis of problem-posing strategy. The chapter then
proceeds with the formulation of the theoretical framework and conceptual
framework. It concludes with a summary of the lessons learnt during the review
process that helps determine the research methodology presented in the next
chapter.
2.2 Biology Curriculum in Malaysia
The goal of the Biology curriculum at Upper Secondary level aims to provide
students with knowledge, science and technology skills. The skills would help
them to see life with a scientific attitude and moral values, which in return,
enables them to solve problems by making the right decision in life (MOE,
2012). Science subject such as Biology majorly focuses on inquiry method, and
problem-solving. Therefore, scientific skills and thinking skills are the two skills
needed in inquiry and problem solving (Udovic, Morris, Dickman, Postlethwait,
& Wetherwax, 2002).
Firstly, scientific skills are essential to finding solutions or answers, and making
the right decisions (Armbruster, Patel, Johnson, & Weiss, 2009). Scientific skills
are grouped into two types, which are science process skills and manipulative
skills. On the other hand, thinking skills are mental processes that encourage
critical, creative and systematic thinking, and they are closely correlated with
scientific skills (Curriculum Development Division, MOE, 2012). For examples,
when observing a laboratory activity, students were expected to utilise specific
thinking skills such as to characterise, compare, contrast and correlate
between what they have seen with the ideas and information that they have
obtained. The relationships between scientific skills and thinking skills are
summarised in Table 2.1 below.
12
Table 2.1. Scientific Skills and Thinking Skills That Correlate
Scientific Skills Thinking Skills
Measure using number Correlating
Observe Compare and contrast
Define operationally
Characterize
Compare and contrast
Correlating
Correlating
Using analogy
Mental visualisation
Analysing
(Source: Curriculum Specifications Biology Form 4, MOE, 2012)
In conjunction with the recent recognition of industrial revolution 4.0 (IR 4.0) in
education, HOTS has become the focus in education reform across all levels of
school in Malaysia (Bell, 2016; Richland & Simms, 2015). As a result, HOTS
questions have been instilled at all levels of assessment, including the national
public examination, such as the Malaysian Certificate of Education (SPM)
(MOE, 2014). These HOTS questions become an indicator to measure the
ability of students to apply HOTS while answering the questions. These
questions are developed to test students‘ ability in transferring their analysing
and evaluating skill to answer the questions. However, numerous studies
reported that student is more inclined to memorise, influenced by the rote-
learning style and this presents difficulties to answer HOTS questions in the
examination (Goldman & Scott, 2015; Keong, Ong, Hart, & Chen, 2016; Xie,
Fang, & Shauman, 2015). Table 2.2 shows the percentage of HOTS questions
in SPM examination level.
Table 2.2. Percentage of HOTS Questions Implemented in SPM
Years Percentage
2013 10%
2014 20%
2015 30%
2016 50%
(Source: HOTS Elements in Assessments, MOE, 2014)
In 2012, MOE came out with a specific model in the Biology curriculum to
nurture HOTS among students, known as thinking skills and thinking strategies
model (TSTS). The existing Biology curriculum is focused on TSTS to stimulate
thoughtful learning among students (Hiong & Osman, 2013). The main
structure of TSTS that involved HOTS components are divided into two
categories, critical and creative thinking skills. Critical thinking occurs when
students evaluate an idea systematically before accepting or agreeing with the
13
idea (Hopson et al., 2001) whereas creative thinking refers to students are
utilising their high imagination to generate an innovative and original idea that
can modify the present idea or product (Richland & Simms, 2015).
The examples of skills that represent critical thinking are: characterising,
comparing and contrasting, collecting, classifying, analysing and drawing a
conclusion. While the examples of skills that represent creative thinking are:
generating an idea, predicting, hypothesising, mental modelling, making an
analogy and creating. When both thinking skills have integrated, students will
start to master the thinking strategy, and they will be able to reason out using
higher cognitive process. Figure 2.1 shows a TSTS model by MOE.
Thinking Skills
Critical Thinking Reasoning Creative Thinking
Characterised Generating idea
Compare & Predicting
Hypothesising
contrast Mental modelling
Collecting Making analogy
Classifying Creating
Analysing
Making conclusion
Thinking Strategy
Conceptualised
Problem solving
Making decision
Figure 2.1. Thinking Skills and Thinking Strategies (TSTS) Model
(Source: Curriculum Specifications Biology Form 4, MOE, 2012)
However, it has been a profound understanding that HOTS cannot be instilled
unless LOTS are mastered, as seen in the Biology curriculum specification
depicted in TSTS model. Thus far, many studies have focused on how to
improve HOTS through different strategies and methods but ignoring how
LOTS could help prior to acquiring HOTS (e.g., Beal & Cohen, 2012; Land,
2017; Storksdieck, 2016). LOTS provide students with knowledge,
understanding and applications skills which then facilitate students solving
HOTS task. Many students failed to solve HOTS problems because they did
not fully comprehend the basic thinking skills needed to grasp the concepts
(Fensham & Bellocchi, 2013; Kojima et al., 2013; Singer & Voica, 2013).
Therefore, this study feels that many scholars have reiterated that without a
deep understanding and basic cognitive skill, students will not be able to apply
HOTS to solve challenging tasks.
14
2.2.1 Why Osmosis and Diffusion?
Biology is the study of life and living organisms. Biology acknowledges cell as
the basic unit of life and all living organisms are made up of cells. A cell is a
vital structure that works like a small factory in the body and produces
important materials for the survival of living organisms. Before all those
important materials can be produced, a cell needs to collect raw materials like
food, oxygen, and water into it. On the other hand, all the waste products
produced from the chemical reactions in the cell need to be transported out of
the cell to be excreted out of the body. It is not an easy task because each cell
has a protective barrier known as the plasma membrane that only allows
certain substances to go through it. Therefore, there is a need for a special
transport mechanism for these materials to come inside and outside the cell,
and such mechanisms are known as osmosis and diffusion processes.
Osmosis and diffusion are two types of transportations that occur within the
plasma membrane of the cell, and they are crucial mechanisms in almost all
metabolism and physiology processes in the body of a living organism. As
such, these two concepts are critical to be mastered to understand numerous
processes such as metabolisms, physiology, and other living processes.
Realising the role of these two concepts as the fundamentals in Biology,
osmosis and diffusion are outlined in the earlier chapter in Form Four
curriculum specifications under the topic ‗Investigation on Cells as Basic Unit of
Life‘ theme under the chapter entitled ‗Movement of Substances Across the
Plasma Membrane‘. The summary of themes and chapters in the Biology
curriculum specification is summarised in Table 2.3.
Table 2.3. Themes and Chapters in Form 4 Biology
Theme Title Chapter Title
1 Introduction to Biology 1 Introduction to Biology
2 Investigate Cells as 2 Cell Structure and Cell
Basic Unit of Life Organisation
3 Movement of Substances
Across the Plasma Membrane
4 Chemical Composition of The
Cell
5 Cell Division
3 Investigate Life 6 Nutrition
Physiology 7 Respiration
4 Investigate the 8 Dynamic Ecosystem
Relationship between 9 Endangered Ecosystem
Living Things and its
Environment
(Source: Curriculum Specifications Biology Form 4, MOE, 2012)
15
Scholars argue that these two topics will require students to use their
imagination to visualise the membrane movement at the cellular and molecular
levels (Bonney, 2015; Oliver et al., 2017; Oztas, 2014; Wolkow, Durrenberger,
Maynard, Harrall, & Hines, 2014). All these arguments suggest that higher
cognitive process is inevitable if students were asked to explain the processes
in their own words later or to others, and these activities require communicative
skill and basic scientific skill.
Since osmosis and diffusion are fundamental concepts, they need to
conceptualise these fundamental concepts in later chapters that deal with other
complex biological processes and concepts such as dynamic equilibrium,
solvent, solute, direction of movement, the role of osmosis in plants and living
organisms and the relationship between the quantity of solvent and solute
(Artun & Coştu, 2013; Hasni et al., 2016; Odom & Kelly, 2001; Oztas, 2014).
However, studies over twenty years showed that these two concepts are
difficult to be understood by students and students only managed to
understand either partially and incomplete (Hasni et al., 2016).
Based on previous studies, there were a few factors that lead to these
problems. Firstly, many Biology terms consist of ‗jargon‘ words that are foreign
and difficult to be understood by many students. Taking into the example,
terms like hypertonic, hypotonic and isotonic in osmosis are hard to be
understood because they are not familiar terms in students‘ vocabulary
repertoire. Without knowing the meaning of those terms, students started to
just memorise the facts related to the terms and later, they will find themselves
struggling to apply both facts and terms in any related concepts of osmosis and
diffusion.
Secondly, there are many similar properties between both concepts that lead to
misconceptions among students. Both osmosis and diffusion are categorised
under passive transport because these movements do not require energy in
the form of ATP (adenosine triphosphate). This study feels that there should be
an explicit explanation to illuminate the differences and similarities between
osmosis and diffusion. Because of this similar properties, students get
confused between those two processes that lead to further misconceptions in
explaining and applying both concepts in their examination (Kramer & Myers,
2013; Sousa, 2016; Udovic, Morris, Dickman, Postlethwait, & Wetherwax,
2002).
Finally, osmosis and diffusion involve many abstracts processes that are
intangible to students (Kramer & Myers, 2013; Oztas, 2014). The mechanism in
biological processes in osmosis and diffusion involve movement and
transportation pathways and interactions between various components in
plasma membrane structures, and they are difficult to be visualised clearly
using static illustration or diagrams as provided in the textbook. These
illustration and diagrams were insufficient to provide insight into the molecular
interactions governing the structure and dynamics of biological membranes
16
within the cells (Aksoy, 2012; Elliot, Wilson, & Boyle, 2014; Hong, Lin, Hwang,
Tai, & Kuo, 2015; Mayer, 1999, 2010). Therefore, there is a need to develop a
tool that could provide an overview of the molecular dynamics in the biological
membrane and fundamental molecular mechanism happening during osmosis
and diffusion as well as the structures of proteins embedded within the plasma
membrane.
2.2.2 Multimedia in Biology Curriculum
Biology subject is often characterised as being hard to understand, relate and
to be applied in other situations. With regards to the abstract and dynamic
nature of the human biological processes, the advantages of using multimedia
to promote understanding and increase overall learning experiences are
deemed to be ultra-practical as evidenced in many studies (Harrison, 2013;
Reeves, 2000; Yarden & Yarden, 2010). A multimedia presentation uses a
combination of different forms of contents such as text, audio, images,
animations and video, and it usually uses computer applications to be
presented to the audience.
A properly designed multimedia presentation will produce a significant effect in
science teaching and learning due to its feature that can help in explaining
intangible processes (Aksoy, 2012; Hong et al., 2015; Mayer, 1999, 2010). For
instance, the physiology processes such as the movement of substances
across the plasma membrane in humans‘ molecular state cannot be visualised
clearly via static diagrams or drawing, and this presents a challenge in Biology
education. Therefore, researchers start to embed multimedia and use their
animatic features to present the molecular processes clearly.
A multimedia presentation that combined words and pictures are arranged to
assist learners in learning science processes. Research by Elliot et al. (2014)
shows that the use of multimedia in e-learning portal in Scotland has given
better learning experience to teachers and students. The learning instruction
through multimedia presentation helps teachers to employ better teaching
practices and develops students' interest in Science. In a study by Osman and
Kaur (2014), it was found that students who are exposed to the module
integrated with problem-based learning (PBL) with multimedia presentation
have performed significantly higher in Biology topic compared to the students
who exposed to only PBL. The effectiveness of PBL enriched with multimedia
presentation through the use of Microsoft Words, Microsoft PowerPoint and
electronic discussion is seen to improve students‘ acquisition of knowledge and
helps students to understand better. Another study by Alias (2014) investigates
the effectiveness of a multimedia presentation to increase students learning
experience in Biology according to the students learning style. The findings
showed that by using videos, students who are active and reflective learners
have a better learning experience and achieved better scores during the post-
test as compared to the control group.
17
However, multimedia elements may not be highly effective in all learning
situations (Clark & Mayer, 2008). For example, a study by Mayer and Moreno
(2002) find that active media that involved unnecessary hands-on learning task
would not necessarily produce a better learning experience while passive
media consisted of a well-designed multimedia presentation were able to
promote learning in a better way compared to the traditional teaching method.
Findings by Mayer and Moreno are supported by Makransky, Terkildsen and
Mayer (2017) and Hong et al. (2015). Such studies revealed that active media
activities involved active learning task such as hands-on and virtual reality will
result in less learning and produce high cognitive load among students. These
types of activities can help to encourage learners‘ interest in the topic, but they
will reduce learners‘ performance.
Based on the arguments, many scholars agreed that multimedia presentation
should be designed to reduce students cognitive load and make students
engaged in cognitive processes during the lesson (Chiu & Mok, 2017; Clark &
Mayer, 2008; Watson & Brathwaite, 2013). The multimedia presentation must
not be distracting; which can be done by avoiding unnecessary and excessive
multimedia elements to appear at the same time in the presentation.
Multimedia has been widely used in Biology classroom nowadays, and this
calls for more studies to investigate the degree of effectiveness when a
multimedia presentation is combined with problem-posing strategy. Therefore,
this study aims to fill that gap by focusing on how to design and develop
multimedia presentations to help to present the abstract concepts in Biology,
while bearing in mind the need to reduce the cognitive load among students.
2.2.3 Problem-Posing and Biology Curriculum
The problem-posing instructional strategy emphasised on students' creativity to
create their own questions based on the topic presented by teachers. Students
who are exposed to problem-posing are seen to create a new set of knowledge
by connecting their prior knowledge and the new knowledge they have gained
(Rosli et al., 2014). To ensure that students have the urge to ask, students first
need to have their curiosity stimulated towards the topic taught.
To stimulate curiosity among students, contents in lessons need to be
presented attractively to capture students‘ interest. Leung (2013), in his study,
provided students with a mathematical situation with missing information to
stimulate students‘ curiosity. Once students have developed their curiosity to
find the missing link, they started to ask themselves questions and started to
pose their own questions to find the missing part in the problems. However,
novice students who never involved in problem-posing activities found it
arduous to create their own questions at the beginning of the activities.
Therefore, Kojima et al. (2013), suggested that help is given by providing the
example of questions for such students and later, they will be able to create
their own questions by referencing the sample questions given by their
teachers earlier.
18
Through reviewing several studies, it was revealed that problem-posing would
encourage students to create their own questions based on their own curiosity.
This strategy is useful because the nature of the questions is determined by the
students that can lead to more meaningful learning (Beal & Cohen, 2012;
Cankoy, 2014; Kontorovich et al., 2012). The concept of meaningful learning
happens when information is completely understood and connected with
students‘ prior knowledge and subsequently, aiding in further understanding.
Meaningful learning is often contrasted with rote learning. Rote learning is a
method that reinforces memorising information without much emphasis on real
understanding or making related to the acquired knowledge. In problem-posing
strategy, students will be asked to create and solve their own questions
through an active discussion between their peers and teacher. Students will be
involved in argumentation and processing different opinions from their peers
and teacher. This, in turn, brings them into cognitive conflict and dissatisfaction,
which results in being alert their misconception. At this stage, teachers are
required to present the new concepts that are intelligible, plausible and fruitful
for students to start constructing new knowledge and make meaning through
interactions occurred.
In conceptual change model, there are four conditions that must be met to
create occurrence for conceptual change to take place (Posner et al., 1982;
Crippen & Archambault, 2012; Duit & Treagust, 2003). The four conditions are:
1. Students felt unease with the current conceptions. Learners were more
likely to accept conceptual change if they were presented with the best
possible change that will rationalise the conception.
2. The new conception must be comprehensible. The learner must
acquire enough comprehension to structure their new conception and
to explore the conception without doubt or prejudice.
3. The new conception must look believable on first look and can
generate a solution to the proposed problem. The new conception
must agree with learners‘ prior knowledge and experience; to make it
look possible and applicable.
4. The new conception should encourage the exploration of potential
knowledge and opportunities for inquisitive minds.
5. Conducting meaningful arguments and dialogue among more capable
peers are vital to introduce students to new ideas, and this leads to
conceptual change (Vygotsky, 2012).
To encourage meaningful argumentation and discussion, there is a need to
conduct questioning activities among students. However, the traditional
practice in classroom dictates students to solve questions given by teachers or
others, not solving their own-created questions. During the lesson, students are
given opportunities to vocalise their questions. Unfortunately, students rarely or
never use this opportunity to ask questions during the lesson (Duran & Dökme,
2016; Mishra & Iyer, 2015).
19
Since science emphasises asking questions and seeking answers to questions,
asking questions is paramount in learning science. The types and quality of
questions asked by students can indicate their level of understanding and
served as a prediction of their ability to solve problems. In a study by Nardone
and Lee (2010) reveal that students do not have much practice in developing
their own questions and problems, especially students under the educational
system that emphasised teacher-centred. Because of this situation, they do not
possess a real understanding of the topic and tend to memorise facts rather
acquire a real understanding of the concepts learnt.
To date, problem-posing is a novel instructional strategy in Malaysia, even
more foreign in Biology. However, in foreign studies (Akay & Boz, 2010; Çildir
& Sezen, 2011; Land, 2017; Nicolaou & Xistouri, 2011; Tichá & Hošpesová,
2013) has seen that problem-posing in the Mathematics field has made its
mark as a teaching technique to encourage critical thinking. In Malaysia,
particularly in Biology teaching, students were not trained to create their own
questions, and this posed as the most challenging part of this study. The
difficulties are also raised as students have lack prior knowledge about the
topic. Putting students in the problem-posing role requires them to take a more
active and responsible role in their own learning. Therefore, sizeable efforts are
needed from teachers to prompt and coach students to generate their own
questions.
2.3 Design and Development Research (DDR)
Modules have become essential tools in teaching, learning, development
programme and training. Many recent studies in education have focused on
designing and developing instructional programs by combining theories in
education to improve instructional strategy (Günaydin & Karamete, 2016;
Mishra & Iyer, 2015). To develop a module, the design and development
research (DDR) is the most common approach used by instructional designers
(Davis, 2013; Ellis & Levy, 2010).
DDR is also known as development research, design research or design-based
research. Richey (1994) define DDR as the systematic study of designing,
developing and evaluating instructional programs, process, products and
module that must meet the criteria of internal consistency and effectiveness.
DDR is problem-oriented research suitable for experimental and evaluation
research methodology to test the effectiveness of the module (Richey, Klein, &
Nelson, 2004; Richey, 1994).
Three types of research models in DDR are Type 1, Type 2 and Type 3
(Richey, 1994). However, in the latest version by Richey and Klein (2005),
have divided DDR to only Type 1 and Type 2. Type 1 is known as product
research, which focuses on the processes to design, develop and evaluate the
module in a detailed report (Richey, 1994; Richey & Klein, 2005). For example,
a study by Martin et al. (2013) showcases the steps to develop the interactive
20
multimedia instructional module by using ADDIE categorised as Type 1.
Similarly, Ellis and Levy (2010) who emphasise the processes for each phase
of the development, intends to give insights to novice instructional designers on
steps to develop a module is also considered as Type 1. Regardless of the
nature of the Type 1 study, this type usually provides context and product
specifications as seen in a study by Alias (2014), who reported on the
effectiveness of implementing Biology PTechLS module in a rural secondary
school in Malaysia that provide specific context on the development and the
product.
Meanwhile, Type 2 is known as model research that focuses on the impact and
usability of the module, either in general or on a broader scale. For example, in
the study by Günaydin and Karamete (2016), have tested the usability of
learning material by collecting and reporting responses from 39 teacher
candidates. In this type, it rarely reports on the design and development
processes of the products or tools (Richey & Klein, 2005). Type 2 focuses on
the validation, reliability or effectiveness of an existing or newly constructed
module. This is exemplified in Harrison et al. (2017), where the study focused
on the effectiveness of the virtual reality training module to train medical
students to perform a surgical procedure. Table 2.4 shows a summary of the
two types of DDR.
Table 2.4. Two Types of DDR
Type Type of research Criteria
1 Product research
Focuses on the process to design and develop
2 Model research the module in a detailed report
Focuses on the impact and usability of the
module
Since this study involves rigorous processes of designing and developing a
module, this study adapts DDR terminology to illustrate the activities
performed. Interestingly, this research extends the model by combining Type 1
and Type 2 to fit in with the research purpose. In particular, this study focuses
on the design, development, and evaluation of the module and subsequently
tests the effectiveness of the module. The decision to combine Type 1 and
Type 2 as it aligns with the purpose of answering the research questions.
In DDR, researchers can use a variety of methodologies, and this study allows
any tools that can meet the research requirement as suggested by Richey and
Klein (2005) and Ellis and Levy (2010). This suggestion has been adopted
earlier by Lee et al. (2017) in which he used qualitative approaches by
performing analysis using expert reviews and participants interview to
determine the learning objectives and the usability of the model on flipped
learning strategy to learn Mathematics. In summative evaluation, many studies
employed experimental design to test the effectiveness and justify the impact of
21
the products or tools developed in the earlier phase (see Akay & Boz, 2010;
Martin et al., 2013; Richey, 1994; Tek et al., 2013; Vidergor, 2017).
DDR may involve sub-studies in the process to identify a problem, determine
the instrument used to test reliability and validity, formative evaluation and
summative evaluation (Richey, Klein, & Nelson, 2004; Richey, 1994). Many
instructional design models can be applied under DDR such as Kemp model
(1985), Dick and Reiser (1986), ASSURE model (1981), the ADDIE model and
Sidek model (2005). However, ADDIE is the most and widely used instructional
design model to develop programs or tools because of its generic
characteristics and that it can be easily modified to suit with the study needs
(Almomen, Kaufman, Alotaibi, & Al-rowais, 2016; Ellis & Levy, 2010; Koneru,
2010).
Richey and Klein (2004) stated that the ADDIE phases are generally put under
the DDR research and have been used widely as the core phases in the
instructional design model. The Problem-posing multimedia module
(PROPOSE-M) in this study was developed using the ADDIE model that
consists of five phases, which are analysis, design, development,
implementation, and evaluation. The design and development processes using
the ADDIE model has produced a comprehensive module that met students
learning requirement and objectives. Furthermore, the evaluation phase of the
ADDIE has provided feedback to improve PROPOSE-M for future programs.
2.4 Theory Related to Study
The underpinning theory of this study is the Cognitive Theory of Multimedia
Learning (CTML) by Mayer and Moreno (2002). However, the formulation of
this study is based upon the foundation of the problem-posing theory originated
by Paolo Freire (1970) and further guided by Revised Bloom Taxonomy (RBT)
by Anderson and Krathwol (2001).
2.4.1 A Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning
Cognitive theory of multimedia learning (CTML) is a product of the combination
of cognitive load theory and constructivist learning theory (Mayer & Moreno,
2002). The cognitive theory of multimedia learning explains how people learn
from both words and pictures based on dual coding theory that is represented
by the visual model and verbal model (Mayer, 2010). However, according to
cognitive load theory, the capacities in the human brain to receive information
from the different mental channels are restricted to a certain degree (Clark &
Mayer, 2008; Sweller, 1988).
According to the cognitive theory of multimedia learning, meaningful learning is
achieved when students are able to select relevant information verbally or
visually and start to rearrange the information in their working memories (Mayer
22
& Moreno, 2002; Watson & Brathwaite, 2013). The combination of images and
text should add value to the multimedia presentation and help the students to
simplify the complicated topics. Thus, such combination subsequently helps the
students to integrate their new information with their prior knowledge. In the
end, a new state of knowledge is formed that will give a new meaning to the
situation presented. The positive connections between verbal and visual
representation can lead learners to retain the information in their long-term
memory longer.
Words presented in the multimedia presentation can be in either on-screen text
form or narration form, whereas, images in the multimedia presentation can be
in graphic form, diagrams, and animation. However, not all forms of multimedia
messages are equally effective. Words and images work positively only when
they are used appropriately. The factors of quality and relevance of text and
visual play a huge role in the effective of the presentation. For example, good
qualities and high-resolution images, charts and videos will give better impact
than the low-resolution materials, and although the latter may cost less in
production, losses are seen in the form of loss of interest among students.
Therefore, any low-quality module has a smaller chance of achieving the
objectives. Apart from the poor quality of images, if the text or narration aids
are generic in nature and fail to explain the subject specifically and clearly, it
would not be appealing to the students. Hence, the key is to ensure that the
multimedia messages are well-designed to promote meaningful learning. If the
elements used are irrelevant, they can cause distractions and increase
cognitive load among students.
2.4.2 Problem-Posing Theory
Problem posing is an instructional strategy in the classroom that uses critical
thinking as a major component. The origin of this theory is from Paolo Freire
(1970), and it was previously known as the ‗pedagogy of the oppressed'. In this
theory, the oppressed persons recognise the cause of their oppression and
eventually found their own way to solve their own problems. A problem-posing
theory is widely used in social theory to increase the society living standards.
However, the theory had been influenced by the constructivist theory and has
been adapted in education (Cankoy, 2014).
In education, problem-posing activity is conducted when knowledge is
constructed by an individual by their own experiences (Kontorovich, Koichu,
Leikin, & Berman, 2012; Nicolaou & Xistouri, 2011). Students posed questions
based on any contents that they do not understand. Later, they have to create
their own questions and find out the solution or answers for their own questions
with the help from their teacher and peers. The philosophy of problem-posing
justifies that learning has to come between the teacher and the students and
not from just the teacher to the students.
23
In order to find out solution or answers to their own questions, students will
participate in 4C activities which stand for creativity, collaboration,
communication, and critical thinking. To complete problem-posing activities,
students need to integrate the active learning task using the 4C elements with
their prior knowledge. Through 4C activities, students are exposed to other
cognitive activities, especially the higher-order thinking activities such as
arguing, comparing, problem-solving, dealing with differences of opinion,
decision-making, and identifying hidden assumptions (Vidergor, 2017). By
implementing such activities, problem-posing is considered as an important
activity that encourages HOTS and active-learning task among students.
According to Stoyanova (1998, in Cankoy, 2014), three categories of the
problem-posing strategy used to generate and solve problems are: (a) free
situations, (b) semi-structured situations, and (c) structured problem-posing
situations. In free situations, students can freely generate problems from any
context based on the topic they have learnt. There will be no restriction for the
problem-posing process in free situations. In semi-structured problem-posing
situations, students are provided with situations and were asked to create
questions based on given situations. In structured problem-posing situations,
students recreate or reformulate questions based on the examples of the
questions that were provided. In this study, semi-structured and structured
problem-posing situations were employed by embedding 4C elements since
students involved in this research were inexperienced in problem-posing
activities.
2.4.3 Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS)
Systematic research in HOTS originated in the contribution of Bloom (1956)
who suggested a hierarchy of intellectual skills based on six verbs. The lower
three are considered as lower order thinking skills (LOTS) namely: knowledge,
comprehension and application, whereas analysis, synthesise, and evaluation
are categorised as higher order thinking skills (HOTS). Bloom taxonomy has
been widely applied in the systematic thinking and learning processes
(Richland & Simms, 2015) and have been revised by Anderson and Krathwohl
(2001) and is now known as Revised Bloom Taxonomy (RBT).
In RBT, there were changes in the terminology used. Basically, Bloom's six
major categories have changed from noun to verb forms. Additionally, the
lowest level, knowledge was renamed as remembering. Finally, comprehension
and synthesis were renamed to understanding and creating. Figure 2.2 and
Figure 2.3 below summarises the changes in LOTS and HOTS respectively,
according to the RBT.
24
Application Applying
Comprehension Understanding
Knowledge Remembering
Old Version New Version
Figure 2.2. Lower Order Thinking Skills (LOTS)
Evaluation Creating
Synthesis Evaluating
Analysis Analysing
Old Version New Version
Figure 2.3. Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS)
Forehand (2012), defines the new terminology used in the new version of RBT
as below:
Remembering: Retrieving, recognising, and recalling relevant
knowledge from long-term memory.
Understanding: Constructing meaning from oral, written, and graphic
messages through interpreting, summarising, comparing and
explaining.
Applying: Carrying out or using a procedure through executing, or
implementing
Analysing: Breaking information into different parts, determining how
the parts relate to one another through differentiating, organising, and
attributing.
Evaluating: Making judgments based on criteria and standards
through checking and critiquing.
Creating: Putting elements together to form meaningful information as
a whole and reorganising element into a new pattern through
generating, planning, or producing.
25
In Biology, both LOTS and HOTS are crucial to be mastered by students.
There are many terms and structures that need to be remembered in order to
understood the concepts, so students can apply it in other situations (Barak &
Shakhman, 2008; Miri, David, & Uri, 2007; Tekkaya, 2003). These thinking
skills activity involve LOTS. Many scholars argue if students were unable to
memorise, understand and comprehend basic concepts, later they will have
difficulty to solve higher order problems that involve problem-solving and critical
thinking that are categorised as HOTS (Goldman & Scott, 2015; Keong, Ong,
Hart, & Chen, 2016; Xie, Fang, & Shauman, 2015). Even though Biology is
inaccurately perceived by students as memorising subject (Hasni, Roy, &
Dumais, 2016; Miri, David, & Uri, 2007; Zeidan, 2010), in reality, as many other
science subjects, Biology also demands students to be a critical thinker.
To encourage students to think critically, the four essential elements in
problem-posing which are critical thinking, communication, collaboration and
creativity need to be incorporated with HOTS in the classroom (Department of
Curriculum Development, MOE, 2013). In the 21st century pedagogy, these
four elements are vital to promoting HOTS (Carlgren, 2013). This study
integrates these four elements in a problem-posing instructional strategy to
enhance LOTS and HOTS in Biology and subsequently, enhance students‘
performance. The reason why the researcher chose RBT over the old version
because it is the one recognised by the MOE and it has been used to
developed items for assessments in public examinations.
2.5 Theoretical Framework
The theoretical framework in this research is mainly represented by the CTML.
CTML suggested that multimedia should be created by presenting both words
and pictures. Words can be in the narration or on-screen text to explain
processes, whereas pictures can be presented by images or animation. During
the presentation, students will select relevant features and form a series of
mental visual images. Then, they will organise the images into a coherent
structure in their visual mental model. When instructional messages are
presented in verbal, students will select relevant words and collecting and
combining the words in their mental model. The organisation of the words will
be put into a coherent structure as their verbal, mental model.
The next step is to integrate the visual mental model and the verbal, mental
model with prior knowledge. Constructivist learning occurs when students are
engaged in cognitive processes to select relevant images and sounds and
organise them into respective visual and verbal mental models and finally
integrate them with prior knowledge. This integration of selected information
will promote the skills to be transferred to problem-solving activities that will
encourage cognitive enhancement in students learning experiences (Mayer &
Moreno, 2002). Figure 2.4 shows the research theoretical framework based on
CTML.
26
Figure 2.4. Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning
(Source: Mayer & Moreno, 2002)
2.6 Conceptual framework
In this present study, the conceptual framework combines the cognitive theory
of multimedia learning by Mayer and Moreno (2002) and problem-posing to
enhance students' performance in LOTS and HOTS. Upon exposure to the
multimedia presentation, they will start to develop their own visual and verbal,
mental model with a set of information stored in their working memory. The
working memory, combined with the new set of information, is integrated with
the 4C element of problem-posing. The integration is presented by arrow
drawing from problem-posing 4C elements box to the circle.
Prior knowledge from their long term memory of the students will integrate with
4C elements to encourage the conceptual change among learners. The
connection between mental model of learners and 4C elements with the
conceptual change is presented by the arrow from the integrating circle to the
students‘ performance box which shows the development of a new set of
knowledge in the mental model of students. In this study, students‘
performance categorised into three parts, which are LOTS, HOTS and
conceptual change. The enhancement in students‘ performance through this
proposed conceptual framework can have huge consequences in the Biology
curriculum, especially in how Biology curriculum can be executed in a more
explicit way in the future. Figure 2.5 shows a conceptual framework for this
research.
27
The words you are searching are inside this book. To get more targeted content, please make full-text search by clicking here.
PhD THESIS (NOR TUTIAINI-B5 FORMAT)
Discover the best professional documents and content resources in AnyFlip Document Base.
Search