PhD THESIS (NOR TUTIAINI-B5 FORMAT)

plasma membrane in everyday life and (3) Appreciating the movement of
substances across the plasma membrane. Lesson plans were provided to both
teachers from PROPOSE-M and TRAD group. The lesson plans were provided
to ensure that the teachers would follow the same guideline on how to teach
the topic in order to reduce bias in the experimental procedure. 80% of
PROPOSE-M (booklet) activities are based on two types of problem-posing,
which are semi-structured and structured problems as reviewed in Chapter 2.

c. PROPOSE-M Instructional Strategy Model

From the result of the analysis phase, the activities and strategies used were
arranged systematically to construct PROPOSE-M instructional strategy model
that was later used to teach osmosis and diffusion concepts. The
implementation of PROPOSE-M was carried out as followed. First, the
teachers introduced the topic to students. Secondly, lessons were carried out
by teachers through the multimedia presentation using PROPOSE-M
(multimedia). The third step is considered as the critical step where the
students worked together in groups and used their collaborative skills and
communicative skills to create their own questions using the PROPOSE-M
(booklet). The students were asked to produce questions based on their lack of
understanding in certain facts or concepts, and the question was written in the
PROPOSE-M (booklet). This activity will encourage students to have
meaningful participation by doing an effective collaboration, communication
and critical thinking ability to construct and integrate all the information needed
to solve their own questions.

To aid students in creating their own questions, PROPOSE-M (booklet)
provided model questions for students to imitate and construct their own
question as suggested by Nardone and Lee, (2010). The teachers have to
prompt students if they were drawing a blank and coach them to refine their
questions (Tichá & Hošpesová, 2013). After the problem-posing activity was
completed, students were engaged in active discussion in order to find answers
for their own questions. Engaging students in argument and discussion with
their peers is parallel to the theory of Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD)
developed by Lev Vygotsky, that stated success in meaningful learning and
understanding can be achieved when students are engaged and aided in
collaborative learning activities with teachers and more capable peers
(Vygotsky, 2012). Finally, the students presented their questions and answers.
The presentation mode would depend on the students' creativity. Presentation
activities will enhance students‘ communication skills and increase their
confidence in learning (Kontorovich et al., 2012). During presentations,
teachers made corrections to any misconception held by students. The
PROPOSE-M instructional strategy model constructed is illustrated and
presented in Figure 4.12.

73

Figure 4.12. PROPOSE-M Instructional Strategy Model

All the findings in the design phase were arranged systematically to provide
insight to develop PROPOSE-M during the development phase. Table 4.2
shows the summary of the findings in the design phase.

Table 4.2. Findings Summary for Design Phase

Design Information Sources Was the Objectives
Met?

What are the forms of Focus group discussion & Yes.
PROPOSE-M? literature review Two forms of PROPOSE-
M design:
PROPOSE-M
(multimedia)
PROPOSE-M (booklet)

What is the software used Discussion with Yes.
to develop a multimedia multimedia module expert Adobe Encore, Adobe
presentation? After Effects, Adobe
Flash Player.

What are the contents in Textbook & Curriculum Yes.
Chapter 3 (Form 4)
PROPOSE-M? Specification

What are the materials to Focus group discussion Yes.
be developed in the Using A4 paper and
booklet? compile a booklet.

What diagrams should be Textbook & online Yes.
included in PROPOSE- source. Redraw in 2D Structure of the plasma
M? and 3D membrane.

74

Plant cell and animal cell
in a different solution.

How multimedia Multimedia module expert Yes.
presentation can be
compiled? & teacher Flash drive (16Gb)

How the information Focus group discussion & Yes.
should be presented in a multimedia module expert Animation (2D & 3D)
multimedia presentation? Videos.
Graphics.

How the information in Focus group discussion Yes.
the booklet should be Activity complete with a
presented? learning objective and
learning outcomes.
Space for answers must
be big.

How problem-posing Systematic literature Yes.
activities should be review (analysis phase) Using the PROPOSE-M
implemented in the instructional strategy
classroom? model.

How students‘ Focus group discussion & Yes.
assessments should be SPM questions collection Three assessments
presented? printed in A4 paper.
Adapted from SPM
collection (2005 to 2016).
Consist of ten objectives
and one structure
questions.

What languages should Focus group discussion Yes.
be used in PROPOSE-M? Teachers‘ Interview Bilingual.

4.4 Development Phase

Based on the storyboard and findings in the design phase, the multimedia
module was developed using Adobe After Effects CS5.5 and Adobe Encore
CS5.5 software. After rigorous discussion and repeated trial, the design for
PROPOSE-M was finalised. Figure 4.13 and Figure 4.14 show screenshot for
the main interface and subtopic interface developed for PROPOSE-M,
respectively.

75

Figure 4.13. Main Interface

Figure 4.14. Subtopic Interface
As the user moves and clicks the button in the interface, an arrow will appear to
indicate users are on that section. Figure 4.15 shows a screenshot for the
arrow (purple in colour) that indicates the clicking button activities.

76

Figure 4.15. Arrow Indicator on Clicking
PROPOSE-M was also developed with interactive featuring an interactive
button that will navigate the user to step backwards, go to next chapter, pause,
play, step forward, home and search at any time of the presentation. Figure
4.16 shows a screenshot for an interactive button in PROPOSE-M.

Figure 4.16. Interactive Button
Animations that present the movement of substances in and out of the plasma
membrane structure were developed to make sure students can clearly
visualise the movement of substances within the membrane. For example,
facilitated diffusion process involves the movement of substances from higher
concentration gradient to lower concentration gradient through pore/channel
and carrier protein that is embedded in the plasma membrane structure. The
process of transportation was animated clearly with explanation, arrow to
indicate movements and the structure of a protein that they go through. Figure
4.17 shows the screenshot for facilitated diffusion processes animated in
PROPOSE-M.

77

Figure 4.17. Facilitated Diffusion Animation
The plasma membrane is also known as ‗fluid mosaic model‘ because the
structure resembles the mosaic pattern when viewed from the top. Previously,
most students are unable to understand why the plasma membrane is known
as a fluid mosaic model because they are unable to visualise it through static
diagram presented in the classroom. Based on the findings in the analysis
phase, there is an urgent need to present the structure of the plasma
membrane in a more efficacious way since understanding the structure is the
most critical element to be understood deeply in this chapter. To fulfil that need,
the structure of the plasma membrane was developed in 3D animation that
provides 360 degrees view to make sure students can clearly visualise and
understand the concept of the mosaic structure of the plasma membrane.
Figure 4.18 shows a screenshot of a 3D animation of ‗fluid mosaic model‘ in
PROPOSE-M.

78

Figure 4.18. 3D Animation of ‘Fluid Mosaic Model’
Since schools in Malaysia nowadays have an option to teach Biology in English
or Bahasa Melayu, PROPOSE-M was developed in dual language. Figure 4.19
shows screenshot the example of the animation presentations in Bahasa
Melayu.

Figure 4.19. Animation Presentation in Bahasa Melayu
PROPOSE-M is also equipped with videos and activities related to osmosis
and diffusion, and students can apply the knowledge into their daily life

79

situation. Background music was added to establish the learning atmosphere,
and it was featured with a mute button, so teachers may mute or unmute the
background music if they desired.

Once the animation and graphics development were completed, the timing for
animation is framed to ensure the voice over was synchronised with the
animation played on the main screen. Voice over was executed by the talent
narrator to make sure the pronunciation of every word is clear and correct. The
voice over process was completed in two weeks. The animations file together
with video files and voiceover files, went through the ‗rendering‘ process using
Adobe Encore software. The ‗rendering‘ process was performed to compile and
link all the files together and manifested them into one complete interactive
module.

The project took almost three months to complete. Amendments were made
four times until the usability of the module was satisfied and met the
requirements for an expert validation procedure. First amendment was made
due to the spelling error in many slides, especially the spelling for scientific
terms. The second amendment was made because the texts appear later than
the frames of the videos. This problem may have arisen due to the inaccurate
timing during rendering processes. A third amendment was made because
there was a change in slide order due to connection error during compilation
procedure. The last amendment was made due to the absence of narration in
two slides due to the missing voice files during the rendering process. After the
rendering process has completed, the module was stored in the 16 GB USB
flash drive. USB flash drive has been chosen to keep the file because it is
easier to carry as compared to a CD-ROM device. In order to "play" the
module, a teacher is advised to install Adobe Flash Player 28 in her computer.

b. PROPOSE-M (Booklet)

PROPOSE-M (booklet) was prepared using Microsoft Word. The booklet was
developed to introduce the written activities aimed to enhance thinking
processes (Harrison, 2013) and to promote HOTS in the classroom. The
contents of the booklet were formatted in Arial font size 12 and 1.5 paragraph
spacing. There were ten activities spread across six sections inserted in the
booklet, and they were arranged according to the subtopic based on the
Biology curriculum. Large spaces were provided for students to write down
their answers, especially for creating questions activities.

The booklet also stated the learning objectives for the subtopic and learning
outcomes that should be achieved by students. Stating the learning objectives
and learning outcomes are important for students to perform and focus on
achieving the expected learning outcomes. The diagrams used in the booklet
were extracted from the textbook and activity book with modification to fit the
activities‘ needs.

80

The activities developed were based on the findings in analysis phase which
are; 1) Posing a problem 2) Giving situation with missing data 3) Finding
answers to their own questions 4) Presenting their completed work. For the
phase of giving situation with missing data, students were provided sentences
with blank spaces to be filled in. The example of the activity is as follows:

“The ________________ and ________________ of molecules
determine the movement of molecules across the plasma
membrane”
For posing a problem activity, students were provided with model questions to
help them in constructing their own questions. After students have completed
the activity, they will engage in active discussion to find a solution to their own
answers. Finally, they would present their questions and answers. All the
activities in the booklet are focusing on 4C elements of problem-posing.
PROPOSE-M (booklet) took two weeks to be completed, and it has 24 pages
with problem-posing elements to promote HOTS among students. After the
completion of PROPOSE-M (booklet), the booklet was ready to go through the
expert validation procedure. Figure 4.20 shows the example of posing a
problem activity developed in the booklet.

Figure 4.20. Posing a Problem Activity

81

4.4.1 Expert Validation of PROPOSE-M

i. Content Validation

Content validation for PROPOSE-M was performed by one professional expert
and two field experts. The achievement of content validation is calculated using
the PCM method. Good content validation percentage was set at 70%.
PROPOSE-M has achieved the content validity of 92.91% with a coefficient
value of 0.93, and the value is above 70% or 0.70. Based on the result,
contents in the PROPOSE-M are considered of good validity. Table 4.3 shows
the content validity measurement for the PROPOSE-M.

Table 4.3. Content Validity Measurement

ITEMS RATER RATER RATER
1 2 3
1 10 10 9
2 8 10 10
3 10 6 8
4 10 10 10
5 10 10 9
6 9 8 8
7 10 10 10
8 10 9 9

Total 77 73 73

Content Validity Achievement 92.91
(100%)
0.93
Content Validity Coefficients
(1.00)

However, there were suggestions by experts for improvements to the contents
in PROPOSE-M. Rater1 suggested adding examples of substances that were
involved in the active transport slide in PROPOSE-M (multimedia). The
suggestion was made to ensure students will be able to identify the name of
substances that go through the plasma membrane using active transport
mechanisms.

In addition, Rater 2 suggested that the activities in the PROPOSE-M (booklet)
need to be compressed because of time constraint faced by teachers at school.
She also suggested changing two labels at the plasma membrane structure in
the PROPOSE-M (multimedia) as the terms used were outdated. Rater 2 also
highly recommended to insert an accompanying video that resembles a real-life
situation so students will be able to apply the knowledge into their daily life
situations. Based on the experts‘ suggestion, modifications to PROPOSE-M
were performed. The modifications included are activities in PROPOSE-M
(booklet) has been modified and shortened to fit in the time allocated for the
lesson at schools. As for PROPOSE-M (multimedia), one video was added to

82

show the real-life situation, the wilting of a plant due to the loss of water
through osmosis process.

ii. Content Validity for Language Used in PROPOSE-M

PROPOSE-M was made in bilingual to satisfy teachers‘ and students‘ needs.
Therefore, PROPOSE-M went through a language validation process. During
the design phase, contents in Bahasa Melayu and English were prepared
according to textbook contents. However, to verify the correct use of biological
terminologies, grammar and tenses used in PROPOSE-M, expert validation
processes were performed. The validation included face validation to check for
any spelling errors in PROPOSE-M. Language validation was performed by
five experts consist of two language experts and three biology expert teachers.

For grammar and tenses, language experts reviewed the PROPOSE-M
thoroughly and gave recommendations to improve the syntax, sentence
structure, and nomenclature of the module. For biological terminology, three
Biology expert teachers reviewed the PROPOSE-M to make sure the correct
use of all terminologies. The validation for general language factors such as
structure and suitability were validated through a questionnaire.

From the calculation of percentage from the expert given score, PROPOSE-M
has achieved the validity measurement for the language of 92.57% with a
coefficient value of validity is 0.93, and it is above 70 or 0.70. Based on the
result, the language and terminology used in PROPOSE-M achieved good
validity measurement. Table 4.4 shows the validity measurement for the
language used in PROPOSE-M.

Table 4.4. Content Validity Measurement for Language Used

ITEMS RATER 1 RATER 2 RATER 3 RATER 4 RATER
5
1 10 9 10 10
2 9 10 9 10 8
3 10 6 10 10 7
4 10 10 10 10 8
5 9 9 10 9 10
6 10 9 10 10 8
7 10 10 10 8 8
8

Total 68 63 69 67 57

Content Validity 92.57
Achievement (100%) 0.93

Content Validity
Coefficients (1.00)

83

There were spelling errors in PROPOSE-M that need to be corrected; for
example, ‗hypertonic‘ term was spelt as ‗hipertonic‘. Rater 3 suggested
changing the term "glycoprotein" as it was not used anymore in the latest
curriculum specification. Rater 5 suggested the text in PROPOSE-M
(multimedia) to be closer to the animation for students to relate to the text
captioning the animation presented. All spelling errors and the grammar
mistakes marked by experts through face validation were corrected. All
recommendations were accepted except for recommendation by Rater 5
because the text was considered to be the appropriate distance between the
images and animation.

iii. Content Validity for Suitability of Session and Activities

The validation for suitability of session and activities were performed to make
sure the activities developed met the objectives and learning outcomes (Arip et
al., 2013) listed in the Biology curriculum specification. The validation for
suitability of sessions and activities were performed by one professional expert
and two field experts.

From the calculation of percentage from the score given, the suitability of
session and activities in the PROPOSE-M have achieved the valid
measurement of 91.67% with a coefficient value of validity is 0.92 and it is
above 70% or 0.70. Based on the result of content validity achieved, the
activities developed in PROPOSE-M have achieved a good validity
measurement. Table 4.5 shows the validity measurement percentage for
suitability of session and activities in PROPOSE-M.

Table 4.5. Content Validity Measurement for Suitability of Session and
Activities

ITEMS RATER RATER RATER
1 2 3
1 10 9 9
2 10 9 9
3 10 10 8
4 10 9 8
5 9 8 8
6 10 9 8
7 9 9 9
8 9 9 9
9 10 10 9
10 10 10 9

Total 97 92 86

Content Validity Achievement 91.67
(100%)
Content Validity Coefficients 0.92
(1.00)

84

However, there were few improvements recommended by experts to improve
the representation of PROPOSE-M. Rater 1 suggested for the experiment
section to also use both animal cells and plant cells instead of just plant cells
(Section: 4 Activity: 1) so that students are able to differentiate between the
condition of animal cell and plant cell. This suggestion was discussed with
teachers during the implementation phase due to the school sources.

Rater 2 suggested a ‗Gallery Walk‘ for presentation activity (Section: 1, Activity:
2) instead of presentation in groups. A gallery walk is an activity where
students are free to walk around to the other group to collect information for the
topic presented by other groups. One group members will stay in order to
explain to friends who walk into their gallery. She also added that the computer
should be used to present their findings. Lastly, Rater 2 felts that there are four
activities in the module (Section: 3, Activity: 1 and 2) that can be combined to
effectively addressed the time constraint issue in school.

Rater 3 suggested adding several labels and diagrams (Section: 2 Activity: 1)
to enhance students‘ understanding of the activity. For Section three, he
suggested adding a new instruction that asks students to give examples of
solution for a hypertonic, hypotonic and isotonic solution. Regarding the
experiment activity, Rater 3 suggested that students will be asked to write
down any questions on a piece of paper and submit the questions to the
teacher after the experiment ended and the teacher can discuss the questions
during the next lesson. This is to ensure the teacher will entertain questions
from students because usually after an experiment, students will become
curious, and their curiosity will usually unanswered because the class time is
over. Responding to the suggestion, amendments were made to the technical
parts such as adding diagrams, labels and combining the activities in a certain
session. In terms of the execution of the module, the detailed instruction was
discussed with teachers.

iv. Validation for Level of Thinking Accuracy in Assessment Sheet

Three sets of assessment sheets developed which are; pre-test, post-test, and
retention-test. As mentioned in the methodology and design phase, all
questions were taken from SPM questions from the year 2005 to 2016, and
those questions had undergone series of validation by the MOE, and hence,
they require no further validation. However, verifications were needed in terms
of the thinking accuracy level for each question. All assessments consist of
LOTS and HOTS questions. Two professional experts were involved in this
validation process.

An inter-rater agreement analysis using the Kappa analysis was performed to
determine the consistency among raters. The inter-rater agreement for the pre-
test was found to be Kappa = 0.86 (p <.0.001), 95% CI (1.12, 1.68). The inter-
rater agreement for the post-test was found to be Kappa = 0.84 (p <.0.001),

85

95% CI (1.06, 1.60) and the inter-rater agreement for the retention-test was
found to be Kappa = 0.64 (p <.0.005), 95% CI (1.21, 1.74). Based on Kappa
value suggested by Landis and Koch (1977), pre-test and post-test achieved
almost perfect agreement (0.81 – 1.00), whereas the retention-test achieved a
substantial agreement (0.61 – 0.80) among the raters.

In summary, all instruments in PROPOSE-M achieved a satisfying percentage
of validity measurement. After the process of establishing the validity and
amendments process, PROPOSE-M was seen to be ready to be tested
through the pilot test with 30 Form Four students. During the pilot test, all
instruments went through another phase of face validation.

4.5 Implementation Phase

After the pilot, test procedures have been completed, and all amendments
have been made from the students‘ feedback, PROPOSE-M was implemented
to real participants at school. Since pilot test procedures and results have been
discussed in Chapter 3, the results will not be discussed in this section.

The implementation phase started with the teacher training session. The
training session was two hours per each session, and it took two sessions to
complete the training. During the training session, the teacher was advised on
how to install Adobe Flash Player on her laptop. The teacher reviewed and
explored the PROPOSE-M (multimedia) and familiarised herself with the
button. The teacher examined the contents of PROPOSE-M (multimedia) and
PROPOSE-M (booklet) to ensure all activities can be implemented during the
lesson. After the training, the teacher was equipped with the knowledge and
the strategies to use PROPOSE-M.

For the implementation phase, experimental procedures were successfully
conducted in two schools in a span of seventeen weeks, after taking into
account the school holidays and weekend. The implementation activities were
summarised in the table and shown in Appendix T. During the process of
module implementation, observations were made during the entire classroom
activities for both groups, and the observation record was kept in the
observation list. All the findings for class observation were considered as
formative evaluation to provide insight for the teaching and learning processes
in every session.

4.5.1 Classroom Observation

A classroom observation is a formal or informal observation of teaching and
learning activities that take place in a classroom. In this study, the classroom
observation was conducted to provide the study with constructive critical
feedback aimed at enlightening the effectiveness of the teaching strategies
used during teaching and learning processes and considered as formative

86

evaluation in the implementation phase (Smith, Jones, Gilbert, & Wieman,
2013). This classroom observation was conducted in the classroom for a full
class period for both groups exposed to PROPOSE-M and TRAD. The
observation process was guided using a classroom observation list that was
developed and validated earlier during the development stage.

Along with the observation list, the classroom observation was also recorded to
increase the clarity of the observation. The use of the video camera was
appropriate as it can fill the limitation of a just paper-based observation
process. Classroom observations presented in this section were summarised
from twelve sessions of the teaching and learning conducted at the school.

a. PROPOSE-M Group
Based on the observation conducted, the teacher maintains a good rapport
with her students. She displays good examples of empathy and care, as seen
in the way she greets the students and finding out about their well-being. Aside
from her altruism, she conducts a high level of professionalism in her work. She
is well prepared for her lesson and is able to lead the classroom situation with
well-thought activities and meticulous planning. The observation also showed
that the teacher has a high level of content knowledge as she can explain the
topic with ease and is able to relate the topic with real-life applications. She
provides the class with real-life instances and uses an analogy to help the
students to gain a better understanding of the subject. Figure 4.21 shows the
teacher is making an effort to address the lesson personally to students in her
classroom.

Figure 4.21. PROPOSE-M Classroom

87

On the module implementation part, the teacher has successfully executed the
daily lesson plan provided except for two sessions due to ad-hoc school
events. She utilises PROPOSE-M as a teaching tool in the classroom to its full
potential. The teacher explains the concepts based on the PROPOSE-M
(multimedia) presentation and adds additional information or examples to
strengthen the teaching. After completing the transferring of information, the
teacher moves on to the PROPOSE-M (booklet) to conduct the problem-posing
activity.

For students, they manage to follow instructions by the teacher and complete
the activity as instructed. Students appear to be ready and quickly adapted to
the situation in the classroom. Students are given an equal chance to ask
questions in the classroom. However, at the beginning of the intervention, most
of the students seem to be subdued and reluctant to ask questions regarding
the topic as exemplified in the third and fourth session. It was found that their
passiveness stems from the nervousness, shyness and lack of confidence in
speaking out in the classroom. There were also instances where students do
not ask any question because they are drawing a blank due to the unfamiliar
topic or lack of prior knowledge about this topic.

As the session with PROPOSE-M continued, it was seen that students show
better responses to ask a question in the classroom. This was observed as
early as during the fifth sessions. It was revealed that their newfound
confidence is a result of the previous collaborative learning session where the
students practice asking a question with their peers. Students‘ level of
motivation and confidence to ask the question was seen in the way they are
more voluntary to ask a question rather than being prompted first. They are
also motivated to ask a question to clarify their understanding of the lesson. It
was seen during the fifth session that students have started to ask HOTS
questions voluntarily such as; ―During fever, what is the condition of our body
fluid? Is it a hypotonic or hypertonic condition?‖ Students are able to create
their own questions through the PROPOSE-M (booklet) with the help of the
teacher and discussion with their peers. Figure 4.22 shows the students were
participating in problem-posing activities.

88

Figure 4.22. Students Participated in Problem-Posing Activities
The observation with PROPOSE-M group showed that students were able to
create their own questions, and the questions created have moved from lower
order questions (LOQ) to higher order questions (HOQ). As exemplified in
Student 1 answer, during the earlier session, she created this question; ―What
is the meaning of hydrophilic?‖ (see Figure 4.23).

Figure 4.23. LOQ Created by Student 1
Further into the session, the question created by her was; "When a plant cell is
plasmolysed, what substance occupies the empty space between the plasma
membrane and the cell wall?‖ (see Figure 4.24).

89

Figure 4.24. HOQ Created by Student 1
Another example of a student‘s question, during the earlier session, she asked;
"What are the two types of diffusion?‖ (see Figure 4.25)

Figure 4.25. LOQ Created by Student2
On the later session, she asked; "What causes the plant to wilt?‖ These
examples have shown that the questions created have shifted from LOQ to
HOQ (see Figure 4.26). This indicates that students gained a deeper
understanding of the topic that allows them to produce more complicated and
higher order form of a question (Land, 2017).

90

Figure 4.26. HOQ Created by Student2
In addition, students were able to solve the HOTS tasks in the PROPOSE-M
(booklet) by constructing their own words for the answers. For example, activity
(2) in session (5) asks students to describe the process of pickling mango in
the food preservation process. It was seen in their answers that students have
managed to complete the task and also managed to provide an explanation
that occurs at the molecular stage (see Figure 4.27). This showed that they
were able to visualise the movement of substances clearly due to the animation
presented using PROPOSE-M, and it was manifested in their answer.

Figure 4.27. Student’s Answers for HOTS Task
During the presentation, students share the natural phenomena of osmosis and
diffusion to describe clearer pictures to their peers. For example, in the
presentation at the seventh session, one of the groups uses the diffusion of
gaseous released by factories and cars and how it affected the environments
which lead to air pollution. The students also utilise their creativity in producing

91

diagrams and arranging their ideas into an interactive session to address their
questions and answers with relevant examples.

Overall, students who were exposed to PROPOSE-M are seen to be actively
involved in group discussions in order to create their own questions and find
answers to their own questions. Students also practice collaboration and
teamwork as they share information with other groups when they are having
difficulties in completing their task. Students are involved in meaningful
collaboration as they work together to plan and present their content. They take
charge of their own learning by arranging their ideas and answers. Throughout
twelve sessions, all students are given the same opportunity to present their
questions and answers, and at each student has one opportunity to represent
their group.

b. TRAD Group
Similar to the PROPOSE-M group, the teacher responsible for TRAD also
shows professionalism and altruism in her profession. The teacher always
arrives on time and ready for the lesson in all sessions. In addition, the teacher
demonstrates a good relationship with students by always asking students
about their conditions and well-being and teacher is kind, patient and caring
about students‘ feeling. She also demonstrates an excellent depth of
knowledge, as seen during lesson delivery and question and answers session.
Figure 4.28 shows the teacher was making an effort to address the lesson
personally to students in her classroom.

Figure 4.28. TRAD Classroom

92

Regarding the implementation part, the teacher has successfully completed
most of the teaching and learning steps listed in the daily lesson plan, except
three sessions are rushed due to the time constraint. Most of the time, the
teacher used a lecturing style to deliver information with the help of a
PowerPoint presentation. The teacher arranges the notes and alternately
inserts diagrams to enhance students‘ understanding. Nevertheless, the
teacher did not use videos and animation in her teaching strategy. Figure 4.29
shows lecturing session in TRAD classroom.

Figure 4.29. Lecturing Session in TRAD Classroom
The analysis of students from the classroom observation list revealed that
students possess good attitudes by following the teacher‘s instruction and
accomplish all task instructed by the teacher. Majority of the students appear to
be ready for the lesson when they enter the laboratory. In terms of asking
questions, most students shy away from participating in questions and answers
session. Students seem to lack confidence, and even when they are prompted,
most students choose not to ask. Questions and answer session is usually
dominated by the same students.

Due to the low number of activities in the classroom, students were found to be
passive and timid. During the two activities of the group presentation in the
sixth and eighth session, not all students are engaging in meaningful
collaboration. They rather take a turn or to wait for their friends‘ answers,
despite the efforts made by the teacher to prompt them into true collaboration.
Some students refuse to take part in the discussion and prefer to assume the
role of jotting down the discussion without putting much input. However, some
students display a high level of creativity in arranging the diagrams and notes
to be presented in front of the class.

93

Some students show the potential of being critical learners based on the types
of questions asked to the teacher in later sessions as exemplified in the tenth
session. However, from 25% of students who asked questions, the questions
are mostly a basic question to confirm the information that has already been
explained by their teacher. Overall, the students who were exposed to the
TRAD group have a big potential to be more creative and critical in thinking if
different teaching strategy was used in the classroom. The teaching strategies
should aim to encourage the students and should spark their curiosity and lead
them to be more active learners.

4.6 Evaluation Phase

Since formative evaluation has been discussed in the implementation phase, it
will not be discussed any further in this section. As established earlier, the
evaluation for this study was performed by utilising the quantitative and
qualitative methods. After completing the implementation phase, the data from
the pre-test, post-test, and retention test were recorded and analysed using
IBM SPSS Statistics 22.0 to compare the effectiveness between PROPOSE-M
and TRAD. On the other hand, qualitative data were analysed using Atlas.ti
software to get themes and subsequently explore the conceptual change that
had occurred among students. Both of these results are considered as
summative evaluation for the development research design. Thus the results
will be presented in details in Chapter 5 that discusses the main findings and
discussion of this study.

4.7 Conclusion

Based on the findings for each phase of the ADDIE model, it is vital that the
module must undergo several rigorous processes and in-depth sub-studies
prior to testing its effectiveness. It was discovered during the analysis phase, a
need analysis is a vital step to firmly establish the need to develop the module
in the first place. It was through the need analysis that the discovery was made;
there is a lingering problem among students to gain a deep understanding of
the fundamental in Biology. The lack of understanding thus lead to several
issues, namely, students fail to visualise the abstract processes, inability to
tackle HOTS and feeling reluctant to ask questions. This research findings
align with several studies by Artun and Coştu, (2013), Çimer (2012), Kramer
and Myers (2013) and Yarden and Yarden (2010).

To overcome the problems stated, it seems timely for teachers to have a
module that could assist in transmitting the knowledge in explicit ways while
encouraging students to ask good questions that reflects their higher order
thinking skills as quoted in the words of Mishra and Iyer (2015) that ―asking
right questions is vital in learning processes to indicate the knowledge and
understanding possessed by students‖. Furthermore, asking questions was
proven to improve HOTS (Singer & Voica, 2013) and strengthen LOTS among
students.

94

Through systematic literature review performed in the analysis phase, it was
also revealed PROPOSE-M should utilise activity that entails problem-posing
elements. The steps of problem-posing activity involve; 1) Posing a problem 2)
Giving situation with missing data 3) Finding answers to their own questions 4)
Presenting their completed work. Problem-posing activity was chosen due to its
ability to promote HOTS (Beal & Cohen, 2012; Christou et al., 2005; Kojima et
al., 2013; Mayer, 2010; N. Hasanah et al., 2017; Nerida F, 2015; Nunes et al.,
2016; Sousa, 2016) and enhance students‘ confidence level (Beal & Cohen,
2012; Cankoy, 2014; Kontorovich et al., 2012) and this activity also encourage
question and answer session in the classroom.

Once the analysis phase was completed, the objectives of the module were
finalised and drafted in detailed. During the design phase, the module was
developed by strictly adhering the agreed design. In the design phase, the new
PROPOSE-M instructional strategy model was developed based on the
outcome produced during the systematic literature review in the analysis
phase. Subsequently, after reviewing the idea through a focus group
discussion, PROPOSE-M was developed in two forms, PROPOSE-M
(multimedia) and PROPOSE-M (booklet). PROPOSE-M development took
three months to complete, and it was then put through a series of validity test
and reliability test to establish acceptable degrees of validity and reliability.
After establishing the validity and reliability, PROPOSE-M was cleared to
proceed through experimental procedures and its effectiveness was tested in
teaching osmosis and diffusion concepts in school.

95

CHAPTER 5

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

5.1 Introduction
This chapter presents the findings of the data analysis that is considered as
summative evaluation in ADDIE phases as detailed out in the previous chapter.
Following the introduction, the result for the experimental procedure that
involves hypothesis testing to investigate the effectiveness of PROPOSE-M are
presented and later, the next section describes the results for students‘
conceptual change. In the succeeding section, the findings were discussed
thoroughly to give an insight into the usability and effectiveness of PROPOSE-
M compared to TRAD. The chapter closes with the conclusion of the chapter.

5.2 The Effectiveness of PROPOSE-M
The evaluation of PROPOSE-M was performed after the experimentation
process. The summative evaluation was conducted during the evaluation
phase, following the formative evaluation that has taken place during the
development and implementation phase. The goal of summative evaluation is
to find out that the intervention has achieved the research objectives. This
section presents results from the quantitative part to answer the second
objective, two research questions and two sub-research questions involving ten
hypotheses.

5.2.1 Preliminary Analysis
a. Analysis of missing data
The screening of the data was administrated using IBM SPSS Statistics 22.0
software, and frequency command was used. The result of the screening
showed that there is no missing variable as shown in Table 5.1. After passing
the screening data process, the data was put to the next step of data analysis.

96

Table 5.1. Analysis of Missing Data

Variable N N Mean SD

Pre_test Valid Missing 13.87530
Post_test 15.70836
Ret_test 61 100.0% 0.0% 39.3279 20.88171
Pre_testLOTS 15.32308
Pre_testHOTS 61 100.0% 0.0% 67.5410 14.83608
Post_testLOTS 14.79926
Post_testHOTS 61 100.0% 0.0% 59.5902 20.27273
Ret_testLOTS 21.76159
Ret_testHOTS 61 100.0% 0.0% 45.2623 25.55949

61 100.0% 0.0% 33.6066

61 100.0% 0.0% 75.3115

61 100.0% 0.0% 59.1803

61 100.0% 0.0% 64.0000

61 100.0% 0.0% 53.5082

b. Analysis of Compute Data

Computing data using descriptive statistics is essential to determine that the
empirical data is reasonable and to identify any extreme score in the data
entry. All the data are reasonable and accepted, except for the pre-test HOTS
data where there is a 0.00 minimum value recorded, as shown in Table 5.2.
However, the value is only found in one student who scored 0.00 mark for
HOTS questions during the pre-test.

Table 5.2. Analysis of Compute Empirical Data

Variable N Minimum Maximum Mean

Pre_test 61 18.00 82.00 39.3279
Post_test
Ret_test 61 27.00 100.00 67.5410
Pre_testLOTS
Pre_testHOTS 61 22.00 100.00 59.5902
Post_testLOTS
Post_testHOTS 61 17.00 92.00 45.2623
Ret_testLOTS
Ret_testHOTS 61 .00 70.00 33.6066
Valid N
61 42.00 100.00 75.3115

61 10.00 100.00 59.1803

61 15.00 100.00 64.0000

61 11.00 100.00 53.5082

61

c. Test of Normality

Empirical data were tested for normality to make sure all the data meet the
requirement of analysis. The normality assumption was assessed using the
Shapiro Wilk (SW) test due to small sample size, (N=61) as suggested by
Field, (2009). The inspection of the SW test values, as seen in Table ‎3.5,
revealed that all measures for the SW are in the range of p > .05. Thus, the
measures indicate that the data is normally distributed.

97

Table 5.3. Tests of Normality (Shapiro-Wilk)

Group Variable Shapiro-Wilk
PROPOSE-M
Pre_test Statistics Sig.
TRAD Post_test
Ret_test .931 .047

Pre_test .946 .120
Post_test
Ret_test .962 .320

.961 .328
.957 .255
.937 .078

However, it was found that the pre-test score for PROPOSE-M group has the
value of p < .05. As a result, this score was further tested using skewness and
kurtosis analysis. An inspection of skewness and kurtosis values, seen in Table
5.4 reveals that all measures for the skewness and kurtosis are within the
range of ± 2.5 (Garson, 2012).

Table 5.4. Test of Normality (Skewness and Kurtosis)

Group Variable Skewness Kurtosis

Statistic Std. Statistic Std.

Error Error

PROPOSE-M Pre_test .323 .421 -.407 .821

Thus, the measures satisfy the normality, indicating that the data is normally
distributed. The skewness and kurtosis ratio for pre-test score was calculated
as below:

PROPOSE-M (pre-test):

i) Skewness ratio: .323 / .421 = .76
ii) Kurtosis ratio: .407 / .821 = .50

5.2.2 Results of Pre-test, Post-test and Retention-test

The achievement hypotheses assume the following:

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 the PROPOSE-M group.
H5: There is a significant difference in the mean score of the pre-test and post-
test for the TRAD group.

98

a. Analysis for Hypothesis Proposed (H1, H2 and H3)

To verify H1, H2 and H3, the study proceeded with independent sample t-test to
compare the performance between the PROPOSE-M group and TRAD group
during the pre-test, post-test and retention-test. The assumption of the
independent t-test is the data should be normally distributed as the scale used
for independent variables is interval or ratio scale. The overall result of the
hypotheses is shown in Appendix U.

Hypothesis 1 (H1)

H1: There is a significant difference in the mean score of the pre-test between
PROPOSE-M and TRAD group.

Firstly, the Levene‘s test for homogeneity of variance needs to be satisfied. For
the pre-test between PROPOSE-M group and TRAD group, Levene‘s test
showed p > .05; thus, both groups have the score value with the same
variance. The mean value between the groups shows that the TRAD group
have higher mean score compared to PROPOSE-M group. However, the
difference is not statistically significant to each other. Table 5.5 shows the
mean score and standard deviation value of the pre-test score for PROPOSE-
M and TRAD group.

Table 5.5. Mean Score and Standard Deviation (Pre-Test)

Pre-test (H1) N Mean Std. Deviation Std.

PROPOSE-M Error
TRAD
Mean

31 37.129 11.780 2.116

30 41.600 15.628 2.853

T-test analysis for pre-test showed that there is no significant difference in the
mean score between PROPOSE-M and TRAD with PROPOSE-M group
(M=37.129, SD=11.780) and TRAD group (M=41.600, SD=15.628) and t (59) =
-1.264, p > .05. Table 5.6 shows the descriptive analysis for the pre-test score
between PROPOSE-M and TRAD group.

Table 5.6. Descriptive Analysis (Pre-test)

Levene‘s Test for Equality t-test for Equality of Means
of Variances

Pre-test F Sig. t df Sig. (2-tailed)

Equal variances 2.425 .125 -1.264 59 .211
assumed

Equal variances -1.259 54 .214
not assumed

99

The results revealed that both groups have equal performance in Biology at the
beginning of the experiment. The results indicated that there is no significant
difference between PROPOSE-M and TRAD in the pre-test; thus, the
hypothesis that there is a significant difference in the mean score of the pre-
test between PROPOSE-M and TRAD group is rejected.

Hypothesis 2 (H2)

H2: There is a significant difference in the mean score of the post-test between
PROPOSE-M and TRAD group.

For post-test between both groups, the Levene‘s test showed p < .05; thus,
both groups have the score value with different variance. Because of the
difference in the variance between both groups, the result for t-test analysis
was taken from equal variances not assumed in the table with p = .006. T-test
analysis for post-test showed that there is a significant difference in the mean
score between PROPOSE-M and TRAD. Table 5.7 shows the mean score and
standard deviation value of the post-test score for PROPOSE-M and TRAD
group.

Table 5.7. Mean Score and Standard Deviation (Post-test)

Post-test (H2) N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error

PROPOSE-M Mean
TRAD
31 72.935 10.841 1.947

30 61.967 18.047 3.294

PROPOSE-M group has higher mean value (M=72.935, SD=10.841) as
compared to TRAD (M=61.967, SD=18.047) with t (47) = 2.866, p < .05. The
results revealed that PROPOSE-M group had performed better after being
subjected to PROPOSE-M compared to the TRAD group. Thus, the hypothesis
that there is a significant difference in the mean score of the post-test between
PROPOSE-M and TRAD group is accepted. Table 5.8 shows the descriptive
analysis for the post-test score between PROPOSE-M and TRAD group.

Table 5.8. Descriptive Analysis (Post-test)

Levene‘s Test for t-test for Equality of Means
Equality of Variances

Post-test F Sig. t df Sig. (2-tailed)

Equal variances 7.168 .010 2.889 59 .005
assumed

Equal variances 2.866 47 .006
not assumed

100

Hypothesis 3 (H3)

H3: There is a significant difference in the mean score of the retention-test
between PROPOSE-M and TRAD group.

For the retention-test between both groups, the Levene‘s test showed p > .05;
thus, both groups have the score value with the same variance. T-test analysis
for retention-test showed that there is a significant difference in the mean score
between PROPOSE-M and TRAD group. Table 5.9 shows the mean score and
standard deviation value of retention-test score for PROPOSE-M and TRAD
group.

Table 5.9. Mean Score and Standard Deviation (Retention-test)

Retention-test (H3) N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error
Mean
PROPOSE-M 31 68.709 18.880 3.391
TRAD 30 50.167 18.778 3.428

PROPOSE-M group gained a higher retention-test score (M=68.709,
SD=18.880) with a significant difference compared to TRAD group (M=50.167
SD=18.778) and t (59) = 3.845, p < .05. The results revealed that PROPOSE-
M group have the ability to retain their memory and understanding longer after
being subjected to PROPOSE-M compared to the TRAD group. Thus, the
hypothesis that there is a significant difference in the mean score of the
retention-test between PROPOSE-M and TRAD group is accepted. Table 5.10
shows the descriptive analysis for the retention-test score.

Table 5.10. Descriptive Analysis (Retention-test)

Levene‘s Test for t-test for Equality of Means
Equality of Variances

Retention-test F Sig. t df Sig.
(2-tailed)
Equal variances .004 .947 3.845 59
assumed .000

Equal variances not 3.845 59 .000
assumed

b. Analysis for Proposed Hypotheses (H4 and H5)

To verify H4 and H5, paired samples t-test was performed by testing the
performance of PROPOSE-M group and TRAD group during pre-test and post-
test. For paired samples t-test, there is no need to test for homogeneity of
variance since the samples are from the same group with two sets of different
data. The overall result for the hypotheses is shown in Appendix U.

101

Hypothesis 4 (H4)

H4: There is a significant difference in the mean score of the pre-test and post-
test for the PROPOSE-M group.

The analysis showed the mean value for the post-test score is higher
compared to the pre-test score. Table 5.11 shows the values of means and
standard deviations obtained from the analysis for PROPOSE-M group.

Table 5.11. Means Score and Standard Deviation

PROPOSE-M N Mean Std.
deviation
Pre-test 31 37.129
Post-test 31 72.935 11.780
10.841

There is a significant difference between pre-test score (M=37.129,
SD=11.780) and post-test score (M=72.935, SD=10.841) with t (30) = -13.950,
p < .05. This indicated that there is a significant enhancement in the post-test
score compared to the pre-test score for the group after being subjected to
PROPOSE-M. Thus, the hypothesis that there is a significant difference in the
mean score of the pre-test and post-test for PROPOSE-M group is accepted.
Table 5.12 shows a descriptive analysis of the pre-test and post-test score
obtained for PROPOSE-M group.

Table 5.12. Descriptive Analysis (PROPOSE-M Group)

PROPOSE-M T Df Sig.
Pre_test-Post_test -13.950 30 (2-tailed)

.000

Hypothesis 5 (H5)

H5: There is a significant difference in the mean score of the pre-test and post-
test for the TRAD group.

The analysis showed the mean value for the post-test score is higher
compared to the pre-test score. Table 5.13 shows the values of means and
standard deviations obtained from the analysis for the TRAD group.

102

Table 5.13. Mean Score and Standard Deviation

TRAD N Mean Std.
deviation

Pre-test 30 41.600 15.628
Post-test 30 61.967 18.047

The group exposed to TRAD also showed a significant difference in pre-test
score (M=41.600, SD=15.628) as compared to post-test score (M=61.967,
SD=18.047) with t (29) = -9.019, p < .05. This indicated that there is an
enhancement in post-test score after being subjected to TRAD. Thus, the
hypothesis stating that there is a significant difference in the mean score of the
pre-test and post-test for the TRAD group is accepted. However, the mean
score of post-test for the PROPOSE-M (M=72.935) is higher compared to that
of TRAD (M=61.967). Table 5.14 shows the descriptive analysis of pre-test and
post-test obtained for the TRAD group.

Table 5.14. Descriptive Analysis (TRAD Group)

TRAD T Df Sig. (2-tailed)
Pre_test-Post_test
-9.019 29 .000

5.2.3 Results of HOTS and LOTS Questions

The achievement hypotheses assume the following:

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.

a. Analysis for Proposed Hypotheses (H6, H7 and H8)

To verify H6, H7 and H8, the study used one-way MANOVA test to analyse the
performance of PROPOSE-M and TRAD in the pre-test, post-test and retention
test for HOTS and LOTS scores. Before the hypothesis was tested, the data
was first checked on the goodness-of-fit. The goodness-of-fit indices for the

103

data are all within the accepted thresholds. Hence, the overall data fit is
adequate to test the proposed hypotheses. The overall test results of the
hypotheses are presented in Appendix W.

Hypothesis 6 (H6)

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.

For hypothesis number six (H6), Pearson coefficient value is significant with a
value of r= .630, p <.05 and is considered moderate and does not violate the
multicollinearity between dependent variable. Based on the univariate outliers
test, boxplot analysis showed no outliers for the pre-test scores for both LOTS
and HOTS scores. Mahalanobis distances for every sample in the study also
showed that there are no multivariate outliers for the score from both groups
with a minimum value of MaH = .065, whereas the maximum value is MaH =
9.772. Based on the critical value of chi-square for two dependent variables,
the Mahalanobis should not exceed 13.82. Table 5.15 shows the critical value
of Mahalanobis.

Table 5.15. Mahalanobis Distance Critical Value

Df Critical Value
2 13.82
3 16.27
4 18.47
5 20.52
6 22.46
7 24.32

(Source: ttps://en.wikiversity.org)

For the linearity test, there is a linear relationship between the pre-test LOTS
and pre-test HOTS scores with the value for the PROPOSE-M group is R2=
.220, whereas the value for the TRAD group is R2= .527. All the data are within
the accepted range to proceed with the MANOVA test. The Shapiro Wilk value
from Levene‘s test, p > .05 indicates that the value is not significant, and both
groups have the equality of variances. Table 5.16 shows the value for Shapiro
Wilk from Levene‘s test analysis equality of variances for both of the groups.

Table 5.16. Levene’s Test Analysis

Variable F Df1 Df2 Sig.

Pre-test LOTS 1.402 1 59 .241
Pre-test HOTS 3.063 1 59 .085

104

The mean scores for the TRAD group are slightly higher to the mean of
PROPOSE-M group in both pre-test LOTS and pre-test HOTS. The mean
value between both groups shows that there is a difference in the mean score.
However, the differences are not statistically significant to each other. Table
5.17 shows the mean analysis between both groups based on pre-test LOTS
and pre-test HOTS scores.

Table 5.17. Analysis of Mean

Group Variable (H6) Mean Std. Error
Pre-test LOTS
PROPOSE-M 43.365 2.753
TRAD Pre-test HOTS 47.233 2.798

PROPOSE-M 32.258 2.675
TRAD 35.000 2.720

From the multivariate analysis, the result shows that there is no significant
difference between pre-test LOTS score and pre-test HOTS score between the
PROPOSE-M group and TRAD group [F(2) = .488, Wilks‘ Lambda = .983, eta
square = .017]. This indicates that both groups are equal at the beginning of
the experiment. Thus, the hypothesis that 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 is rejected. Table 5.18 shows the
analysis of test of between subjects and Wilks Lambda value for pre-test LOTS
and pre-test HOTS scores for both groups.

Table 5.18. Descriptive Analysis for Pre-test (LOTS and HOTS)

Group Variable (H6) F Sig. Eta.
Pre-test LOTS Squared
PROPOSE-M
TRAD Pre-test HOTS .976 .327 .016

PROPOSE-M .517 .475 .009
TRAD

F Df Sig. Value Eta.

Squared

Group Wilks‘ Lambda .488 2.000 .616 .983 .017

105

Hypothesis 7 (H7)

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.

Hypothesis number seven (H7) compared the post-test scores for LOTS and
HOTS between the PROPOSE-M group and the TRAD group. The Pearson
coefficient value is significant with a value of r = .691, p <.05. Based on the
univariate outliers test, boxplot analysis showed that there are no outliers for
post-test LOTS and post-test HOTS scores for both groups. Mahalanobis
distances for every sample in the study also showed that there are no
multivariate outliers for the score from both groups with a minimum value of
MaH = .323 whereas the maximum value of MaH = 11.227 and both scores do
not exceed the chi-square value = 13.82.

For the linearity test, there is a linear relationship between the post-test LOTS
and HOTS score with the value for PROPOSE-M group is R2= .100, and the
value for the TRAD group is R2= .732. All the data are within the accepted

range to proceed with the MANOVA test. The Shapiro Wilk value from
Levene‘s test is p >.05 which means that the value is not significant and

indicates both groups have the equality of variances. Table 5.19 shows the
value for Shapiro Wilk from Levene‘s test analysis equality of variances for

PROPOSE-M and TRAD group.

Table 5.19. Levene’s Test Analysis

Variable F Df1 Df2 Sig.

Post-test LOTS 2.777 1 59 .101
Post-test HOTS .567 1 59 .455

The mean for PROPOSE-M group is higher (Mean LOTS= 79.87, Mean
HOTS= 58.88) as compared to the mean of TRAD group (Mean LOTS= 70.60,
Mean HOTS= 45.30) in both post-test for LOTS and HOTS scores. It was
found that there is a statistical mean difference between the groups. Table 5.20
shows the mean analysis between PROPOSE-M and TRAD group based on
scores for post-test LOTS and post-test HOTS.

106

Table 5.20. Analysis of Mean

Group Variable (H7) Mean Std.
Post-test LOTS Error
PROPOSE-M Post-test HOTS 79.871
TRAD 70.600 2.543
2.585
PROPOSE-M 58.884
TRAD 45.296 3.460
3.517

From the multivariate analysis, the result shows that there is a significant
difference in both post-test LOTS and HOTS scores between the PROPOSE-M
group and TRAD group [F (2) = 4.173, Wilks‘ Lambda = .874, eta squared =
.126, p < .05]. Thus, the hypothesis stated that 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 is accepted. Table 5.21
shows the test between-subjects analysis and Wilks' Lambda value for post-
test LOTS and post-test HOTS scores for both groups.

Table 5.21. Descriptive Analysis for Post-test (LOTS and HOTS)

Group Variable (H7) F Sig. Eta. Squared
Post-test LOTS 6.536 .013 .100
PROPOSE-M
TRAD Post-test HOTS 7.459 .008 .112

PROPOSE-M
TRAD

Group Wilks‘ F df Sig. Value Eta.
Lambda 4.173 2.000 .020 .874 Squared

.126

Hypothesis 8 (H8)

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.

Hypothesis number eight (H8) compares the scores of retention-test for LOTS
and HOTS between the PROPOSE-M group and the TRAD group. Pearson
coefficient value is significant with the value of r = .600, p < .05. Based on the
univariate outliers test, boxplot analysis showed no outliers except for one
outlier in retention-HOTS score in PROPOSE-M group. Since Mahalanobis
distances values for every sample in the study showed that there are no
multivariate outliers for the score from both groups, the outliers are considered

107

within the range with a minimum value of MaH = .029 whereas the maximum
value of MaH = 8.782 and they do not exceed chi-square value = 13.82.

For the linearity test, there is a linear relationship in the retention-test LOTS

and retention-test HOTS scores for both groups with the value for PROPOSE-
M group is R2= .399 whereas the value for TRAD group is R2= .223. All the

data are within the accepted range to proceed with the MANOVA test. Shapiro
Wilk value from Levene‘s test shows that p >.05 is not significant and indicates

that both groups have the equality of variances. Table 5.22 shows the value for
Shapiro Wilk from Levene‘s test analysis equality of variances for both groups.

Table 5.22. Levene’s Test Analysis

Variable F df1 df2 Sig.

Retention-test LOTS .075 1 59 .785
Retention-test HOTS .040 1 59 .843

The mean for PROPOSE-M group is higher (Mean LOTS= 70.13, Mean
HOTS= 67.13) compared to the mean of TRAD group (Mean LOTS= 57.67,
Mean HOTS= 39.43) for both retention-test LOTS and HOTS scores. It was
found that there is a statistical mean difference between the groups. This
indicated that the PROPOSE-M is more effective to enhance the scores in both
LOTS and HOTS as compared to TRAD among the students. Table 5.23
shows the mean analysis between both groups based on retention-test LOTS
and retention-test HOTS scores.

Table 5.23. Analysis of Mean

Group Variable Mean Std.
Retention-test LOTS Error
PROPOSE-M 70.129 3.774
TRAD Retention-test HOTS 57.667 3.836

PROPOSE-M 67.129 3.878
TRAD 39.433 3.942

From the multivariate analysis, the result showed that there is a significant
difference between retention-test LOTS score and retention-test HOTS score
between the PROPOSE-M group and the TRAD group with [F (2) = 12.471,
Wilks' Lambda = .699, eta squared = .301, p <.05]. Thus, the hypothesis that
there is a significant difference in the mean score of the retention-test LOTS
and the retention-test HOTS between PROPOSE-M and TRAD group is
accepted. Table 5.24 shows the analysis of test of between-subjects and Wilks'
Lambda value for retention-test LOTS and retention-test HOTS scores for both
groups.

108

Table 5.24. Descriptive Analysis for Retention-test (LOTS and HOTS)

Group Variable (H8) F Sig. Eta. Squared
PROPOSE-M Retention-test LOTS 5.364 .024 .083
TRAD
Retention-test HOTS 25.087 .000 .298
PROPOSE-M
TRAD

Group Wilks‘ Lambda F Df Sig. Value Eta.
12.471 2.000 .000 .699 squared

.301

b. Analysis to Accept Proposed Hypotheses (H9 and H10)

MANOVA repeated measures were conducted to test these two hypotheses.
The analysis showed that there is a significant difference in the pre-test, post-
test and retention-test in both groups for HOTS and LOTS scores. The results
indicated that the group subjected to PROPOSE-M attained higher score in
LOTS and HOTS for post-test and retention-test as compared to the group
exposed to TRAD. The overall test results are shown in Appendix X.

Hypothesis 9 (H9)

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.

From the mean value analysis, it was revealed that the PROPOSE-M group
experienced a significant increment in all three tests for HOTS questions
whereas for LOTS questions, the score increased in post-test when compared
to pre-test, but it slightly decreased in retention-test. Table 5.25 shows the
summary of mean value analysis of LOTS and HOTS score for PROPOSE-M
group in all three tests.

Table 5.25. Analysis of Mean

Level Variable (H9) PROPOSE-M
LOTS
HOTS Pre-test Mean Std.
Post-test Deviation
Retention-test 43.354
79.871 13.900
Pre-test 70.129 11.949
Post-test 20.647
Retention-test
32.258 12.304
65.807 16.688
67.129 21.491

109

From the analysis, it was revealed that there is a significant difference in the

mean score for pre-test, post-test and retention test for HOTS and LOTS
questions for the PROPOSE-M group [ F(4) = 29.06, Wilks‘s Lambda = .254, p

< .05]. Thus, the hypothesis that 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 is accepted. Table 5.26 shows the values of Wilks‘s

Lambda attained from the MANOVA repeated measures test for PROPOSE-M

group.

Table 5.26. MANOVA Repeated Measures (PROPOSE-M Group)

Group (H9) Wilks’s Lambda
F df
Value Sig.

PROPOSE-M .254 29.058 4.000 .000

Hypothesis 10 (H10)

H10: There is a significant difference in the mean score of pre-test, post-test
and retention test for HOTS and LOTS questions for TRAD group.

For the group exposed to TRAD, the score for LOTS of questions and HOTS
questions are higher in post-test compared to the pre-test. However, both
LOTS and HOTS scores decrease in retention-test. Table 5.27 shows the
summary of mean value analysis of LOTS and HOTS scores for the TRAD
group in all three tests.

Table 5.27. Analysis of Mean

Level Variable (H10) Mean TRAD
LOTS Std.
HOTS Pre-test 47.233
Post-test 70.600 Deviation
Retention-test 57.667
16.672
Pre-test 16.132
Post-test 21.380
Retention-test
35.000 17.171
52.333 21.605
39.433 21.693

The analysis revealed that there is a significant difference in the mean score of

pre-test, post-test and retention-test for HOTS and LOTS questions for the
TRAD group [F(4)= 13.721, Wilks‘s Lambda = .456, p < .05]. Thus, the

hypothesis that there is a significant difference in the mean score of pre-test,

post-test and retention test for HOTS and LOTS questions for TRAD group is
accepted. Table 5.28 shows the summary of analysis for Wilk‘s Lambda value

from MANOVA repeated measures test for TRAD group.

110

Table 5.28. MANOVA Repeated Measures (TRAD Group)

Group (H10) Wilks’s Lambda
TRAD
Value F df Sig.
.456 .000
13.721 4.000

5.3 Students’ Conceptual Change

This section provides the results for the qualitative part and to answer the third
objective with one research question:

RQ3: To what extent PROPOSE-M could enhance student‘s conceptual
change compared to TRAD?

The study used the qualitative approach in order to gain deeper insights into
the quantitative result in the study. There were two methods used for this
purpose, which are open-ended questionnaire and clinical interview. This
section presents the results in the following order; (1) open-ended
questionnaire and (2) clinical interview.

5.3.1 Open-ended Questionnaire

The open-ended questionnaire consists of short questions which allow students
to write open responses in their own words. Students are encouraged to use
their own knowledge and express their own feeling in their learning experience.
The open-ended questionnaire consisted of four questions and was distributed
to both groups in order to explore both groups‘ experiences.

Questions in the open-ended questionnaire were written to ask students to give
their opinion about the teaching strategy that might help them to understand
the topic better and clearer. Subsequently, the questions were also intended to
cross-examine students about the problems they encountered during the
lesson and possible solutions to improve their learning experience in the
classroom. The main objectives of the open-ended questionnaire are to identify
the strength, the weaknesses, and what improvement can be made to
PROPOSE-M and to compare students‘ experiences between PROPOSE-M
group and TRAD group.

a. PROPOSE-M Group

Responses from students who were exposed to PROPOSE-M are promising.
The responses revealed that students agree that animation features presented
in the module are easy to understand and provide a clear presentation.
Students perceive that the animation, videos, and diagrams provided in the

111

PROPOSE-M are interesting and have helped them to visualise clearly the
processes occurred within the cell and at the molecular level.

Specifically, many students mention that the 3-dimension of the plasma
membrane structure has helped them to visualise the arrangements of the
phospholipid bilayer structure. Furthermore, the text that is closely
accompanied the image is conducive to help them understand the process and
its many unfamiliar terms. Activities in the multimedia module have helped
students to relate the processes to their daily life situations. Many of the
students responded that the PROPOSE-M is packed with information that
opens their eyes to the phenomenon and processes that they do not
understand before. They develop their understanding from the contents of
PROPOSE-M and then receive support by a good explanation by the teachers.
Figure 5.1 shows the findings for the strength in PROPOSE-M based on
students responses.

Figure 5.1. Strength in PROPOSE-M
Students‘ responses to the PROPOSE-M (booklet) are also promising. The
students feel that the question creation activities have helped them to test their
knowledge and understanding towards the topic. From the discussion with their
peers, they can detect their weaknesses and unclarity. The discussion with
teacher and peers created a meaningful learning environment for students to
grasp the information. The responses showed that the students perceived the
activity module to be challenging as this is the first time they have experienced
this type of activity where they themselves are responsible for creating their
own questions in the booklet. Many responses also revealed that, because
they have to produce the question, they need to apply their in-depth and critical
thinking skills to fulfil the task.

112

Regarding the problems, many claimed that the volume of the videos and
narration presented in the PROPOSE-M is not reaching to the back of the
classroom, causing the back benchers to experience difficulties in listening to
the narration in the videos. However, they add that the caption helps them to
understand the animation since they cannot hear the voice. This situation
occurred during the earlier session because of the low quality of the speaker
and the environment in the laboratory generates echo to the surrounding. After
two sessions, the speaker is replaced with the new speaker that has wider
coverage.

Some students also feel that the videos are too fast, and sometimes the
teacher does not replay the videos and jumps straight to explanation. Some of
the students are having a problem with two videos that are presented without
subtitles. They also said the subtitle appeared too fast, and they feel rushed to
read the subtitle provided. They also find the background music is distracting at
times, and it prevents them from hearing the narration about the animation.
Figure 5.2 shows the findings for the weaknesses in PROPOSE-M based on
students responses.

Figure 5.2. Weaknesses in PROPOSE-M

Students suggest that the presentation could be improved by providing more
animations and videos related to the structure and processes that occur within
the cells. Students also feel that improvements are needed particularly in the
audio and animation quality. Some of the students also feel that the videos and
subtitles should be presented at a slower rate to enable them to catch up, and
more time should be allocated for teachers to explain the complex topic. Figure
5.3 shows the findings for improvements should be done to PROPOSE-M
based on students‘ responses.

113

Figure 5.3. Improvements for PROPOSE-M
From 31 students who were exposed to PROPOSE-M group, 84% of the
students claim that the animation in PROPOSE-M is one of the most helpful
activities because they can see clearly the processes that occurred within the
cell. Whereas, 68% of the students claim that the problem-posing activity
where the students are asked to create their own questions is one of the most
helpful activities that helped them to grasp the concept of osmosis and
diffusion. 75% thought that videos presentation about real-life situations is one
of the most helpful activities although, 25% of the students thought they are
having difficulty to understand the explanation because the videos are fast and
16% students thought they could not comprehend the topic due to insufficient
time allocated for the teacher to explain the topic.

Less than 10% feel that they are having a difficulty to understand the videos
because the videos had no subtitles. In particular, 10% of students still fail to
grasp the concept of osmosis and diffusion, even after the exposure to the
treatment of PROPOSE-M. Figure 5.4 shows the percentage summary for the
most helpful factors that improved students‘ understanding after being
subjected to PROPOSE-M.

114

100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%

Animation Problem-posing Videos

Figure 5.4. Factors in PROPOSE-M that Improve Students Understanding

b. TRAD Group

Responses from students who were exposed to TRAD revealed that the
PowerPoint presentation helps them to understand the topic better. The use of
diagrams provided students with a clearer image of the structure of the plasma
membrane. The concept maps presented by the teacher also help them to
clearly recognise the types of movement occurred within the plasma
membrane. The students feel that the PowerPoint presentation is more
interesting than the text in the textbook because the presentation is written in
different colours to stress the important terms that need to be understood by
the students. Students also thought the time is better utilised by just showing
the notes through PowerPoint instead of writing it down on the whiteboard.
Students‘ responses also revealed that teacher‘s explanation through relating
the lesson to daily life situation also help students to understand the topic
clearer. Figure 5.5 shows the findings for the strength in TRAD based on
students responses.

Figure 5.5. Strength in TRAD
115

Regarding the problems, students perceive that the slide presentation was too
fast, and they missed jotting down some notes. Many students also thought
that the slides with diagrams are not clearly presented because the images of
the diagrams are blurry. The notes in the slides are too simple and contained
less information as compared to the textbook. At the same time, many students
also feel the opposite, that there are too many texts that crowded the slides
and the slides are presented ineffectively. To further intensify the problem,
some of the slides contain redundant information, and it resulted in students to
lose focus or confused. Many of the students feel that they still cannot grasp
the movement of the substances by the diagrams. Figure 5.6 shows the
findings for the weaknesses in TRAD based on students responses.

Figure 5.6. Weaknesses in TRAD
When asked for suggestions that can be improved in the teaching and learning
processes, the most frequent response is presentation should be presented at
a slower rate and time should be allocated to allow the students to jot down
their notes from the PowerPoint. Many students also suggested that videos and
animation should be included in the PowerPoint presentation so they can
visualise the structures clearer. Students suggested that more group activities
and experiments are needed to enhance their understanding. Students also
suggested extra exercises are needed to test their understanding and to
prepare themselves for examination. Figure 5.7 shows the improvements that
should be done in TRAD based on students‘ responses.

116

Figure 5.7. Improvements for TRAD
From 30 students from the group exposed to TRAD, 80% of the students
thought that the diagrams of the structure and processes presented are one of
the most helpful factors that help to improve their understanding. 65% of the
students thought that the presentation of the notes such as colourful text is the
most helpful factor that helps them to have clearer information about the topic.
Whereas another 25% of the students thought mind map is the most helpful
factor that helps them to understand the content in the topic.

In contrast, 45% of the students are having difficulty to understand the topic
from the unclear diagrams presented. 55% of the students claim that they are
having difficulty to jot down notes because the slide presentation is too fast.
62% of the students thought that videos and animation are the better material
to be used to explain the movement of substances in and out of the cell. A total
of 48% of students find that it is still difficult to understand the topic even with
diagrams and colourful notes presented. Figure 5.8 shows the percentage
summary for the most helpful factors that improved students‘ understanding.

117

90% Colourful text Mind map
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%

0%
Diagrams

Figure 5.8. Factors in TRAD that Improve Students’ Understanding

5.3.2 Clinical Interview

The students‘ written answers and interview transcripts were analysed
qualitatively with respect to:

1. students‘ misconception before and after being exposed to PROPOSE-
M and TRAD

2. students‘ understanding of biology concepts before and after being
exposed to PROPOSE-M and TRAD.

This interview focused on two parts, which are the basic concepts and specific
concepts. Basic concepts will focus on the general concept of osmosis and the
general concept of diffusion. The specific concepts will focus on the effects of a
hypertonic solution to the plant cell, and the permeability of the cell wall and
plasma membrane in plant cells.

Four selected students from the PROPOSE-M group are Ayu, Amirah, Siti and

Azreena (pseudonyms) with the gain scores of 54%, 68%, 59% and 50%

respectively. For the TRAD group, selected students are Syafiq, Maria and

Sarah (pseudonyms) with all of them received gain scores of 37%. Table 5.29
shows the students‘ gained score.

118

Table 5.29. Students Gained Score

GROUP NAME SCORE (%) GAIN SCORE
PROPOSE-M (Pseudonyms) PRE-TEST POST-TEST (%)
Ayu 54
TRAD Amirah 32 95 68
Siti 23 91 59
Azreena 36 95 50
36 86
Syafiq 37
Maria 54 91 37
Sarah 36 73 37
36 73

A. Concept of Osmosis

Based on the curriculum specification for Biology Form Four, osmosis is
defined as the net movement of water molecules from a higher water
concentration region to a lower water concentration region, through a
semipermeable membrane until the solution is in equilibrium. Water molecules
can pass through the semipermeable membrane of a phospholipid bilayer.

To test the general concept of osmosis in the pre-test assessment sheet, three
objectives questions (number 1, 4 and 8) and one sub-structured question of a
total of six marks were constructed. Whereas in the post-test assessment
sheet, one objective question (number 2) and two sub-structured questions
with the total of six marks were constructed.

i. PROPOSE-M Group

Based on pre-test objectives questions, all four students only got one question
correct out of three questions asked. For the structured question, all four of
them gave the wrong answer and failed to receive any marks. When asked
how they were able to answer the one objective question correctly, Ayu and
Amirah claimed that they know about osmosis from previous reading while Siti
and Azreena said they do not have any knowledge about osmosis except
accidentally reading the word osmosis somewhere before and perhaps on the
label of the drinking water bottle.

However, in the post-test question, all four of them answered one objective
question correctly and gained full mark for two structured questions. When the
students were asked how they managed to answer all the question correctly, all
of them commented because they knew the concept through the animation that
showed the movement of substances out and into the cell. As Amirah said;
―Actually I can visualise the process because I can still see the animation and
videos about the wilted plant showed by my teacher in my mind‖. Based on the
answers provided by Amirah, it shows that she was able to provide a correct
term for plant condition after given too much fertiliser, which is plasmolysis.

119

She was also able to explain the osmosis process which occurs within the cell
(see Figure 5.9).

Figure 5.9. Amirah’s Answer for Concept of Osmosis
When asked to explain further their understanding of the concept of osmosis,
all four of them managed to give clear explanations regarding osmosis. Their
answers were as follows:

Ayu: ―Osmosis is the movement of water molecules moving from
high concentration gradient to low concentration gradient… and… it
moves through phospholipid bilayer‖.
Azreena: ―Osmosis is when water molecules move and the
movement... erm… follow the concentration gradient. I think it
moves from the higher concentration of water to lower concentration
of water.
Amirah: ―It‘s the movement of water from high concentration
gradient to lower concentration gradient through phospholipid
bilayer. Erm… without using energy‖.
Siti: ―Osmosis is when water moves from a higher concentration of
water to lower concentration of water. Basically… the movement
occurs through phospholipid bilayer and no energy is used because
water is a small molecule‖.
When Amirah and Siti were asked why they claimed that no energy is used in
the osmosis process, both of them agreed that it is because the movement

120

follows the concentration gradient and it does not involve the protein to change
shape like active transport. To explore the students‘ in-depth understanding,
more questions were asked based on their previous answers. When asked how
long will osmosis occur in the cell when immersed in the solution, all four of
them were able to answer correctly: until it reaches equilibrium.

Based on the students‘ answers, it revealed that all of them understood the
concept of osmosis after they were exposed to PROPOSE-M. Even though
they have an idea about osmosis before being exposed to PROPOSE-M,
unfortunately, they were unable to illustrate the process involved in the
osmosis. From the fundamental knowledge of osmosis is related to water, the
treatment has helped them to understand more key concepts such as the
movement, the structures involved and the fact that the process occurs without
using energy. This is seen particularly in the case of Amirah and Siti, as they
were able to give reasons as to why osmosis process does not involve energy
consumption.

ii. TRAD Group

For pre-test objectives questions, Sarah and Syafiq got two questions correct
while Maria got only one question correct. For the structured question, only
Syafiq got one mark out of three marks. Looking at Syafiq‘s answers, he was
seen to have the initial idea about osmosis and was able to explain osmosis in
general. However, he failed to use accurate terms to explain the cell condition
and the types of solution the cell was immersed in. When asked how he was
able to answer the question, he replied that he knew the concept from reading
activity during the school holiday. However, he did not have any prior
knowledge to use the specific term and to explain the processes.

In the post-test question, all three students answered the objective question
correctly. For structured questions, Syafiq and Maria received full marks
whereas Sarah received only one mark. When Syafiq and Maria were asked on
how they managed to get marks for this question, the following were their
replies:

Syafiq: ―I remember the diagram showed by the teacher. The
diagram showed a wilted plant. Erm… I am quite sure the concept
used is osmosis in hypertonic solution‖.
Maria: ―I remember notes from the teacher and examples teacher
give about wilted plant‖

When asked to explain their own understanding about the concept of osmosis,
all three students managed to give an explanation regarding osmosis. Their
answers were as follows:

Syafiq: ―Erm… osmosis is a diffusion of water from higher
concentration area to lower concentration area‖.

121

Maria: ―It is the movement of water from one area to another area…
it moves from a higher concentration of water to low concentration
of water‖.
Sarah: ―Osmosis is about water movement. I remember the teacher
told us that everything about water is osmosis. In osmosis, water
moves from high concentration area to low concentration area‖.
As for Sarah, her answers showed that she was unable to relate the condition
of the plant with the concept of osmosis. Instead of explaining molecules of
water are moving out from the plant cell through osmosis, Sarah wrote down as
‗water will be used up‘ in her answer (see Figure 5.10).

Figure 5.10. Sarah’s Misconception about Osmosis
When asked further for her understanding regarding that question, Sarah
said:‖I thought the plant will not get any water since the soil is very
concentrated with fertilizers, so fertilizers in and outside of the cell need to be
balanced.‖ To understand deeper about Sarah misconception, two questions
were probed as follow:

Researcher: ―What do you mean by balanced?‖
Sarah: ―Erm... fertilizer will move into the plant cell to make the
concentration of fertilizer outside and inside balanced‖.
Researcher: ―What do you mean by water is used up in your written
answer?‖
Sarah: ―There will be no water left in the plant. Erm… because the
plant was only given fertilizer but no water. So… the water that still
remains in the plant cell will be used by the plant until there is no
more water inside. And..yes, I think that is why the plant wilted‖.

122