PhD THESIS (NOR TUTIAINI-B5 FORMAT)

In summary, students from both groups were able to explain osmosis and apply
it in their answers. However, based on the score gained for osmosis questions
revealed that the PROPOSE-M group gained a higher score compared to the
TRAD group in explaining the osmosis concept. Through the interview, it is
students from the PROPOSE-M group who managed to explain in depth about
osmosis while students in the TRAD only provided basic definitions for
osmosis. Students in the PROPOSE-M group displayed a higher level of
understanding by stating the movement occurred through phospholipid bilayer
and no energy was used in osmosis movement. Furthermore, they were also
able to explain why no energy is needed in osmosis.

For the TRAD group, all three students can give a definition for osmosis but fail
to show a deeper understanding of the concept. Sarah was struggling to
explain the concept of osmosis in a plant cell. It was seen that Sarah thought
that since the fertilizer is concentrated outside, then the fertilizer moves inside
the cell, and she failed to explain the water molecules movement through
osmosis. After being exposed to PROPOSE-M and TRAD, the concept of
osmosis appears to be intelligible to all students in PROPOSE-M and TRAD
group. However, it appears that those students in the PROPOSE-M group
experienced stronger conceptual change as compared to the students in the
TRAD group.

B. Concept of diffusion

The Biology curriculum specification for Form Four has stated that, simple
diffusion is the random movement of molecules from a higher concentration
region to a lower concentration region that occurs through phospholipid bilayer
whereas facilitated diffusion is a special form of diffusion that involves the use
of protein to assist the diffusion. Basically, diffusion refers to the movement of
any particular substance along a concentration gradient and not necessarily
through a semipermeable membrane.

To test the general concept of diffusion in the pre-test assessment sheet, three
multiple choice questions (number 2, 3 and 5) and three structured questions
with a total of seven marks were constructed. Whereas in the post-test
assessment sheet, three multiple choice question (number 1, 5 and 10) and
one sub-structured question with a total of five marks were constructed.

i. PROPOSE-M Group

For pre-test objectives questions, all four students only answered one question
correctly whereas, for the structured question, Amirah and Siti did not provide
any answers by leaving the space blank. Azreena did answer the question but
the concept explained is wrong, and she did not get any mark. Ayu answered it
correctly but failed to offer a deeper explanation about diffusion as she stated;
―The gaseous will move from alveolus to blood capillary through diffusion…‖

123

She only got one mark from two marks provided. Figure 5.11 shows Ayu‘s
answer to the concept of diffusion in pre-test question.

Figure 5.11. Ayu’s Answer for Concept of Diffusion

In post-test objectives questions, all students answered all three questions
correctly except for Ayu who answered only two questions correctly. For the
structured question, three of them got one mark except for Siti who got full
marks. When asked how they were able to answer all three objectives
questions correctly, Siti, Azreena and Amirah agreed that diffusion is the same
as osmosis: a process where the substances move from high concentration
gradient to low concentration gradient, but the difference is that diffusion
involves other small molecules than water.

For Ayu, she said because she knew gaseous substances would move through
diffusion and she understood that there are two types of diffusion, and with the
help from the diagrams, she was able to differentiate between simple diffusion
and facilitated diffusion. When asked further about the differences between the
two types of diffusion, Ayu‘s reply was as followed:

Researcher: ―Can you explain further the differences between
simple diffusion and facilitated diffusion?‖
Ayu: ―Erm.. in simple diffusion, substances move through
phospholipid bilayer whereas in facilitated diffusion the movement of
substances go through the channel protein, and… involve large
molecules of substances‖.

When asked about two types of diffusion to Siti, Amirah and Azreena, all three
of them were able to give correct explanations about the differences between
the two types of diffusion in the same perspectives as Ayu. Based on the
students‘ answers, it indicates that all four of them understood the concept of
diffusion as compared to the early stage of the experiment where all of them
had failed to answer them during the pre-test. After they were exposed to
PROPOSE-M, their concepts about diffusion have improved and they were
able to apply it to answers the post-test assessment sheet.

124

ii. TRAD Group

For pre-test objectives questions, Syafiq managed to get all correct, whereas
Maria and Sarah only answered one questions correctly. For pre-test structured
questions, Syafiq and Sarah received one mark, whereas Maria did not get any
mark. When asked how they managed to get one mark for the question, both of
them have the same perspectives as they recalled learning them during Form
Three in the topic of respiration. As for Maria, she still remembered diffusion of
gaseous, but she thought the concept of concentration is similar to the concept
of pressure as seen based on her answer in pre-test question (see Figure
5.12).

Figure 5.12. Maria’s Answer for Concept of Diffusion

In the post-test objective questions, all three students were able to answer
three questions correctly whereas, in structured question, all three students got
one mark out of two marks. When asked how they managed to answer it
correctly, all three students agreed that they still remember diagrams and
explanation by teachers who showed the different types of diffusion. When
asked to define diffusion, all three students gave their answers in the same
perspectives: diffusion is the movement of substances from one area to
another area following the concentration gradient.

To get more insight into their understanding about the concept of diffusion,
further questions were probed. Their answers were as followed:

Researcher: ―Explain further about diffusion‖.
Syafiq: ―It is the movement of substances across the plasma
membrane. Erm…there are two types of diffusion, simple diffusion
and facilitated diffusion‖.
Maria: ―There are many types of diffusion and… I think it involves
many types of molecules‖.
Sarah: ―Diffusion is the movement from higher concentration area to
lower concentration area through the plasma membrane… and...
ermm.. it does not use energy‖.

125

Based on Syafiq and Maria answers, further questions were asked:

Researcher: ―Explain further about the types of diffusion‖.
Syafiq: ―Simple diffusion is when molecules simply can go through
phospholipid bilayer while facilitated diffusion when substances go
through the protein attached in the plasma membrane‖.
Maria: ―There are two types of diffusion. Simple diffusion and
facilitated diffusion. I think they have the same characteristic.
Owh…wait, I think for simple it goes through the protein‖.

In summary, all students in both groups understood the concept of diffusion in
general. This is probably because they can relate diffusion to many daily life
situations. Furthermore, the students were introduced to the concept of
diffusion earlier, in respiration topic during Form Three. All of the students in
both groups provided a detailed explanation about the types of diffusion except
for Sarah, as she said that diffusion does not involve any energy usage. For
Maria, it seems that she was still confused between the types of diffusion.
Supposedly, the substances in simple diffusion go through the phospholipid
bilayer instead of going through the protein.

In comparison, students in the PROPOSE-M group were able to explain the
size of the molecules involved in simple diffusion and facilitated diffusion
without probing. Students in TRAD, need to be prompted because they tended
to give short answers and lacking in explanation except for Syafiq who was
able to explain clearly the differences between simple and facilitated diffusion.

After being exposed to PROPOSE-M and TRAD, the concept of osmosis
appears to be intelligible to all students in PROPOSE-M and TRAD group.
However, the TRAD group comprehended only the basic concepts, and they
need to be prompted to produce in-depth answers. It appears that students in
the PROPOSE-M group possessed stronger conceptual change as compared
to the students in the TRAD group.

C. The Effect of Hypertonic Solutions to the Plant Cells

A hypertonic solution is considered as a specific concept for osmosis. When
the concentration of solute is higher in the surrounding fluid, it is said to be
hypertonic to the intracellular fluid of the cells. The effects of a hypertonic
solution to the plant cell will lead to plasmolysis process. Based on Biology
curriculum specification Form Four, students are expected to answer
hypertonic solution to the plant cell happens when a plant cell is immersed in a
hypertonic solution, water molecules will move out of the plant cell into the
solution through osmosis. As water is lost from the cell wall, the vacuole
decreases in size and the cytoplasm shrink away from the cell wall. This
process is called plasmolysis.

126

To test the specific concept of the effect of a hypertonic solution to the plant
cells in pre-test assessment sheet, four objectives questions (number 6, 7, 9
and 10) and one sub-structured question that give a total of seven marks were
constructed. Whereas in the post-test assessment sheet, three objective
questions (number 3, 4 and 6) and one sub-structured question that gave a
total of six marks were constructed.

i. PROPOSE-M Group
For the multiple-choice questions in the pre-test, all four students answered all
wrong except for Ayu and Siti who managed to answer one question correctly.
When asked how both of them manage to answer one question correctly, they
replied that they were lucky guesses and they have no prior knowledge about
hypertonic solution. For the structured question, all students were unable to get
any mark for their answers and Ayu did not even provide any answers for those
questions. Based on their answers, the concept explained was fundamentally
wrong. Taken into an example, the answer that was thought by Siti was the
solution diffuses into the cell. At this point, she did not even know the terms for
the solution and was unable to explain in details the movement of water into
the cell. Figure 5.13 shows Siti‘s answer for the hypertonic solution concept in
pre-test question.

Figure 5.13. Siti’s Answer for Hypertonic Solution Concept
127

In post-test objectives questions, Amirah and Siti managed to answer all
questions correctly, whereas Azreena and Ayu answered two out of three
questions correctly. For the structured question, all four students successfully
explained the concept and received full marks.

According to Azreena, she managed to answer it correctly because she
remembered the experiment conducted during the lesson. For Amirah and Ayu,
they claimed that they understood the movement of water molecules and the
change in the structure of the plasma membrane through animation showed by
teachers. They further illustrated that experiment did not help them to observe
the condition of the internal environment of the cell and they only manage to
observe the differences in the length of potato strips before and after being
immersed in the hypertonic solution. While for Siti, she claimed that she
understood the concepts through animation, and she strengthens her
understanding by creating her own questions during the problem-posing
activities.

All students were able to state the type of solution which is hypertonic to plant
cell. They were also able to explain how water moves out from the cell and its
effect on the plant. All of the answers basically fulfilled the requirement stated
in the curriculum specification as seen in Amirah‘s answer. Figure 5.14 shows
Amirah‘s answer for the hypertonic solution concept in post-test question.

Figure 5.14. Amirah’s Answer for Hypertonic Solution Concept

128

The answer from Amirah showed that she manages to explain the concepts
correctly, but Siti is able to explain the process further by illustrating the
process that occurs at the cell stage and the changes in the structure of the
plasma membrane and vacuole. This shows that Siti was able to arrange her
answers in a more critical way (see Figure 5.15).

Figure 5.15. Siti’s Answer for Hypertonic Solution Concept
ii. TRAD Group
For pre-test objectives questions, all students managed to answer one question
correctly. For structured questions, only Syafiq got one mark out of three
marks. When asked how they were able to answer one question correctly, as
for Maria and Sarah, they said they just guessed the answers. As for Syafiq he
said he had the idea from the previous reading about osmosis. Based on
Syafiq‘s answer, it seemed that he has the initial idea about osmosis and did
mention osmosis in his explanation. However, he was yet able to describe the
type of solution and the condition of the plant. Figure 5.16 shows Syafiq‘s
answer for the hypertonic solution concept in pre-test question.

129

Figure 5.16. Syafiq’s Answer for Hypertonic Solution Concept

During post-test objectives questions, all three students answered the
questions correctly except for Maria as she only answered two questions
correctly. For the structured question, Syafiq managed to get three marks,
whereas Maria and Sarah only got two marks out of three marks given.

Basically, all three of them were able to recognise the types of the solution but
were unable to relate it to the concept of osmosis. When asked further about
the effect of a hypertonic solution to the plant cell, Syafiq said "Osmosis will
make the water moves out of the plant cell. So basically, the plant will lose
water‖. Even though Syafiq managed to receive full marks for this question, he
was unable to describe the processes which occur at the molecular stage and
what has happened to plasma membrane and vacuole, unlike PROPOSE-M
group who managed to explain it. Figure 5.17 shows Syafiq‘s answer for the
hypertonic solution concept in post-test question.

130

Figure 5.17. Syafiq’s Answer for Hypertonic Solution Concept
As for Sarah, she has mistaken the plant cell as a hypotonic solution. During
the previous section, it was revealed that students in the TRAD group have a
weaker conceptual change regarding osmosis and it was further intensified
when they answered this question. Based on Maria‘s answers, it implied that
she had experienced misconception about the concepts of a hypertonic
solution. Instead of explaining the movement of water moving out of the plant
cell through osmosis, she wrote down as ‗salt solution dry out water from
vegetable‘ (see Figure 5.18). When further asked to explain how salt solutions
dry out water from the vegetable, Maria said because the water will move out
from the cell through diffusion.

131

Figure 5.18. Maria’s Answers for Hypertonic Solution Concepts

In summary, all students in both groups were able to identify a hypertonic
solution. However, students in the PROPOSE-M group were able to provide a
detailed explanation, including explaining the effects of a hypertonic solution to
the plant cells and were able to describe the changes that occur at the cell
stage. Based on the answers given by the students in the TRAD group, it
shows that all of them have misunderstood the concept. Syafiq thought
osmosis is the factor that influenced the water movement, but in fact, osmosis
is the process that occurs when a solution has a different water concentration
gradient. As for Maria, she was confused between osmosis and diffusion and
on the top of it, the terms ―dry out‖ is not accurate to describe the water moving
out from the cell. Sarah, on the other hand, thought vegetable is a solution,
when in fact, she should answer that the cell sap of vegetables is hypotonic to
the salt solution.

After being exposed to PROPOSE-M and TRAD, the concept of osmosis
appears to be intelligible to all students in PROPOSE-M and TRAD group.
However, it appears that those students in the PROPOSE-M group
experienced stronger conceptual change as compared to the students in the
TRAD group.

D. The permeability of the Plasma Membrane and Cell Wall in Plant Cells

Semipermeable and fully permeable membranes in plant cells are considered
as specific concepts in this topic. The curriculum specification has outlined that
the cell wall is fully-permeable that will allow all substances to go through it
whereas the plasma membrane of plant cells is semi-permeable, which allows
only certain molecules to move across it. When a plant cell is immersed in a
hypertonic solution, the water will move out from the cell through osmosis and
solute molecules will start to occupy the space between the cell wall and the
plasma membrane.

132

To test the specific concept of permeability of the plasma membrane and cell
wall in plant cells in pre-test assessment sheet, three objective questions
(number 8, 9 and 10) and one sub-structured question that gives a total of six
marks were constructed. Whereas in the post-test assessment sheet, three
objective questions (number 2, 8 and 9) and one sub-structured question that
gives a total of five marks were constructed.

i. PROPOSE-M Group
For pre-test objective questions, all of them managed to answer one question
correctly except for Amirah who did not get any correct answer. For the
structured question, Siti received full marks, whereas Amirah and Azreena
received two marks. As for Ayu, she was unable to get any marks because she
did not provide any answers for that question. When asked how they were able
to answer the questions, all three of them agreed that they knew about mango
pickles from their daily life experiences. For Siti and Azreena, they said they
used to see their mother preparing mango pickles for them to eat at home.

For post-test objective questions, Ayu was able to answer all three questions
correctly whereas another three students answered two questions correctly.
For the structured question, only Siti was able to gain full marks whereas
another three students only got one mark out of three marks given. The
question asked students to name the solution which filled the space between
the cell wall and the plasma membrane when the plant cell is immersed in 30%
sucrose solution and then explain how the solution filled the space.

All four of them managed to answer the name of the solution, which is a
sucrose solution. However, only Siti was able to explain it correctly and related
it to the permeability concept. Siti stated that the cell wall is fully permeable so
it allowed the sucrose solution to enter the space (see Figure 5.19).

Figure 5.19. Siti’s Answer for Permeability Concept

133

For other three students, they managed to explain about the structure of the
cell membrane but were unable to relate it with the permeability of the cell wall
which allows the sucrose solution to enter the cell as exemplified in Azreena‘s
answer (see figure 5.20).

Figure 5.20. Azreena’a Answer for Permeability Concept

Further questions were asked to explore the conceptual change that occurred.
The questions were as follows:

Researcher: ―How do you manage to relate the entrance of solution
with the permeability of the cell wall?‖
Siti: ―Owh.. I remember because, during the activity module, one of
my friend asked teacher about it‖.
Researcher: ―What exactly was your friend‘s question?‖
Siti: ―Erm… more or less, she asked teacher what is inside the
empty space between the cell wall. Teacher explain the sucrose
solution fill up the space. And… I remember teacher also explained
why sucrose solution can enter the cell wall‖.
Researcher: ―Where did she see the empty space?‖
Siti: ―In the activity module and the animation show by teacher‖.

For the other three students, when asked for them to explain further about how
sucrose solution filled the space, all three of provided answers from the same
perspective. As stated by Amirah; ―The sucrose solution enters because there
is empty space there, the plant was immersed in a hypertonic solution, and the
empty space should be filled up by something else.‖ When asked on what
process that allows sucrose solution entered the cell, all three students agreed
that sucrose solution entered the cell through diffusion. Based on the answers,
it was found that three of them have understood the space needs to be filled
with other substances, but they were still unable to relate the entrance of
substances with the permeability of the cell wall.

134

ii. TRAD Group

Based on the pre-test objective questions, all three of them only answered one
question correctly. For the structured question, all three of them managed to
get two marks out of three marks given. When asked how they managed to get
two marks, all three of them agreed that they could relate the question with
their experience of eating mango pickles. As for Maria, she said ―When I eat
mango pickles, I can taste the sweet taste from the sugar. So I know that sugar
entered the mango‖.

During the post-test, all three of them were able to answer the type of solution
which filled the space between the cell wall and plasma membrane, but failed
to explain how the solution filled the space. As for Syafiq, he explained that the
presence of an empty space existed after the water moves out of the cell.
Maria explained that the nature of the solution, which is hypertonic and that
causes the water to move out of the cell, and sucrose solution enters the cell.
As for Sarah, she was still struggling to determine the correct terms to be used
in her explanation regarding the osmosis and diffusion concept (see Figure
5.21).

Figure 5.21. Sarah’s Answer for Permeability Concept

Further questions were asked to gain an in-depth understanding about their
knowledge regarding the permeability of the cell wall and plasma membrane.
Their answers were as followed:

Researcher: ―How do you think sucrose solution entered the empty
space?‖
Syafiq: ―When water leaves the cells, there is an empty space
inside the cell. It has to be filled by something so there are only
sucrose molecules around the plant. Erm.. so, I guess the solution
entered the cell‖.
Maria: ―Water will diffuse out, so… sucrose solution will enter
through osmosis into the cell‖.

135

Sarah: ―Sucrose solution enters the cell because the concentration
of sucrose is higher outside the cell compared to inside the cell.
Because, erm… osmosis occurs when substances move from high
to low‖.

In summary, all students in both groups were able to name the solution which
filled the space between the cell wall and the plasma membrane. When asked
further why the cell wall allows sucrose to enter the cells, all students in both
groups, with the exception of Siti, insisted that because it follows the
concentration gradient. From the findings of the interview, it was indicated that
students were able to identify the types of substances and explain the
differences in the concentration gradient. However, except for Siti, the others
were unable to relate it with the permeability of the cell wall that allows all types
of substances to go through it.

Even though three students in the PROPOSE-M group failed to explain the
permeability concept, they were not confused between osmosis and diffusion
as happened with the TRAD group. Students in the TRAD group were still
struggling to differentiate the movement either through osmosis or diffusion.
After being exposed to PROPOSE-M and TRAD, the concept of permeability
still appears to be unintelligible to all students in PROPOSE-M and TRAD
groups except for Siti from the PROPOSE-M group. Looking at the whole
perspectives, it appears that those students in the PROPOSE-M group
experienced stronger conceptual change as compared to the students in the
TRAD group.

5.4 Discussion

For summative evaluation, the empirical results from the hypotheses testing
support the hypotheses proposed for this study. In particular, the study
discovers that the PROPOSE-M has positively and significantly enhanced
students‘ performance in Biology. During the pre-test assessment, the mean
score for PROPOSE-M group was lower than the TRAD group with no
significant difference. This indicated that the performance of both groups is
equal at the beginning of the experiment. It is important to establish that both
groups were initially at the same par to ensure that any differences later in the
post-test are due to the treatment received by the experimental group.

Mean score for post-test revealed that the PROPOSE-M group scored a higher
mean score compared to the TRAD group, and it was significantly different with
a value of p < .05. This indicated that after being subjected to PROPOSE-M,
students held a better understanding of the topic as compared to students who
were subjected to TRAD. The results of this study are seemingly aligned with a
study by Mishra & Iyer (2015), which found that novice students who were
exposed to problem-posing activities will have a deeper understanding of the
topic. Additionally, the results appeared to partially support the earlier findings
by Beal & Cohen (2012) which reported the cognitive benefits of the integration

136

of problem-posing and technology that enables the students to apply the
knowledge in different situations. This study provides empirical evidence that
problem-posing activities have the potential for enhancing students'
performance in Biology. Figure 5.22 shows the graph of mean scores for pre-
test, post-test and retention-test for PROPOSE-M and TRAD groups.

Mean Score (%) 80
70
60 Pre-test Post-test Retention-
50 test
40 37.12 72.94
30 41.6 61.97 68.71
20
10 50.17

0

PROPOSE-M
TRAD

Figure 5.22. Mean Scores for Pre-test, Post-test and Retention-test

Retention-test was performed four weeks after post-test to discover the
retained memory and understanding of students after PROPOSE-M treatment
and TRAD. For the retention-test, it was found that the mean score for both
groups has decreased. Despite the decrease, the score among PROPOSE-M
group was recorded higher than the TRAD group with a significant difference of
p < .05. In terms of the test of within-subjects, both PROPOSE-M and TRAD
have achieved significant differences with p < .05 except for HOTS questions in
the TRAD group which showed that there is no significant difference with p >
.05. This indicates that the PROPOSE-M group held and retained memory and
understanding longer upon PROPOSE-M treatment as compared to the TRAD
group.

The results of this study demonstrate that students in PROPOSE-M group
retained the memory longer because the animation has helped them to
visualise the process that occurred at molecular state. These findings support
Mayer (2010)‘s finding which revealed that meaningful learning occurs when
students engage in the appropriate cognitive process during learning, which
includes being exposed to suitable material then organising the information into
a coherent cognitive representation, and integrating the information with prior
knowledge activated from long-term memory.

When the data were analysed to compare the enhancement in LOTS and
HOTS between students in both groups, it was revealed that students
subjected to PROPOSE-M had experienced an increment in both LOTS and
HOTS scores with a significant difference compared to TRAD group. Even
though the TRAD group also experienced an increment in their score, the

137

mean score of the TRAD group was lower compared to the PROPOSE-M
group. Interestingly, in retention-test, HOTS score for PROPOSE-M group
increase even higher compared to the post-test. This result indicates that
something has invoked in their working memory that enhanced their HOTS
ability after being exposed to PROPOSE-M.

Therefore, PROPOSE-M is seen as the preferred teaching tool that helps the
students to answer both HOTS and LOTS questions. This finding was an
extension to other previous studies (see Chang et al., 2012; Chiu & Mok, 2017)
that only measure the overall score and enhancement of HOTS among
students but lacking in emphasising on how LOTS is important to promote
HOTS. Table 5.23 and Table 5.24 show the graphs of mean scores for LOTS
and HOTS questions respectively, between PROPOSE-M and TRAD group.

Mean Score (%) 100
80
60 Pre-test Post-test Retention-
40 test
20 43.37 79.87
0 47.23 70.6 70.13

PROPOSE-M 57.67
TRAD

Figure 5.23. Mean Scores for LOTS Questions

Mean Score (%) 80
70
60 Pre-test Post-test Retention-
50 test
40 32.26 58.88
30 35 45.3 67.13
20
10 39.43

0

PROPOSE-M
TRAD

Figure 5.24. Mean Scores for HOTS Questions

138

Whereas for TRAD, there is a significant difference in the mean score
enhancement of LOTS questions, however, when tested for test within-subject,
there is no significant difference in the mean score enhancement for HOTS
questions. This result indicates that PROPOSE-M enhances students' ability to
answer not only LOTS questions but HOTS questions better compared to
TRAD. Table 5.30 is a summary of hypothesis testing.

Table 5.30. Results of Hypothesis Testing

Hypothesis Statement of Hypothesis Result
H1
H2 There is a significant difference in the mean Not supported. not
H3 score of the pre-test between the group which Different but
was exposed to PROPOSE-M and the group significant.
H4 which was exposed to TRAD.
H5
H6 There is a significant difference in the mean Supported.
score of the post-test between the group PROPOSE-M group
H7 which was exposed to PROPOSE-M and the has a higher mean
group which was exposed to TRAD. score.
H8
There is a significant difference in the mean Supported.
score of the retention test between the group PROPOSE-M group
which was exposed to PROPOSE-M and the has a higher mean
group which was exposed to TRAD. score.

There is a significant difference in the mean Supported. score
score of the pre-test and post-test for the The mean
group which was exposed to PROPOSE-M. increase
significantly

There is a significant difference in the mean Supported. score
score of the pre-test and post-test for the The mean
group which was exposed to the TRAD. increased
significantly.

There is a significant difference in the mean Not supported. not
score of the pre-test LOTS questions and the Different but
pre-test HOTS questions between the group significant.
which was exposed to PROPOSE-M and the
group which was exposed to TRAD.

There is a significant difference in the mean Supported.
score of the post-test LOTS questions and the PROPOSE-M group
post-test HOTS questions between the group has a higher mean
which was exposed to PROPOSE-M and the score.
group which was exposed to TRAD.

There is a significant difference in the mean Supported.
score of the retention test LOTS questions PROPOSE-M group
and the retention test HOTS questions has a higher mean
between the group which was exposed to score.
PROPOSE-M and the group which was
exposed to TRAD.

139

H9 There is a significant difference in the mean Supported.
score of pre-test, post-test and retention-test
for LOTS and HOTS questions for the group
which exposed to PROPOSE-M.

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

Teachers also become the main factor for students‘ success in the classroom.
Teacher disposition is the factor that makes teaching and learning to be
executed successfully in the classroom (Tichá & Hošpesová, 2013). Teacher
dispositions are seen in their professional attitudes, values, and beliefs (Akay &
Boz, 2010) shown through both verbal and non-verbal behaviours as educators
interact with students, families, colleagues, and communities. These positive
behaviours will establish the teacher's professional demeanour and promote
student learning and development (Siwatu, Putman, Starker-Glass, & Lewis,
2017).

In this study, both teachers who were involved possessed good disposition as
teachers. This was seen in their readiness and display of knowledge during
lesson and questions and answers session. The teachers managed to bring the
lesson beyond the classroom environment by providing examples of daily life
situations during the classroom session. The students also supported this
observation as seen in the students‘ personal opinions that stated, teachers‘
explanation was one of the factors that helped them to understand more about
the topic. Teacher disposition and ability were seen to be compatible between
both groups, and this has reduced bias for the experimental procedure.

However, the students who were subjected to PROPOSE-M showed higher
improvement in terms of performance and level of confidence to ask questions
in the classroom as compared to the students who were subjected to TRAD.
This due to the active learning tasks provided in PROPOSE-M through
problem-posing activities that train students to communicate, collaborate, think
critically and creatively to complete the tasks. This finding is supported by the
clinical interview data that revealed the PROPOSE-M helped them to reach a
deeper understanding through creating their own questions and engaging in
group discussions among their friends. This finding was an extension to a
report by Vidergor (2017) who states students who involve in productive
thinking skills, problem finding and problem-solving, and involved in an activity
that promotes creativity and independent learning will develop HOTS in
numerous curriculum dimensions of their learning. The dimensions discussed
by Vidergor (2017) are content, process, and product produced by students
while this study is focusing on the level of questions created by students after
exposed to PROPOSE-M.

140

From the classroom observation, it was also revealed that students in the
PROPOSE-M group were able to create their own questions and as the time
went, the questions created have shifted from LOQ to HOQ. Although HOQ
helped students to analyse the information and subsequently helped them to
solve their own questions through critical and analytical answers, LOQ is also
crucial for students to comprehend the basic knowledge of the topic. This
finding was supported by the interview findings from the PROPOSE-M group
that revealed, students from the PROPOSE-M group were able to provide a
deeper explanation of the concepts of osmosis and diffusion. When asked how
they were able to provide critical justification to their answers, they said that it
was because they had created their own questions about those situations and
subsequently managed to find answers to their own questions from the
textbook and with the help from the teacher. From HOQ created and discussion
held with peers, they were able to give justification using their own words
instead of just memorising words from the notes. This indicates that students
who were exposed to creating own questions have a better understanding to
solve the HOTS problem in the assessment sheet.

From the clinical interview conducted, students in the TRAD group were still
struggling to differentiate between osmosis and diffusion in certain situations
related to daily life. The analysis revealed that students in TRAD were
intelligible with the definition but failed to apply the concept osmosis and
diffusion in advanced situations except for Syafiq who managed to explain it
accurately in one of the test questions. This result seems to be consistent with
the report by Yarden & Yarden (2010) which state that students were unable to
visualise the movements and dynamic processes in science through static
illustration. They also struggled to provide a detailed explanation about
osmosis and diffusion. Students‘ answers were just on the surface and lacking
in detailed. Students failed to relate it to the molecular processes occurring in
the cell. The interview revealed that students from TRAD needed extra
guidance and they need to be prompted in order for them to explain further
about their choice of answers.

In comparison, students exposed to PROPOSE-M have experienced a deeper
understanding of the processes and were able to describe the changes that
occur at molecular state. They were also able to explain the effects of different
types of solution to plant cell and relate it with osmosis and diffusion concepts.
Even though three of them were unable to explain further about the concepts of
permeability of cell wall except for Siti, they still managed to provide
satisfactory explanations when it comes to application and analysing questions.
This finding was supported by students‘ responses in the open-ended
questionnaire that state animation and videos presented in PROPOSE-M have
helped them to understand the processes and make it much easier for them to
make sense of the processes. This finding shows that students have selected
and organised certain animation and words presented in PROPOSE-M as
suggested in the conceptual framework of this study (Fig 2.5, Page 28) into the
visual mental model and verbal that subsequently helps them to visualise the
complex processes repeatedly in their long term memory.

141

Based on the analysis from a clinical interview, students from both groups were
able to define the basic concepts and specific terms of osmosis and diffusion.
However, students in PROPOSE-M were more capable of applying and relating
the concepts correctly in advanced situations that involve an application,
analysis and synthesis. From the open-ended questionnaire and clinical
interview findings, it was found that creating their own questions activities helps
them to provide in-depth answers because they were involved in meaningful
discussion with their peers to find the solution for their own questions. This
indicates that problem-posing instructional strategy is able to produce a
conceptual change not only in Mathematics but in Biology too. These findings
were an extension to many previous studies (see Kojima et al., 2013;
Kontorovich et al., 2012; Land, 2017; Nerida F, 2015; Rosli et al., 2014) that
found through problem-posing, students start to generate new knowledge by
integrating their prior knowledge with current knowledge and experienced
conceptual change in mathematics.

This study findings also indicate that through the integration of visual and
verbal mental model constructed in students‘ working memory with problem-
posing 4C elements, has served students with more comprehensive, intelligible
and plausible evidence to accept the new knowledge presented. The
convincing evidence they have gained from the presentation and problem-
posing activities cause students to comprehend the accurate science concepts
compared to their incorrect past conceptual understanding before being
subjected to PROPOSE-M. Once students were able to accept the new
knowledge, they will experience a stronger conceptual change and have a
better conceptual understanding regarding biological concepts.

As a whole, the results from this study suggest that the design and evaluation
of multimedia should include careful consideration of cognitive processes that
occur inside the working memory of the students. The visual materials used will
be most effective when they are designed to support cognitive processing of
critical information so the materials will facilitate students to develop a visual
and verbal mental model in their working memory. The integration between
multimedia presentation and problem-posing 4C elements support students
learning processes by enhancing their LOTS and HOTS to produce a stronger
conceptual change. The findings also revealed that this newly developed
PROPOSE-M is able to retain students‘ memory and understanding longer.
The findings from quantitative and qualitative data demonstrated that the
PROPOSE-M group outperformed the TRAD group, thus supporting a major
hypothesis for this study: PROPOSE-M enhances students‘ performance and
promotes a stronger conceptual change in Biology.

142

5.5 Conclusion
This chapter reports the results of the data analysis that was performed using
the procedures described in Chapter 3. This chapter consists of two major
parts that are, quantitative analysis and qualitative analysis. The first part, is a
quantitative analysis which presented findings to answer objective number two
of this study on what is the effectiveness of PROPOSE-M as compared to
TRAD to enhance students‘ performance and also thinking skills among
students. The last part is a qualitative analysis which presented the findings to
answer objective number three of this study on exploring the conceptual
change occurred between PROPOSE-M and TRAD.
It is agreeable that all students will experience enhancement in their
performance and conceptual understanding after being subjected to the
teaching and learning processes. However, the quantitative analysis performed
revealed that newly developed PROPOSE-M is able to enhance students‘
performance significantly higher compared to TRAD. This finding was
supported by a qualitative analysis that indicates students that subjected to
PROPOSE-M experienced stronger conceptual change compared to TRAD.
The next chapter offers a summary, implications, and recommendations for
future research.

143

CHAPTER 6

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE
RESEARCH

6.1 Introduction

This chapter gives an overview of the research navigation and summarises the
findings. It starts with a summary of the research gap and an overview of the
results in relation to the research questions. Then, it moves on to describe the
theoretical and practical implications of the findings. Important
recommendations and directions for future research are presented in the
succeeding section. Finally, it concludes the research journey and opens a new
route for future research.

6.2 Summary

Biology is considered by most secondary school students as dry and
complicated as it requires memorising a great number of facts from the
textbook. In addition, the students feel that a lot of biology processes seems
random and complex. Due to its complexity, most students are unable to grasp
the mechanics happening in the cell activity and resort to route memorisation
than grasping the real picture of the underlying process. The overwhelming
numbers of complicated movements, coupled with unfamiliar names, structures
and molecules to be memorised are also other reasons for students‘ disinterest
in Biology. Based on researcher‘s personal experience as a biology teacher, it
feels like a loss to witness a great number of students fails to grasp the simple
biology concepts and apply it into other situation or other science-related
subjects. The students stated that they are unable to imagine and visualise the
real processes in the body, and that leads to misconception. Their limited
knowledge is also a factor for students‘ passiveness and timidity in the
classroom. Subsequently, this leads to ‗no question‘ syndrome, a situation
where almost no students were raising questions in class.

The overwhelming Biology curriculum has forced the teacher to select
pedagogy that limits them. The biggest concern among Biology teachers is to
efficiently deliver as many contents as possible in a limited time frame. Hence,
the conceptual themes, such as the relationships among living things and the
connection between processes at molecular state, tend to be ignored in favour
to deliver the specific terminology to students.

At the secondary school level, science subjects are separated into three
specialisations, which are Biology, Physics and Chemistry. These three
subjects were taught separately. Thus students keep it separated in their mind,
and they ended up losing the real understanding. For example, in Biology, the
osmosis concept is taught; in Chemistry, the particulate nature of matter is

144

taught; and in Physics, the partial pressure of the substances is taught. Even
though the concepts are related to each other, students tend to
compartmentalise them into separate boxes, and necessary connections are
not made between those three concepts. This situation leads to a mindset that
science subject is tough and hard to be understood. This resulted in low
students‘ enrolment in science stream over the years and Biology becomes the
least favourite among all subjects.

Thus, to facilitate students learning, PROPOSE-M was developed to contribute
to the discovery and development of a new strategy that can create a new
impact on teaching and learning processes. To achieve the objective, three
research objectives were outlined, and rigorous research processes have been
accomplished through the qualitative and quantitative approach. To answer all
research questions that underpin this study, ADDIE model was used to develop
the PROPOSE-M while quasi-experimental was employed to test the
effectiveness of the PROPOSE-M. In addition, the clinical interview was
conducted to explore and compare the conceptual change occurred among
students who exposed to PROPOSE-M and TRAD.

6.3 Implications

This study aims to provide some insights on how to develop a multimedia
integrated module with a problem-posing strategy for secondary Biology
subject. In doing so, testing the effectiveness of the cognitive theory of
multimedia learning (CTML) and problem-posing is imperative. Therefore, the
findings of this study offer several implications, and they are divided into
theoretical and managerial implications, on how PROPOSE-M can be used as
a teaching and learning tool.

6.3.1 Theoretical Implications

Both practitioners and academicians have consistently highlighted the
significance of technology to enhance students‘ performance. In developing a
multimedia module, most previous studies neglect to explain the process
behind developing the module and mostly concerned on the testing the module
developed to the real respondent or the other way around. In responding to the
gap, this study took a different avenue by executing ADDIE 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 PROPOSE-M to the real respondents. Through the laborious and
conducive number of research procedures, it was found that ADDIE is one of
the most reliable and relevant instructional design models to be used today
despite the advancements in technology (Robinson & Dearmon, 2013).

This study contributes to the literature by offering the specific analysis
appropriate for each phase of ADDIE. Most of the previous studies developed
multimedia-based learning with superficial contents by creating games, virtual

145

reality or apps for students that limit their use as a companion to the main text
or as a form to generally evaluate the concepts learned. This study, however,
developed PROPOSE-M with vast content of Biology, and it can act as a
complete teaching medium for specific Biology topic. With the aim of
developing PROPOSE-M as the main source rather than a companion
material, this study employed meticulous steps in creating a content that
adheres to the curriculum specification and at the same time, facilitated
students learning. The elaborate and illustrious details in the study can serve
as a guideline to help future researchers to develop a similar module that
contains multimedia features and active activity module.

Further, this study also contributes to the methodological aspects by providing
evidence on how quasi-experimental procedure can benefit from the support of
qualitative data from the clinical interview procedure and this study shows an
alternative from a normal interview procedure. Most previous studies analysed
the data from the experiment and proceeded to support the data from the semi-
structured or structured questions that were prepared prior to the interview
procedure. This study has contributed to detailing how a clinical interview can
be used as a method to explore the conceptual change in students by using the
probing method based on students‘ written answers in pre-test and post-test. It
was seen during the interview, probing the students have managed to unearth
the students‘ train of thoughts in answering questions between pre-test and
post-test and how the students had performed better during post-test.

It was seen in most previous studies that quasi-experiment procedure was
commonly practised by comparing two groups with similar characteristics from
the same institution. However, this study has introduced an alternative
approach of selecting the respondents by choosing the groups from two
different schools to address the issue of critical threats and to avoid design
contamination in quasi-experiments that may affect the results of the
experiments. This step is a complex process, as numerous factors needed to
be controlled and considered before proceeding with both schools. As a result
of meticulous strategy and planning, this study has paved a way to approach a
quasi-experimental study and the steps taken to reduce bias and threats. As a
result, this study can be a guideline for future research that planned to conduct
a quasi-experimental study in two different schools or institutions.

Besides, this study has shown how multimedia elements and problem-posing
can act as an alternative combination to enhance students understanding in a
specific topic in Biology subject. As such, multimedia elements were previously
found to be effective in retaining the memory longer while problem-posing was
found to be the factor that induced a deeper understanding. In contrast, most
previous studies focused on students‘ achievement in answering questions
from the teachers or from the workbook. Meanwhile, this study offers a different
perspective; by asking students to create the questions themselves in a series
of systematic steps provided by the newly-developed PROPOSE-M module.
The development of the questions posed by students can give out critical
information on how much students have understood the topic and how well

146

students can utilise their newfound knowledge in learning. This helps them to
defect from their old ways of memorising the information from the static
diagrams.

Furthermore, forcing students to pose questions and find solutions for the
questions was unquestionably an explicit way to measure the level of their
cognitive domain. Posing divergent open-ended questions with an infinite
number of possible solutions is indeed an indicator of a higher order thinking
skill. In addition, the results also demonstrated that PROPOSE-M was able to
enhance LOTS, and this has helped them to have stronger conceptual
foundations to tackle the HOTS task later. These findings imply that
understanding LOTS is the foundation in mastering and enhancing students‘
performance in HOTS. Hence, these findings have enriched and contributed to
the body of literature pertaining to the application of the revised Bloom‘s
Taxonomy in the classroom.

With regard to the inculcation of 4C elements, students agreed that they have
felt more comfortable in participating in peer discussion and were able to
achieve a deeper understanding by listening to their peers‘ explanation. They
also have felt freer to ask questions rather than being clouded by intimidation
previously. Hence, the activities outlined in the module were seen as
substantive in encouraging active and meaningful learning experiences.
Largely, this study provides alternative strategies of infusing 4C in classroom
activities by illuminating the fundamental steps taken in order to blend 4C
elements in problem-posing activities. This has also enriched the body of
literature pertaining to the 21st century pedagogy literature.

6.3.2 Practical Implications

Upon the process of establishing the validity and reliability of the PROPOSE-M
for the quasi-experimental procedure, the questionnaire developed can be
used by other researchers in future studies. This also means that the
PROPOSE-M can be utilised as teaching tools by Biology teachers and
teachers can take a shorter time in preparing suitable materials for teaching.

The attached assessment sheets can function as an evaluation rubric to
evaluate students‘ performance as well as to gauge their cognitive level. The
retrieved information can assist the teacher in identifying potential and
problematic students and planning future steps and strategies for future
lessons. Furthermore, PROPOSE-M (booklet) will help teachers to gain some
insights on the potential factors that would get students to be more attentive in
the classroom. Throughout this strategy, teachers will establish a foundation to
gain a better understanding of the students, and then make informed decision
to either continue or change teaching instructional strategies and detect the
students‘ performance, and all of these processes are done by using
PROPOSE-M in the classroom.

147

Besides, this study also provides a robust framework and instructional strategy
model to use PROPOSE-M in teaching osmosis and diffusion concepts. The
framework and model could benefit teacher in planning steps to be taken to
encourage problem-posing strategy in the Biology curriculum. With that insight,
teachers can plan strategies to increase students‘ learning engagement and
identify the key strategies to execute a problem-posing strategy. More
importantly, the culmination of information, knowledge and strategies can result
in an engaging and meaningful lesson delivery in the classroom.

In particular, the results of this study suggest that osmosis and diffusion
concepts are the fundamental knowledge for future topics in Biology curriculum
specification. Thus, perhaps in future, ―The Movement of Substances across
the Plasma Membrane‖ topic could focus on the concepts of osmosis and
diffusion in depth and deleting less important subtopic to widen the scope. This
results also show that Biology needs to be taught in a more explicit way to
illuminate the abstract occurrence at the cellular and molecular level. The
animation feature in a multimedia presentation that resembles the real
processes in human cells is conducive for students to help them to visualise
the process. Thus, this provides insight for curriculum developers to develop a
multimedia module that will reduce cognitive load among students and still
complying with the curriculum specification to accommodate teachers in
utilising the module to teach Biology at school.

6.4 Recommendation for further research

There are several directions that future researcher can take for further
research. First, since this study has provided the effectiveness of PROPOSE-M
to enhance performance among upper secondary students; thus, the testing of
PROPOSE-M can be extended to the elementary school's students.
Elementary schools are known as the basic education for students where they
start to explore their interest in the science field. PROPOSE-M could be the
appropriate instructional strategy to encourage their exploration and at the
same time, allowing them to explore their curiosity towards science.

The second direction for future research is to consider the design of the
PROPOSE-M (booklet). The future design should feature more attractive
elements to attract students to follow the activity. In the words of Crowther
(2012), studies claimed that many students favour learning through visual
compared to audio and movement. Hence, in future, PROPOSE-M (booklet)
should be printed with coloured diagrams and attractive features for better
visualisation of the structure. Further, additional diagrams or daily life dialogues
regarding the process can be added to stimulate curiosity among students
before they perform problem-posing activity.

Future research could also reconsider the research design employed. Other
researchers may want to conduct a true experiment to determine the
effectiveness of the PROPOSE-M. Further, all instruments were developed to

148

accommodate the research need and the processes taken were intended to fit
and adhere to the methodological perspective of this study. Other researchers
may want to conduct further statistical analysis on the instruments themselves
to accommodate different perspective or context of education research.

The fourth direction for future research is to extend the study to analyse the
quality in PROPOSE-M and extend PROPOSE-M to cover the remaining topics
in Biology curriculum for secondary schools. Quality measurement is a detailed
process, and this could serve for the foundation for another research from a
different perspective or be used in other subjects.

Lastly, the fifth direction for future research is PROPOSE-M can be upgraded
to the web-based module so that in future students gain access to the contents,
and PROPOSE-M can serve as an e-learning tool for Biology classroom.
Developing a self-learning PROPOSE-M module can provide a way for
students have more autonomy in their learning by having the power to control
the show at their leisure, and they can perform any action such as playback,
slow motion, rewind, fast forward and pause at a certain point of the
presentation.

6.5 Conclusion

This chapter has provided a summary of the study in terms of its aims,
research questions, research design, study results, contributions as well as
recommendations for further research. This study is an attempt to develop and
investigate the effectiveness of PROPOSE-M to enhance students‘
performance in Biology subject, and consequently to contribute to enhancing
the thinking skills among Form Four students. For this purpose, a conceptual
framework on the instructional flow using the cognitive theory of multimedia
learning (CTML) and problem-posing instructional strategy (PPIS) was
proposed.

Considering the results of this study, teachers, students, instructional designers
and curriculum designers can benefit from these findings, which demonstrated
the effectiveness of multimedia-based education integrated with the problem-
posing instructional strategy to enhance students‘ performance in Biology
subject. Therefore, any interested party who expresses interest in adopting an
alternative teaching strategy should look into this study as a researcher is not
the governing body to decide on behalf of Biology education in Malaysia.
Educators, policymakers and curriculum designers should take a deep dive into
the status of education nowadays and seeking the issues that need to be fixed
and changed. This study believes in the current curriculum. However, methods
of teaching and assessment are heavily relying on teacher-centred dynamic
where students are just receiving and saving information. This approach does
not allow for meaningful dialogue and discussions among students or between
students and teacher.

149

In essence, a change is needed in the roles of both teacher and student.
Students need to take the helm on teaching and play a more active role while
the teacher ought to become an effective facilitator. The implementation of
PROPOSE-M supports this role by developing students‘ ability to create own
questions and letting the students take responsibility towards their learning by
participating in active discussion with their peers and teachers.
Based on the arguments in the earlier chapter, it shows that both students and
teachers have experienced hardship in teaching and learning processes in
Biology due to several issues highlighted in Chapter 1. Through the
implementation of PROPOSE-M, it is obvious to a certain extent that
PROPOSE-M has helped to overcome the hardship faced by students and
teachers in teaching and studying Biology. In thinking about the changes in the
science curriculum, we must ask not only what it is that we want our students to
know, but also considered how it is taught best to allow them to experience
meaningful learning. Most importantly, this study hopes that more students will
be interested in enrolling in Biology subject and subsequently will contribute to
the science and technology industry for the future of the nation.

150

REFERENCES

Akay, H., & Boz, N. (2010). The effect of problem posing oriented analyses-II
course on the attitudes toward mathematics and mathematics self-
efficacy of elementary prospective mathematics teachers. Australian
Journal of Teacher Education, 35(1): 59–75. http://doi.org/10.14221

Aksoy, G. (2012). The effects of animation technique on the 7th Grade Science
and Technology course. Creative Education, 3(3): 304–308.
http://doi.org/10.4236/ce.2012.33048

Alias, M., Masek, A., & Salleh, H. H. M. (2015). Self, peer and teacher
assessments in problem based learning: Are they in agreements?
Procedia- Social and Behavioral Sciences, 204: 309–317.
http://doi.org/10.1016

Alias, N., DeWitt, D., Rahman, M. N. A., Gelamdin, R. B., Rauf, R. A. A., &
Siraj, S. (2014). Effectiveness of the Biology PTechLS module in a Felda
Science Centre. Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Technology,
2(4): 32–36.

Almomen, R. K., Kaufman, D., Alotaibi, H., & Al-rowais, N. A. (2016). Applying
the ADDIE — Analysis, Design , Development , Implementation and
Evaluation — Instructional design model to continuing professional
development for primary care physicians in Saudi Arabia. International
Journal of Clinical Medicine, 7(8): 538–546. http://doi.org/.
http://dx.doi.org/10.4236

Ansari, M. T., Abd Rahman, S., Badgujar, V. B., Sami, F., & Abdullah, M. S.
(2015). Problem Based Learning (PBL): A novel and effective tool of
teaching and learning. Indian Journal of Pharmaceutical Education and
Research, 49(4): 258–265. http://doi.org/10.5530/ijper.49.4.3

Arip, M. A. S. M., Bakar, R. B. A., Ahmad, A. B., & Jais, S. M. (2013). The
development of a Group Guidance Module for student self-development
based on Gestalt Theory. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 84:
1310–1316. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.06.748

Armbruster, P., Patel, M., Johnson, E., & Weiss, M. (2009). Active learning and
student-centered pedagogy improve student Attitudes and performance in
introductory Biology. Life Sciences Education, 9(1): 203–213.
http://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.09

Artun, H., & Coştu, B. (2013). Effect of the 5E Model on prospective teachers‘
conceptual understanding of diffusion and osmosis: A mixed method
approach. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 22(1): 1–10.
http://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-012-9371-2

Kurikulum Standard Sekolah Rendah (2013). Bahagian Pembangunan
Kurikulum. KPM:Malaysia. Retrieved from www.moe.gov.my

151

Beal, C. R., & Cohen, P. R. (2012). Teach ourselves: Technology to support
problem posing in the STEM classroom. Creative Education, 3(4): 513–
519. http://doi.org/10.4236/ce.2012.34078

Blease, D. (1983). Observer effects on teachers and pupils in classroom
research. Educational Review, 35(3): 213–217. http://doi.org/10.1080

Bonney, K. M. (2015). Case study teaching method improves student
performance and perceptions of learning gains. Journal of Microbiology &
Biology Education, 16(1): 21–28. http://doi.org/10.1128/jmbe.v16i1.846

Borrego, M., & Henderson, C. (2014). Increasing the use of evidence-based
teaching in STEM higher education: A comparison of eight change
strategies. Journal of Engineering Education, 103(2): 220–252.
http://doi.org/10.1002

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2013). Successful qualitative research: A practical
guide for beginners. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publication.

Bryman, A. (2004). Quantity and Quality in Social Research. New York:
Routledge.

Cankoy, O. (2014). Interlocked problem posing and children‘s problem posing
performance in free structured situations. International Journal of Science
and Mathematics Education, 12(1): 219–238. http://doi.org/10.1007

Carlgren, T. (2013). Communication, critical Thinking, problem solving: A
suggested course for all high school students in the 21st century.
Interchange, 44(2): 63–81. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10780-013-9197-8

Chang, K. E., Wu, L. J., Weng, S. E., & Sung, Y. T. (2012). Embedding game-
based problem-solving phase into problem-posing system for
mathematics learning. Computers and Education, 58(2): 775–786.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.10.002

Chen, L.-K., Dorn, E., Krawitz, M., Lim, C. S., & Mourshed, M. (2017). Drivers
of Student Performance: Insights from Asia. Mckinsey & Company.

Chiu, T. K. F., & Mok, I. A. C. (2017). Learner expertise and mathematics
different order thinking skills in multimedia learning. Computers &
Education, 107(2): 147–164. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017

Cho, Y., & Brown, C. (2013). Project-based learning in education: Integrating
business needs and student learning. European Journal of Training &
Development, 37(8): 744–765. http://doi.org/10.1108/EJTD-01-2013

Christou, C., Mousoulides, N., Pittalis, M., Pitta-Pantazi, D., & Sriraman, B.
(2005). An empirical taxonomy of problem posing processes. ZDM -
International Journal on Mathematics Education, 37(3): 149–158.
http://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-005

152

Çildir, S., & Sezen, N. (2011). A study on the evaluation of problem posing
skills in terms of academic success. Procedia - Social and Behavioral
Sciences, 15: 2494–2499. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.04.134

Çimer, A. (2012). What makes Biology learning difficult and effective: Students‘
views. Educational Research and Reviews, 7(3): 61–71.
http://doi.org/10.5897/ERR11.205

Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2008). e-Learning and the Science of Instruction
(2nd ed.). San Fransisco: Pfeiffer. http://doi.org/10.1002/acp.969

Clark, R. C., Nguyen, F., & Sweller, J. (2006). Efficiency in Learning: evidence-
based guidelines to manage cognitive load. San Fransisco: Pfeiffer.

Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2013). Research Methods in Education
(6th ed.). New York: Routledge. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8527.2007

Colliver, J. A., Kucera, K., & Verhulst, S. J. (2008). Meta-analysis of quasi-
experimental research: Are systematic narrative reviews indicated?
Medical Education, 42(9): 858–865. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923

Cook, T. D. (1991). Clarifying the warrant for generalized causal inferences in
quasi-experimentation. In M. W. McLaughlin, & D. Phillips (Eds.),
Evaluation and Education: At Quarter Century.

Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-Experimentation: Design and
analysis issues for field settings. Houghton Miffin, Boston: Reidel
Pubishing Company.

Corbin, J. M., & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures,
canons, and evaluative criteria. Qualitative Sociology, 13(1): 3–21.
http://doi.org/10.1007/BF00988593

Creswell, J. (2014). A Concise Introduction to Mixed Methods Research.
Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing
among five approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, California. SAGE
Publications, Inc.

Crowther, G. (2012). Using science songs to enhance learning: An
interdisciplinary approach. CBE Life Sciences Education, 11(1): 26–30.
http://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.11-08-0068

Crippen, K. J., & Archambault, L. (2012). Scaffolded inquiry-based instruction
with technology: A signature pedagogy for STEM Education. Computers
in the Schools, 29(2): 157–173. http://doi.org/10.1080

Curriculum Specifications Biology Form 4 (2012). Bahagian Pembangunan
Kurikulum. KPM: Malaysia.

153

Da Ponte, J. P., & Henriques, A. (2013). Problem posing based on
investigation activities by university students. Educational Studies in
Mathematics, 83(1): 145–156. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-012-9443-5

Davis, A. L. (2013). Using instructional design principles to develop effective
information literacy instruction: ADDIE overview. College & Research
Libraries News, 74(4): 205–207.

DeMarrais, K., & Lapan, S. D. (2004). Foundations for Research: Methods of
Inquiry in Education and the Social Sciences. Mahwah, New Jersey:
Laurence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Publisher.

Duit, R., & Treagust, D. F. (2003). Conceptual change: A powerful framework
for improving science teaching and learning. International Journal of
Science Education, 25(6): 671–688. http://doi.org/10.1080/0950069032

Duran, M., & Dökme, I. (2016). The effect of the inquiry-based learning
approach on student‘s critical-thinking skills. Eurasia Journal of
Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 12(12): 2887–2908.
http://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2016.02311a

Elliot, D., Wilson, D., & Boyle, S. (2014). Science learning via multimedia portal
resources: The Scottish case. British Journal of Educational Technology,
45(4): 571–580. http://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12085

Ellis, T. J., & Levy, Y. (2010). A Guide for Novice Researchers: Design and
development research methods. Proceedings of Informing Science & IT
Education Conference (InSITE), 10: 107–118. http://doi.org/10.1109

Fensham, P. J., & Bellocchi, A. (2013). Higher order thinking in chemistry
curriculum and its assessment. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 10(1): 250–
264. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2013.06.003

Field, A. (2009). Discovering Statistics Using SPSS (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: SAGE Publication Inc.

Fisher, K.M. (1985) A misconception in biology: amino acids and translation.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 22(2): 53–62.

Forehand, M. (2012). Bloom‘s Taxonomy from emerging perspectives on
learning, teaching and technology. International Journal of Educational
Management, 26(2): 205–222.

Franke, G., & Bogner, F. X. (2011). Conceptual change in students‘ molecular
biology education: Tilting at windmills? Journal of Educational Research,
104(1): 7–18. http://doi.org/10.1080/00220670903431165

Furió, D., Juan, M. C., Seguí, I., & Vivó, R. (2015). Mobile learning vs.
traditional classroom lessons: A comparative study. Journal of Computer
Assisted Learning, 31(3): 189–201. http://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12071

154

Garson, G.D. (2012), Testing Statistical Assumptions. Asheboro, North
Carolina: Statistical Associates Publishing.

Ginsburg, H. P. (2005). Entering the Childʼs Mind: The Clinical Interview in
Psychological Research and Practice. New York: Cambridge University
Press. http://doi.org/10.1097/00004703-199908000-00017

Gonzales, N. A. (1998). A Blueprint for problem posing. School Science and
Mathematics, 98(8): 448–456. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.1998

Gorghiu, G., Drăghicescu, L. M., Cristea, S., Petrescu, A.-M., & Gorghiu, L. M.
(2015). Problem-based learning - An efficient learning strategy in the
science lessons context. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 19:
1865–1870. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.04.570

Gough, A. (2014). STEM policy and science education: Scientistic curriculum
and sociopolitical silences. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 10(2):
445–458. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-014-9590-3

Günaydin, S. & A., & Karamete. (2016). Material development to raise
awareness of using smart boards: An example Design and Development
Research. European Journal of Contemporary Education, 15(1): 114–
122. http://doi.org/10.13187/ejced.2016.15.114

Haahr, J. H. (2005). Explaining Student Performance: Evidence from the
international PISA , TIMSS and PIRLS surveys. Final Report. Danish
Technological Institute.

Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate
Data Analysis. Vectors (7th ed.). Harlow, United Kingdom: Pearson.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpharm.2011.02.019

Harrison, N. (2013). Using the interactive whiteboard to scaffold a
metalanguage: Teaching higher order thinking skills in preservice teacher
education. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 29(1): 54–65.
http://doi.org/10.1234/ajet.v29i1.48

Harrison, P., Raison, N., Abe, T., Watkinson, W., Dar, F., Challacombe, B.,
Ahmed, K. (2017). The validation of a novel Robot-Assisted Radical
Prostatectomy Virtual Reality Module. Journal of Surgical Education, 15
(3): 1–9. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsurg.2017.09.005

Hasni, A., Roy, P., & Dumais, N. (2016). The teaching and learning of diffusion
and osmosis: What can we learn from analysis of classroom practices? A
case study. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology
Education, 12(6): 1507–1531. http://doi.org/10.12973

Hedges, M. R., Pacheco, G. A., & Webber, D. J. (2014). What determines
students‘ choices of elective modules? International Review of Economics
Education, 17(1): 39–54. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.iree

155

Hiong, L. C., & Osman, K. (2013). A conceptual framework for the Integration
of 21st century skills in Biology education. Research Journal of Applied
Sciences, Engineering and Technology, 6(16): 2976–2983.
http://doi.org/10.19026/rjaset.6.3681

Hong, J. C., Lin, M. P., Hwang, M. Y., Tai, K. H., & Kuo, Y. C. (2015).
Comparing animated and static modes in educational gameplay on user
interest, performance and gameplay anxiety. Computers and Education,
88(2): 109–118. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.04.018

Hopson, M. H., Simms, R. L., & Knezek, G. a. (2001). Using a technology-
enriched environment to Improve higher-order thinking skills. Journal of
Research on Technology in Education Journal of Research on
Technology in Education, 34(2): 109–120. http://doi.org/10.1080/15391

Johnson, M. L., & Sinatra, G. M. (2014). The influence of approach and
avoidance goals on conceptual change. The Journal of Educational
Research, 107(4), 312–325. http://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2013

Jones, A., Buntting, C., Hipkins, R., McKim, A., Conner, L., & Saunders, K.
(2012). Developing students‘ futures thinking in science education.
Research in Science Education, 42(4): 687–708. http://doi.org/10.1007

Kapur, M. (2015). The preparatory effects of problem solving versus problem
posing on learning from instruction. Learning and Instruction, 39(5): 23–
31. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2015.05.004

Kim, Y., & Steiner, P. (2016). Quasi-Experimental Designs for Causal
Inference. Educational Psychologist, 51(4): 395–405.

Kincheloe, J., & Berry, K. S. (Eds.). (2004). Rigour and Complexity in
Educational Research. Berkshire, England: Open University Press.

Kojima, K., Miwa, K., & Matsui, T. (2013). Supporting mathematical problem
posing with a system for learning generation processes through
examples. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education,
22(4): 161–190. http://doi.org/10.3233/JAI-130035

Koneru, I. (2010). ADDIE: Designing web-enabled information literacy
instructional modules. DESIDOC Journal of Library & Information
Technology, 30(3): 23–33. http://doi.org/10.14429/djlit.30.388

Kontorovich, I., Koichu, B., Leikin, R., & Berman, A. (2012). An exploratory
framework for handling the complexity of mathematical problem posing in
small groups. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 31(1): 149–161.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2011.11.002

Kosucu, E. (2017). Comparison and evaluation of Seels & Glasgow and ADDIE
instructional design model. International Journal of Science and
Research, 73(6): 1–18.

156

Kramer, E. M., & Myers, D. R. (2013). Osmosis is not driven by water dilution.
Trends in Plant Science, 18(4): 195–197. http://doi.org/10.1016

Land, T. J. (2017). Teacher attention to number choice in problem posing.
Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 45(2017): 35–46.

Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement
for categorical data. International Biometric Society, 33(1): 159–174.
http://doi.org/10.2307/2529310

Lee, J., Lim, C., & Kim, H. (2017). Development of an instructional design
model for flipped learning in higher education. Educational Technology
Research and Development, 65(2): 427–453. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11

Lepp, A., Barkley, J. E., & Karpinski, A. C. (2015). The relationship between
cell phone use and academic performance in a sample of U.S. college
students. SAGE Open, 5(1): 1-9. http://doi.org/10.1177/2158244015573

Leung, S. kwan S. (2013). Teachers implementing mathematical problem
posing in the classroom: Challenges and strategies. Educational Studies
in Mathematics, 83(1): 103–116. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-012-9436-

Lodico, M., Spaulding, D., & Voegtle, K. (2006). Methods in Educational
Research: From Theory to Practice. San Francisco, California: Jossey-
Bass.

Madhuri, G. V, Kantamreddi, V. S. S. N., & Prakash Goteti, L. N. S. (2012).
Promoting higher order thinking skills using inquiry-based learning.
European Journal of Engineering Education, 37(2): 117–123.
http://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2012.661701

Makransky, G., Terkildsen, T. S., & Mayer, R. E. (2017). Adding immersive
virtual reality to a science lab simulation causes more presence but less
learning. Learning and Instruction, 12(1): 0–1. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.le

Mansor, A. N., Abdullah, N. O., Wahab, J. A., Rasul, M. S., Nor, M. Y. M., Nor,
N. M., & Raof, R. A. (2015). Managing problem-based learning:
Challenges and solutions for educational practice. Asian Social Science,
11(4): 259–268. http://doi.org/10.5539/ass.v11n4p259

Marshall, J. C., Smart, J., & Alston, D. M. (2016). Development and validation
of Teacher Intentionality of Practice Scale (TIPS): A measure to evaluate
and scaffold teacher effectiveness. Teaching and Teacher Education,
59(3): 159–168. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.05.007

Martin, F., Carolina, N., Hoskins, O. J., Brooks, R., & Bennett, T. (2013).
Development of an interactive multimedia instructional module. The
Journal of Applied Instructional Design, 3(3): 5–18.

Mayer, R. E. (1999). Multimedia aids to problem-solving transfer. International
Journal of Educational Research, 31(7): 611–623.

157

http://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-0355(99)00027-0

Mayer, R. E. (2010). Applying the science of learning to medical education.
Medical Education, 44(6): 543–549. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923

Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2002). Aids to computer-based multimedia
learning. Learning and Instruction, 12(1): 107–119.
http://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(01)00018-4

McCambridge, J., Witton, J., & Elbourne, D. R. (2014). Systematic review of
the Hawthorne effect: New concepts are needed to study research
participation effects. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 67(3): 267–277.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.08.015

Elemen KBAT Dalam Pentaksiran (2014). Bahagian Pembangunan Kurikulum.
KPM: Malaysia.

Miri, B., David, B. C., & Uri, Z. (2007). Purposely teaching for the promotion of
higher-order thinking skills: A case of critical thinking. Research in
Science Education, 37(4): 353–369. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-006-
9029-2

Mishra, S., & Iyer, S. (2015). An exploration of problem posing-based activities
as an assessment tool and as an instructional strategy. Research and
Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 10(1): 5.
http://doi.org/10.1007/s41039-015-0006-0

N. Hasanah, Hayashi, Y., & Hirashima, T. (2017). Investigation of learning
environment for arithmetic word problems by problem posing as sentence
integration in Indonesian language. Journal of Physics: Conference
Series, 9(1): 3–10. http://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/755/1

Nardone, C. F., & Lee, R. G. (2010). Critical Inquiry Across the Disciplines:
Strategies for student-generated problem posing. College Teaching,
59(1): 13–22. http://doi.org/10.1080/87567555.2010.489077

Nawawi, S. (2017). Developing of module challenge based learning in
environmental material to empower the critical thinking ability. Jurnal
Inovasi Pendidikan, 3(2): 212–223. http://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.21

Nerida F, E. (2015). Problem posing as an integral component of the
mathematics curriculum: A study with prospective and practicing middle-
school teachers. In Mathematical Problem Posing: From Research to
Effective Practice (pp. 513–543). http://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-6258-
3_25

Nicolaou, A. A., & Xistouri, X. (2011). Field dependence/independence
cognitive style and problem posing: an investigation with sixth grade
students. Educational Psychology, 31(5): 611–627.

158

Nunes, E. P. S., Luz, A. R., Lemos, E. M., & Nunes, C. (2016). Approaches of

participatory design the design process of a serious game to assist in the
learning of hospitalized children. In Lecture Notes in Computer Science

(including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture
Notes in Bioinformatics) (pp. 406–416). http://doi.org/10.1007/9

Odom, A. L., & Kelly, P. V. (2001). Integrating concept mapping and the

learning cycle to teach diffusion and osmosis concepts to high school
biology students. Science Education, 85(6): 615–635.

http://doi.org/10.1002/sce.1029

Oliver, J. S., Hodges, G. W., Moore, J. N., Cohen, A., Jang, Y., Brown, S. A.,

Robertson, T. P. (2017). Supporting high school student accomplishment

of Biology content using interactive computer-based curricular case
studies. Research in Science Education, 5(1): 1–26.

http://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-017-9675-6

Osman, K., & Kaur, S. J. (2014). Evaluating Biology achievement scores in an

ICT integrated PBL environment. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics,
Science and Technology Education, 10(3): 185–194.

http://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2014.1076a

Oztas, F. (2014). How do high school students know diffusion and osmosis?
High school students ‘ difficulties in understanding diffusion & osmosis.
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 116: 3679–3682.

http://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro

Peterson, C. (2003). Summary for Policymakers. Climate Change 2013 - The
Physical Science Basis, 12(3): 1–30. http://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781

Peterson, D. J. (2016). The flipped classroom improves student achievement

and course satisfaction in a statistics course: A quasi-experimental study.
Teaching of Psychology, 43(1): 10–15. http://doi.org/10.1177/009

Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982).
Accommodation of a scientific conception: Towards a theory of
conceptual change. Science Education, 66, 211-227.

Rahman, N. A., Halim, L., Ahmad, A. R., & Soh, T. M. T. (2018). Challenges of

environmental education: Inculcating behavioural changes among
indigenous students. Creative Education, 9(1): 43–55.

http://doi.org/10.4236/ce.2018.910

Raub, L. A., Shukor, N. A., Arshad, M. Y., & Rosli, M. S. (2015). An integrated

model to implement contextual learning with virtual learning environment

for promoting higher order thinking skills in Malaysian secondary schools.

International Education Studies, 8(13): 41–46.

http://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v8n13p41

Reeves, T. C. (2000). Enhancing the worth of instructional technology research
through ―design experiments‖ and other development research strategies.

159

International Perspectives on Instructional Technology Research for the
21st Century, 27(4): 1–15.

Richey, R.C., Klein, J.D., & Nelson, W. A. (2004). Handbook of Research On
Educational Communications And Technology. (D. H. Jonassen, Eds.)
(2nd ed.). Mahwah, New Jersey: Taylor & Francis.

Richey, R. C. (1994). Developmental Research: The Definition and Scope. In
1994 National Convention of the Association for Educational
Communications and Technology (pp. 714–720). Nashville, Tennessee.
Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED373753.pdf

Richey, R. C., & Klein, J. D. (2005). Developmental research methods:
Creating knowledge from instructional design and development practice.
Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 16(2): 23–38.
http://doi.org/10.1007/BF02961473

Richland, L. E., & Simms, N. (2015). Analogy, higher order thinking, and
education. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 6(2): 177–
192. http://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.1336

Ritz, J. M., & Fan, S. C. (2014). STEM and technology education: international
state-of-the-art. International Journal of Technology and Design
Education, 25(4): 429–451. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-014-9290-z

Robinson, B. K., & Dearmon, V. (2013). Evidence-based nursing education:
Effective use of instructional design and simulated learning environments
to enhance knowledge transfer in undergraduate nursing students.
Journal of Professional Nursing, 29(4): 203–209.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.profnurs.2012.04.022

Rosli, R., Capraro, M. M., & Capraro, R. M. (2014). The effects of problem
posing on student mathematical learning: A meta-analysis. International
Education Studies, 7(13): 227–241. http://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v7n13p227

Rubio, D. M. G., Berg-Weger, M., Tebb, S. S., Lee, E. S., & Rauch, S. (2003).
Objectifyng content validity: Conducting a content validity study in social
work research. Social Work Research, 27(2): 94–104.
http://doi.org/10.1093/swr/27.2.94

Saido, G. M., Siraj, S., Nordin, A. B. Bin, & Amedy, O. S. A. (2015). Higher
order thinking skills among secondary school students in science
learning. The Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Science, 3(3): 13–
20.

Salve-Opina, A. (2014). The development and validation of online learning
modules for college English. American International Journal of
Contemporary Research, 4(2): 89–97.

Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2009). Research Methods for
Business Students (5th ed.). Harlow, England: Prentice Hall.

160

http://doi.org/10.1007/s13398-014-0173-7.2

Scott, D., & Usher, R. (2010). Researching Education Data, Methods and
Theory in Educational Enquiry. Bloomsbury (2nd ed.). New York:
Continuum. http://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004

Sekaran, U. (2013). Research Methods for Business: A skill building approach
(4th ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
http://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004

Seman, S. C., Yusoff, W. M. W., & Embong, R. (2017). Teachers challenges in
teaching and learning for higher order thinking skills (HOTS) in primary
school. International Journal of Asian Social Science, 7(7): 534–545.
http://doi.org/10.18488/journal.1.2017.77.534.545

Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and
Quasi-Experimental for Generalized Designs Causal Inference. Boston,
Massachusetts: Houghton Mifflin. http://doi.org/10.1198/jasa.2005.s22

Shelley, M. (1984). Content Analysis : An Introduction to its methodology.
American Statistical Association, 79(385): 240.

Siew, N. M., Amir, N., & Chong, C. L. (2015). The perceptions of pre-service
and in-service teachers regarding a project-based STEM approach to
teaching science. SpringerPlus, 4(1): 1–20. http://doi.org/10.1186/2193-
1801-4-8

Singer, F. M., & Voica, C. (2013). A problem-solving conceptual framework and
its implications in designing problem-posing tasks. Educational Studies in
Mathematics, 83(1): 9–26. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-012-9422-x

Siwatu, K. O., Putman, S. M., Starker-Glass, T. V., & Lewis, C. W. (2017). The
Culturally Responsive Classroom Management Self-Efficacy Scale:
Development and initial validation. Urban Education, 52(7): 862–888.
http://doi.org/10.1177/0042085915602534

Smith, M. K., Jones, F. H. M., Gilbert, S. L., & Wieman, C. E. (2013). The
Classroom Observation Protocol for Undergraduate Stem (COPUS): A
new instrument to characterize university STEM classroom practices.
CBE Life Sciences Education, 12(4): 618–627. http://doi.org/10.1187/cb

Sommers-Flanagan, J., & Sommers-Flanagan, R. (2013). Clinical interviewing
(3rd ed.). Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
http://doi.org/10.1111/jsm.12035

Sousa, C. (2016). Problem-based learning on cell biology and ecophysiology
using integrated laboratory and computational activities. Multidisciplinary
Journal for Education, Social and Technological Sciences, 3(1): 118-130.
http://doi.org/10.4995/muse.2016.3763

161

Sumintono, B. (2013). Science education in Malaysia: challenges in the 21 st
century. Paper presented at 1st International Seminar on Science
Education (ISSE), Yogyakarta. October 2015.

Sung, H.-Y., Hwang, G.-J., & Chang, Y.-C. (2013). Development of a mobile
learning system based on a collaborative problem-posing strategy.
Interactive Learning Environments, 13(4): 1–16. http://doi.org/10.1080/10

Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning.
Cognitive Science, 12(2): 257–285. http://doi.org/10.1016/0364-0213(88)

Tek, O. E., Kharuddin, R. M., Salleh, S., Rahman, N. A., Idris, S., Convent, K.
(2013). Keberkesanan penggunaan modul kartun dalam meningkatkan
pencapaian Biologi pelajar. Jurnal Pendidikan Sains Dan Matematik
Malaysia, 3(1): 95–111.

Tekkaya, C. (2003). Remediating high school students‘ misconceptions
concerning diffusion and osmosis through concept mapping and
conceptual change text. Research in Science & Technological Education,
21(1): 5–16. http://doi.org/10.1080/02635140308340

Tichá, M., & Hošpesová, A. (2013). Developing teachers‘ subject didactic
competence through problem posing. Educational Studies in
Mathematics, 83(1): 133–143. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-012-9455-1

Tobergte, D. R., & Curtis, S. (2013). Social research methods. Journal of
Chemical Information and Modeling, 53(9): 1689–1699.
http://doi.org/10.1017/CBO

Türker, F. M. (2016). Design process for online websites created for teaching
Turkish as a foreign language in web based environments. Educational
Research and Reviews, 11(8): 642–655. http://doi.org/10.5897/ERR20

Udovic, D., Morris, D., Dickman, A., Postlethwait, J., & Wetherwax, P. (2002).
Workshop Biology: Demonstrating the effectiveness of active learning in
an Introductory Biology Course. BioScience, 52(3): 272.
http://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2002)

Vaismoradi, M., Turunen, H., & Bondas, T. (2013). Content analysis and
thematic analysis: Implications for conducting a qualitative descriptive
study. Nursing and Health Sciences, 15(3): 398–405.
http://doi.org/10.1111/nhs.12048

Vidergor, H. E. (2017). Effectiveness of the multidimensional curriculum model
in developing higher-order thinking skills in elementary and secondary
students. The Curriculum Journal, 5176(5): 1–21.
http://doi.org/10.1080/09585176.2017

Virginia Braun &, & Victoria Clarke. (2006). Using thematic analysis in
psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2006): 77–101.
http://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

162

Vygotsky, L. S. (2012). The science of psychology. Journal of Russian and
East European Psychology, 50(4): 85–106.

Wang, H., Moore, T. J., Roehrig, G. H., & Park, M. S. (2011). STEM
integration : Teacher perceptions and practice. Journal of Pre-College
Engineering Education Research, 1(2): 1–13. http://doi.org/10.5703/128

Watson, C., & Brathwaite, V. (2013). An open and interactive multimedia e-
learning module for graphing kinematics. Proquest, X(X): 409--415.

White, H., & Sabarwal, S. (2014). Quasi-experimental design and methods.
Methodological Briefs: Impact Evaluation 8, UNICEF Ofice of Research,
Florence, 8(1): 1–16.

Wolkow, T. D., Durrenberger, L. T., Maynard, M. A., Harrall, K. K., & Hines, L.
M. (2014). A comprehensive faculty, staff, and student training program
enhances student perceptions of a course-based research experience at
a two-year institution. CBE Life Sciences Education, 13(4): 724–737.
http://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.14-03-0056

Xie, Y., Fang, M., & Shauman, K. (2015). STEM Education. Annual Review of
Sociology, 41(1): 331–357. http://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-071312

Yarden, H., & Yarden, A. (2010). Learning using dynamic and static
visualizations: Students‘ comprehension, prior knowledge and conceptual
status of a biotechnological method. Research in Science Education,
40(3): 375–402. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-009-9126-0

Zeidan, A. (2010). The relationship between grade 11 palestinian attitudes
toward biology and their perceptions of the biology learning environment.
International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 8(5): 783–
800. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-009-9185-8

163

APPENDICES
Appendix A
Personal Details Form

164

165

Appendix B
Consent Form

166

Appendix C
Letter of Appointment for Experts

167

Appendix D
Approval Letter from MOE

168

Appendix E
Approval Letter from Selangor State Education Department

169

Appendix F
Approval Letter for Students’ Data

170

Appendix G
Approval Letter for Selangor Data

171

Appendix H
Letter of Appointments for Teachers

172