Booklet B5_Mijorite-IPG Full

© 2022 Institute of Teacher Education, Penang Campus i MALAYSIAN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN TEACHER EDUCATION (MIJORiTE) Volume 3: 2022 ISSN: 2289-8808 e-ISSN: 7210-7132 Published By Department of Planning, Research and Innovation INSTITUTE OF TEACHER EDUCATION, PENANG CAMPUS Persiaran Tunku Kudin, Bukit Coombe, 11700 Gelugor Pulau Pinang Under PPPM #112 iniative MALAYSIAN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN TEACHER EDUCATION ISSN: 2289-8808 e-ISSN: 7210-7132

© 2022 Institute of Teacher Education, Penang Campus ii MALAYSIAN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN TEACHER EDUCATION (MIJORiTE) Volume 3: 2022 Department of Planning, Research and Innovation Institute of Teacher Education, Penang Campus ISSN: 2289-8808 e-ISSN: 7210-7132 Copyright © 2022 Institute of Teacher Education, Penang Campus All rights reserved. No part of this publication can be reproduced, distributed or transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying, recording or other electronic or mechanical methods without the express written permission of the Publisher, except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical reviews and certain other non-commercial uses permitted by copyright law. For permission request, write to the Publisher, addressed “Attention: Managing Director” at the email address below. December 2022 Publisher Department of Planning, Research and Innovation Institute of Teacher Education, Penang Campus Persiaran Tunku Kudin, Bukit Coombe, 11700 Gelugor Pulau Pinang Tel: 04-6603100 Email: [email protected] Printing Sponsorship: Institute of Teacher Education Malaysia Under PPPM #112 iniative Printed By: Vanda Dynamic Sdn Bhd MALAYSIAN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN TEACHER EDUCATION ISSN: 2289-8808 e-ISSN: 7210-7132 Volume 3: 2022

© 2022 Institute of Teacher Education, Penang Campus iii MALAYSIAN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN TEACHER EDUCATION (MIJORiTE) Volume 3: 2022 EDITORS IN CHIEF Dr. Aneesha Binti Hamid MANAGING EDITOR Dr. Norabiatul Adawiah Binti Abd Wahid MIJORiTE REVIEWER PANEL Dr Suzieleez Syrene binti Abd Rahim University of Malaya TS Dr Wan Azani bin Wan Mustaffa University Malaysia Perlis Dr Zamzana binti Zamzamir@Zamzamin Sultan Idris Education University Dr Nurzatulshima binti Kamaruddin Universiti Putra Malaysia Dr Haziqah Zulaikha binti Aris International Islamic University of Malaysia Dr Rohaya binti Abdullah University of Science Malaysia Dr Anis binti Shaari University of Science Malaysia WEB EDITOR Dr. Anpalakan a/l Vadiappan EDITORS Dr. Khoo Bee Lee Dr. Loh Siew Lee Dr. Noorashid Bin Din Noraini Binti Lapawi Faizul Hasmi Bin Abu Hasan Dr Hafiah binti Ismail Dr. Noorashid Bin Din RnI Department, ITEPC MALAYSIAN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN TEACHER EDUCATION ISSN: 2289-8808 e-ISSN: 7210-7132 EDITORIAL BOARD Volume 3: 2022

© 2022 Institute of Teacher Education, Penang Campus iv PAGE Editorial Board iii Editorial vi-vii Inquiry-Based Learning via Edpuzzle: Solving Rational Inequality by Table of Sign Lim Ai Hui Lim Joo Sim 1-11 Students’ Perceptions Towards Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) Yeoh Poh Choo, PhD Foo Lay Kuan 12-23 Hybrid Online Learning Platforms to Cater the Needs of Society 5.0: A Conceptual Paper Lee Pui Har Angeline Chong Suet Kee Gurminderjeet Kaur A/P Kartar Singh 24-33 Digital Innovation Apps Evaluation Siaw Nyuk Hiong Agatha Anak Francis Umbit Tay Pui Hoon 34-44 Emerging Trends in STEM Education: Envisioning Future Learning Spaces and Interaction Technology Tools Framework Using the Fuzzy Delphi Method (FDM) Sanura Jaya Rozniza Zaharudin 45-56 The Importance of STEM Education in Schools Siti Badariah Jemain Nurhafizah Yaakob Khoo Bee Lee 57-62 Implementing Integrated STEM Project-based Learning in Schools: A Literature Review Ser Pui Feng Mohd Shahril Nizam Bin Shaharom Mohd Razip Bajuri Nor’ Aidah Binti Nordin 63-74 TABLE OF CONTENT Volume 3: 2022 MALAYSIAN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN TEACHER EDUCATION ISSN: 2289-8808 e-ISSN: 7210-7132

© 2022 Institute of Teacher Education, Penang Campus v Research of Fun Learning with lollyprob Method Towards Mathematics Students: A Case Study Lim Tian Chai Chong Yew Wang Chan Khai Loon Khoo Bee Lee PhD. 75-87 An Investigation of Middle School Mathematics Teachers’ Perceptions of Model Thinking in Shaoguan, China Zhou Minglin Leong Kawn Eu Deng Haizhen 88-96 The Impact of Online Integrated STEM Teaching on Teachers’ SelfEfficacy in the Age of COVID Pandemic in China Gao Huixin Zu Xiaoqing Leong Kwan Eu Rose Amnah Abd. Rauf 97-107 TABLE OF CONTENT Volume 3: 2022 MALAYSIAN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN TEACHER EDUCATION ISSN: 2289-8808 e-ISSN: 7210-7132

© 2022 Institute of Teacher Education, Penang Campus vi Editorial by Dr Aneesha binti Hamid The development of STEM education in our country go in tandem with reforms in the national curriculum. A total of ten (10) articles have been selected to be published in this third volume of the Malaysian International Journal of Research in Teacher Education (MIJORiTE) in December 2022. These articles match the theme of Integrated STEM Education: A Catalyst of National Development. Therefore, all of the articles are on the STEM Education. Lim Ai Hui and Lim Joo Sim paper entitled Inquiry-Based Learning via Edpuzzle: Solving Rational Inequality by Table of Sign discussed on inquiry based learning by using Edpuzzle in solving rational inequality by table of sign. By using survey research design and utilised a convenience sample of 266 students from various academic groups of Teacher Education Institute, Penang Campus, Yeoh and Foo look at the perceptions of students on Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM). The paper entitled Students’ Perceptions Towards Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM). Meanwhile, Siti Badariah, Nurhafizah and Khoo have found out that STEM education was very impactful since it encourages ingenuity and creativity among students, encourages teamwork, encourages experimentation and tech use, develop communication skills and introduce STEM career at early stage of age. These aspects have been discussed based on their reviewed from 317 selected articles of SCOPUS papers and have been discussed in detail in their paper entitled The Importance of STEM Education in Schools. To look in brief how STEM project based education have developed in our country and the whole world paper have been discussed in the paper entitled Implementing Integrated STEM Project-based Learning in Schools: A Literature Review by Ser Pui Feng, Mohd Shahril Nizam, Mohd Razip and Nor’ Aidah. Paper entitled Hybrid Online Learning Platforms to Cater the Needs of Society 5.0: A Conceptual Paper aims to conceptualise several concepts of online learning instruction in the era of Industry 4.0 to cater to the needs of Society 5.0 in Malaysia’s higher education context. This paper also proposed a hybrid blended MOOC instruction model that caters to Society 5.0 learners’ needs based on their review from various sources. Based on the course offered at their institutions, Siaw, Agatha and Tay have looked at the effectiveness of digital innovation apps developed by the students during Digital Innovation course. This paper entitled Digital Innovation Apps Evaluation. Also based on the innovation for the fun teaching and learning activity in STEM, Lim, Chong, Chan and Khoo have conducted a case study and discussed it in detail in their paper entitled Research of Fun Learning with lollyprob Method Towards Mathematics Students: A Case Study. Volume 3: 2022 MALAYSIAN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN TEACHER EDUCATION ISSN: 2289-8808 e-ISSN: 7210-7132

© 2022 Institute of Teacher Education, Penang Campus vii Meanwhile in the paper entitled Emerging Trends in STEM Education: Envisioning Future Learning Spaces and Interaction Technology Tools Framework Using the Fuzzy Delphi Method (FDM), Sanura and Rozniza aims to design and develop the next generation learning spaces (NGLS) framework using the Fuzzy Delphi Method. This research study sets out the next generation learning spaces framework that can encourage the teachers’ transition to digitalization in STEM education. Besides looking at the development of STEM education in context of Malaysia, there were also two (2) papers that have looked at what happen in China too. Those two papers with titled An Investigation of Middle School Mathematics Teachers’ Perceptions of Model Thinking in Shaoguan, China and The Impact of Online Integrated STEM Teaching on Teachers’ Self-Efficacy in the Age of COVID Pandemic in China. As Editor-in-Chief of MIJORiTE Volume 3, 2022, I am really excited and positive in the publication of this freshly minted blind peer reviewed journal. MIJORiTE was first published in 2015 and the second edition have been published in 2019. In our humble attempt to revive and resume the publication of MIJORiTE, I am very thankful to all who have contributed throughout the process of publications of MIJORiTE Volume 3, 2022. Reviving a defunct journal within limited period of time is an even more challenging especially when we need to start from scratch. Trusting that all of you will continue to give your fullest support to MIJORiTE to be heard and to make headway.

© 2022 Institute of Teacher Education, Penang Campus 1 MALAYSIAN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN TEACHER EDUCATION (MIJORiTE) INQUIRY-BASED LEARNING VIA EDPUZZLE: SOLVING RATIONAL INEQUALITY BY TABLE OF SIGN LIM AI HUI 1 , LIM JOO SIM2 Penang Matriculation College1,2 Abstract This research aims to test the suitability of the proposed pedagogical method, i.e., inquiry-based learning (IBL) via Edpuzzle in solving rational inequality by table of sign. In this study, a designed video with several questions embedded via Edpuzzle that triggers students’ curiosity from easy to hard is used. A total of 50 samples which consist of Four Semester System (SES) students (academic session 2021/2022), were taken randomly to be the respondents. By using a 4-point Likert scale, a questionnaire consisting of 7 items was constructed to investigate students’ interest towards the proposed pedagogical method. The reliability of the item is high with Cronbach’s Alpha value, 0.8. The data were then analyzed to test the central tendency and variation of the data. Based on one-sample t-test, the mean values of all items greater than test value 2.5 shows the method is gaining interest among the students. The effectiveness of the method is determined by a quasi-experiment using pre-test and post-test control. The data is analyzed by finding the mean score and standard deviation of pre-test and post-test. Followed by paired-sample t-test with p-value< 0.05 implies that there is a significant difference between the mean score of pre-test and post-test. Higher mean score in post-test (17.06) compared to lower mean score in pre-test (14.16) shows students’ improvement after the proposed method is introduced to the students. The results of this study found that the proposed pedagogical method gained high interest and is effective in assisting SES students to solve rational inequality by table of sign. Keywords: pedagogical method, Inquiry-based learning, Edpuzzle, rational inequality, table of sign, interest INTRODUCTION According to Ernst et. al (2017), inquiry-based learning (IBL) is a form of active learning in which students are given a carefully scaffolded sequence of mathematical tasks and are asked to solve and make sense of them, working individually or in groups. The concept of inquiry-based pedagogy has been promoted actively in science and mathematics education in recent years because of its potential to lead to the understanding, competences and attitudes that are needed by students in increasingly technology-based societies (Harlen, 2013). Learning mathematics such as rational inequalities through IBL is considered a new teaching and learning method in the 21st century in education of Malaysia. With the IBL method, students develop their ideas and concepts, following certain steps under the supervision and guidance of a teacher (Abdurrahman et. al, ISSN: 2289-8808 e-ISSN: 7210-7132 Inquiry-based Learning Via Edpuzzle: Solving Rational Inequaliry MIJORiTE Vol. 3: 1 - 11 (2022)

© 2022 Institute of Teacher Education, Penang Campus 2 2021). Inquiry-based learning allows learners to become experts of the knowledge they are constructing through self-discovery and trial and error. Teachers’ role, in contrast, is to monitor their students’ process of constructing new meaning and step in when they need guidance (Gindya, 2022). In Rooney’s (2012) note, the students enjoyed IBL and demonstrated a positive attitude to the learning of mathematics in their activities. Besides, IBL also promotes higher-order thinking skill which is an important element of life success (Sousa, 2008). PROBLEM STATEMENT Abdurrahman et al. (2021) claimed that mathematics is one of the most emphasized subjects and has grown immensely to provide a strong base for programs in science, engineering and technology. However, mathematics is considered as a subject “killer” in school because students have to memorize and understand many mathematical formulas (Jerry and Jamaludin, 2021). Due to this situation, students are weak in mathematics, especially in problem solving. In Penang Matriculation College, students also face problems in mathematics such as solving rational inequality. Solving rational inequality involves certain concepts and properties of inequality. Students learned to solve rational inequalities by number line method and table of sign method. They tend to remember the method without understanding the concept embedded in those methods. Table of sign is one of the effective methods that might assist them in understanding the concept in every step of the method. In this research, students are exposed to the proposed pedagogical method (IBL via Edpuzzle) as a teaching tool to help the students in mastering rational inequality. Research Questions i. Is inquiry-based learning via Edpuzzle effective in assisting the students to solve rational inequality by table of sign? ii. Is inquiry-based learning via Edpuzzle help to increase the students’ interest to solve rational inequality by table of sign? Research Objectives The objectives of the research are to investigate i. the effectiveness of inquiry-based learning via Edpuzzle in assisting the students to solve rational inequality by table of sign. ii. inquiry-based learning via Edpuzzle helps to increase the students’ interest to solve rational inequality by table of sign. Significance of the Work The pedagogical method (IBL via Edpuzzle) is proposed to enhance students’ interest in learning to solve rational inequality by table of sign. The study by Abrantes et.al (2007) ISSN: 2289-8808 e-ISSN: 7210-7132 Inquiry-based Learning Via Edpuzzle: Solving Rational Inequaliry MIJORiTE Vol. 3: 1 - 11 (2022)

© 2022 Institute of Teacher Education, Penang Campus 3 reveals that student perceived learning depends directly on their interest and behaviour. Therefore, IBL via Edpuzzle is designed to promote interest among students in learning and hence, improve their performance in solving rational inequality by table of sign. Research Limitation This research managed to collect 50 set data among SES students due to time-constraint. Conceptual Framework The TPACK model was adopted by Mishra and Koehler (2008). TPACK model means Technological Pedagogical and Content Knowledge. This model consists of three major knowledge domains. There are Technology knowledge (TK), Pedagogical knowledge (PK) and Content knowledge (CK). Figure 1 shows the TPACK model for intersection between these three major knowledge domains. This model is actually to develop effective teaching and learning in the classroom. TK is based on the teachers’ and students’ knowledge in technology and ability to work/apply with technology like Edpuzzle as an online software, digital tools and associated resources. PK is based on the teachers’ knowledge of the practices, processes and methods regarding IBL teaching and learning. This knowledge encompasses the purposes, values and aims of education. Finally, CK is based on teachers’ knowledge about the subject matter (mathematics) such as rational inequality to be learned and taught. Figure 1. Conceptual framework with the TPACK model which adopted by Mishra and Koehler (2008) 3 Figure 1. Conceptual framework with the TPACK model which adopted by Mishra and Koehler (2008) Based on the model above, the proposed pedagogical method (IBL via Edpuzzle) combines the three main knowledge domains to help students in solving rational inequality by table of sign. Teachers and students need to be equipped with technological knowledge (video making & use of Edpuzzle). IBL is the pedagogical method that fulfills the pedagogical knowledge domain in the TPACK model. Lastly, content knowledge domain requires teachers’ content knowledge in solving rational inequality and the concept of table of sign. The phenomenon of students' interest affects students’ performance is shown in Figure 1. This means that high interest will lead to good performance. Promoting interest can contribute to a more engaged, motivated, learning experience for students (Harackiewicz et.al, 2016). LITERATURE REVIEW Inquiry-based Learning Inquiry-based learning (IBL) is a form of active learning that comes in many shapes and sizes (Ernst et. al, 2017). There are 4 different types of inquiry instruction and use the one most appropriate for your students, project and situation, i.e., structured inquiry, controlled inquiry, guided inquiry and free inquiry (Brewer, 2020). Scardamalia (2002) pointed out that educators play a vital role throughout the learning process by establishing a culture where ideas are respectfully challenged, tested, redefined, and viewed, moving students from a position of wondering to enacting understanding and further questioning. Also, Kidman (2019) claimed that inquiry-based learning “emphasizes students” role in the learning process questioning an idea or topic in an active way, rather than sitting and listening to a teacher. According to Gindya (2022), inquiry-based learning is used to enable students to question the texts they are going to deal with and arouse their curiosity to construct meaning by giving them a chance to explore different authentic materials and share ideas with their peers. Edpuzzle Educators and students can create interactive online films using the free digital assessment tool offered by Edpuzzle by adding open-ended or multiple-choice questions, audio notes, audio tracks, or comments to a video. Edpuzzle interactive videos can be made with videos from a number of websites, including YouTube, TED, Video, and National Geographic. According to Mischel (2019), Edpuzzle is a Students’ interest in learning solving inequality by table of sign Students’ performance in solving inequality by table of sign IBL via Edpuzzle Based on the model above, the proposed pedagogical method (IBL via Edpuzzle) combines the three main knowledge domains to help students in solving rational inequality by table of sign. Teachers and students need to be equipped with technological knowledge (video ISSN: 2289-8808 e-ISSN: 7210-7132 Inquiry-based Learning Via Edpuzzle: Solving Rational Inequaliry MIJORiTE Vol. 3: 1 - 11 (2022)

© 2022 Institute of Teacher Education, Penang Campus 4 making & use of Edpuzzle). IBL is the pedagogical method that fulfills the pedagogical knowledge domain in the TPACK model. Lastly, content knowledge domain requires teachers’ content knowledge in solving rational inequality and the concept of table of sign. The phenomenon of students’ interest affects students’ performance is shown in Figure 1. This means that high interest will lead to good performance. Promoting interest can contribute to a more engaged, motivated, learning experience for students (Harackiewicz et.al, 2016). LITERATURE REVIEW Inquiry-based Learning Inquiry-based learning (IBL) is a form of active learning that comes in many shapes and sizes (Ernst et. al, 2017). There are 4 different types of inquiry instruction and use the one most appropriate for your students, project and situation, i.e., structured inquiry, controlled inquiry, guided inquiry and free inquiry (Brewer, 2020). Scardamalia (2002) pointed out that educators play a vital role throughout the learning process by establishing a culture where ideas are respectfully challenged, tested, redefined, and viewed, moving students from a position of wondering to enacting understanding and further questioning. Also, Kidman (2019) claimed that inquiry-based learning “emphasizes students” role in the learning process questioning an idea or topic in an active way, rather than sitting and listening to a teacher. According to Gindya (2022), inquiry-based learning is used to enable students to question the texts they are going to deal with and arouse their curiosity to construct meaning by giving them a chance to explore different authentic materials and share ideas with their peers. Edpuzzle Educators and students can create interactive online films using the free digital assessment tool offered by Edpuzzle by adding open-ended or multiple-choice questions, audio notes, audio tracks, or comments to a video. Edpuzzle interactive videos can be made with videos from a number of websites, including YouTube, TED, Video, and National Geographic. According to Mischel (2019), Edpuzzle is a video-sharing program that offers instructors a way to enhance the use of online videos for learning. It enables instructors to check that students have seen the entire session and assess their comprehension of the material. Using Edpuzzle, instructors may set up asynchronous classrooms, upload their own films or choose from a library of available ones, add interactive elements, assign the videos to students, and deliver the video assignments to their email addresses by sending an access code or a link. With EdPuzzle, teachers can maintain tabs on their students’ viewing habits, including how much of the video they saw, when they viewed it, and whether or not they correctly or incorrectly answered the quiz questions. Students who are taught using Edpuzzle can study anywhere, repeat material at any time, and most importantly, they can get initial information about the material to be studied so that they have more confidence and motivation which ignite their curiosity and make them actively participate in brainstorming sessions (Hidayat dan Praseno, 2021). According to Mayang et.al (2021), Edpuzzle has increased the students’ critical thinking skills and is more effective than the class that applies the expository learning model. Besides, from the study by Hidayat and Praseno (2021), they found that applying Edpuzzle in flipped ISSN: 2289-8808 e-ISSN: 7210-7132 Inquiry-based Learning Via Edpuzzle: Solving Rational Inequaliry MIJORiTE Vol. 3: 1 - 11 (2022)

© 2022 Institute of Teacher Education, Penang Campus 5 classroom strategy has proven to be successful in improving students’ participation in learning activities as well as their achievement in writing. Rational Inequality According to Ndlovu and Ndlovu (2020), the mathematical topic of quadratic inequalities plays a significant role in the solution of some real-life optimization problems. The quadratic inequality requires prior knowledge of other mathematical topics such as algebra, linear inequalities, quadratic equations, quadratic functions and geometry (Bicer et.al, 2014; El-Khateeb, 2016). To solve inequalities, it demands basic knowledge of properties and applications of functions that include domain, range and intervals (increasing or decreasing). This implies that the teaching and learning of quadratic inequalities should be underpinned by a strong mathematical background of foundational concepts, algebraic manipulation skills, related contexts of application and geometric visualisation. (El-Khateeb, 2016; Ndlovu and Ndlovu, 2020). Rational inequality is an inequality in the form of , , or where . But, in the case of quadratic and rational inequalities, previous researchers found three other common students’ errors beside the errors related to logical connection (Anggoro and Prabawanto, 2019). According to Tsamir and Almog (2001), students were mistaken about ‘quadratic expressions always positive (ignoring zero)’, multiplying both sides with not-necessarily positive expression, and ignoring the other case. One can solve the inequality by either the method of number line or table of sign. Rational inequality is indeed a semi-procedural material, but skills are still needed to find the right approach so that the strategy used is valid. If semi-procedural problems cannot be solved properly, then it will be hard to deal with the complicated ones (Annizar et.al, 2020). Therefore, by using the IBL method via Edpuzzle in solving rational inequality by table of sign would be an interesting way to enhance students’ interest and hence improve their performance in results. METHODOLOGY Research Design This research is a quantitative study which aims to determine the interest and effectiveness of the method of inquiry-based learning via Edpuzzle in solving rational inequality by table of sign. The design of this research was a survey study and quasi-experiment. Pretest and post-test were carried out to determine the effectiveness of the method while a 7 items questionnaire with 4-point Likert’s scale is given to Four-semester System (SES) students to determine the interest of the students towards the proposed pedagogical method. Sampling This research involves 50 respondents which were selected randomly from Module 1, 2 and 3 from biology students, physic students and IT students. They are SES students who have been exposed to the method of solving rational inequality by table of sign during Semester 2 for the academic session 2021/2022. ISSN: 2289-8808 e-ISSN: 7210-7132 Inquiry-based Learning Via Edpuzzle: Solving Rational Inequaliry MIJORiTE Vol. 3: 1 - 11 (2022)

© 2022 Institute of Teacher Education, Penang Campus 6 Instruments The instrument used to measure the research variables was a questionnaire consisting of 7 items of which all items to test the interest of students towards proposed pedagogical method, i.e. inquiry-based learning via Edpuzzle in solving rational inequality by table of sign. The questionnaire consisting of 4-point Likert Scale where 1- Strongly disagree, 2- Disagree, 3- Agree and 4- Strongly agree is used to survey students’ interest. The questionnaire was answered by the respondents after the students were exposed to the proposed pedagogical method during semesters 2 for the 2021/2022 academic session. Two sets of 4 questions in solving rational inequality by table of sign are used to test the effectiveness of the proposed pedagogical method in helping students to solve rational inequality by table of sign. Data Collection In this research, a questionnaire with 7 items where a 4-point Likert’s scale was used to investigate the students’ interest towards the proposed pedagogical method. The data from the questionnaire was collected among 50 SES students after they have been exposed to the proposed pedagogical method. On the other hand, students were given a pre-test after they had learned to solve rational inequality by the traditional method which is chalk-and-talk method. After that, the proposed pedagogical method (inquirybased learning via Edpuzzle) was exposed to the same group of students. Then, a posttest with a similar level of difficulty as the pre-test is given to them. The scores from the pre-test and post-test were recorded. Data Analysis Responses collected through the questionnaire were scored based on the Likert’s Scale which is 1- Strongly disagree, 2- Disagree, 3- Agree and 4- Strongly agree. Mean and standard deviation were calculated to test the central tendency and data variation. Onesample t-test was conducted to identify students’ interest in the proposed pedagogical method. One-sample t-test with a test value of 2.5 was used to test the mean of the students’ interest. The target of this research is to achieve a mean of 2.5 and above while the full score is 4.0. In the t-test, the mean value of the 4-point Likert’s scale (1-4), 2.5 was used as the test value to compare the mean value of the sample (Prasad, 2008). When using a sample mean compared to 2.5, it indicates whether there is a significant difference between the sample mean and the test value. A low p-value (p<0.05) indicated a high significant difference between the sample mean and the test value, 2.5. The mean score was then used to determine the students’ interest towards the proposed pedagogical method. Meanwhile, the effectiveness of the proposed pedagogical method was investigated by pre-test and post-test. Mean and standard deviation of both pre-test and post-test were determined to test the central tendency and data variation. Pairedsample t-test is applied to compare the mean score of pre-test and post-test. p-value which is less than 0.05 implies that there is a significant difference between the mean of pre-test and post-test. ISSN: 2289-8808 e-ISSN: 7210-7132 Inquiry-based Learning Via Edpuzzle: Solving Rational Inequaliry MIJORiTE Vol. 3: 1 - 11 (2022)

© 2022 Institute of Teacher Education, Penang Campus 7 Validity Pilot tests are conducted to investigate the validity of the constructed items. Cronbach’s alpha values for the item “interest” were shown in Table 1. Cronbach’s alpha values greater than 0.8 indicate item reliability is high. Table 1. Validity statistics for the factor item Interest Factor Cronbach’s Alpha Value No. Item Interest 0.807 7 Implementation Figure 2 shows the overall picture regarding the progress of the research. The progress of the research is divided into 4 phases. At phase 1, students were exposed to a traditional pedagogical method in solving rational inequality. Researchers identified problems faced during the class. Literature review was carried out. During phase 2, researchers met and brainstormed. Here, the innovation took place based on the TPACK Model (see Figure 1). Students were tested on their skill in solving rational inequality by table sign (pretest). A set questionnaire with 7 items was built to investigate students’ interest. At phase 3, students were introduced with the proposed pedagogical method to solve rational inequality by table of sign. Then, they have been asked to sit for a post-test. After that, students need to answer the survey form. At the final phase, collected data were analysed by finding mean, standard deviation, one-sample t-test and paired-sample t-test. Finally, a conclusion was made. Figure 2. The progress of the research ISSN: 2289-8808 e-ISSN: 7210-7132 Inquiry-based Learning Via Edpuzzle: Solving Rational Inequaliry MIJORiTE Vol. 3: 1 - 11 (2022)

© 2022 Institute of Teacher Education, Penang Campus 8 FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS Survey of Interest This research was analysed by finding the mean, standard deviation and p-value with t-test. From the results obtained (see Table 2), all items recorded a mean score greater than 3.0 and small value of standard deviation. Standard deviation which is less than 1.0 shows high consistency in students’ responses and it is parallel to the finding of Kaufmann (2014). Furthermore, the p-values of all items are small (p <0.05) imply that there is a significant difference between the mean of every item and the test value, 2.5. All the findings indicate that the proposed pedagogical method gains high interest from respondents. Table 2. Mean, standard deviation and p-value by t-test Factor N Mean Standard Deviation Test Value = 2.5 Value- p Item 1 50 3.6667 .47583 .0001 Item 2 50 3.5556 .57188 .0001 Item 3 50 3.2778 .62696 .0001 Item 4 50 3.6296 .48744 .0001 Item 5 50 3.5185 .54047 .0001 Item 6 50 3.3889 .56357 .0001 Item 7 50 3.5741 .49913 .0001 Pre-test and Post-test Pre-test and post-test both have four questions of solving rational inequality by table of sign and are analysed by paired-sample t-test. 50 SES students were given a pretest (full score 20) before they were exposed to the proposed pedagogical method in solving rational inequality by table of sign. Table 3 shows the mean, standard deviation, t-value and p-value by paired-sample t-test. For the pre-test, the mean score obtained is 14.16 which is 70.8% out of full score. After that, inquiry-based learning via Edpuzzle is introduced to them to solve the rational inequality by table of sign. A post-test is given and the mean score recorded is 17.06 which is 85.3% out of full score. Apparently, the mean score of post-test is higher compared to pre-test. The mean score has increased 20.5% after the students were exposed to the proposed pedagogical method. The result of paired-sample t-test with t-value -7.341 and p<0.05 implies that there is a significant difference between the mean of pre-test and post-test. ISSN: 2289-8808 e-ISSN: 7210-7132 Inquiry-based Learning Via Edpuzzle: Solving Rational Inequaliry MIJORiTE Vol. 3: 1 - 11 (2022)

© 2022 Institute of Teacher Education, Penang Campus 9 Table 3. Mean, standard deviation, t-value and p-value by paired-sample t-test Test N Mean Standard Deviation t p-value Pre-test 50 14.1600 4.27790 -5.138 0.0001 Post-test 50 17.0600 4.14734 The high mean score of post-test is much higher compared to the mean score of pre-test (refer to Figure 1). This implies that the students are able to answer the questions in solving rational inequality better after IBL via Edpuzzle is introduced to them. Edpuzzle provides a free platform to educators to share academic videos to students and at the same time tracing the progress of the students when having asynchronous lessons. The use of inquiry-based learning via Edpuzzle no doubt increases students’ interest in learning to solve the rational inequality by table of sign. Interest is a powerful motivational process that energizes learning, guides academic and career trajectories, and is essential to academic success (Harackiewicz, 2016). With the high interest in learning to solve rational inequality by table of sign, students showed good performance in the result. Figure 1 Mean score increased after inquiry-based learning via Edpuzzle was introduced to students CONCLUSION Inquiry-based learning (IBL) is an awesome pedagogical method to promote students’ positive attitude in learning. Edpuzzle is a great formative assessment tool ISSN: 2289-8808 e-ISSN: 7210-7132 Inquiry-based Learning Via Edpuzzle: Solving Rational Inequaliry MIJORiTE Vol. 3: 1 - 11 (2022)

© 2022 Institute of Teacher Education, Penang Campus 10 for teachers who run a flipped classroom, assign videos for homework, or want to encourage asynchronous communication. Combination of IBL pedagogy and Edpuzzle makes stunning results. The method not only promotes self-learning independently but also enhances students’ performance. Students’ engagement in the learning process is improved when the new pedagogical method is introduced. The proposed pedagogical method (IBL via Edpuzzle) increases students’ interest in learning to solve rational inequality. Hence, it is an effective pedagogical method in improving the results of students in solving rational inequality. In future study, the research might be expanded to include more samples from Two-semester System students. More digital tools can be used in the method to increase the effectiveness in teaching and learning. The method can be extended to other mathematics topics so that more students get the benefit of the proposed pedagogical method. REFERENCES Abrantes, J. L., Seabra, C., & Lages, L. F. (2007). Pedagogical affect, student interest, and learning performance. Journal of business research, 60(9), 960-964. Abdurrahman, M. S., Halim, A. A., & Sharifah, O. (2021). Improving Polytechnic Students’ High-Order-Thinking-Skills through Inquiry-Based Learning in Mathematics Classroom. International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education, 10(3), 976- 983. Anggoro, A., & Prabawanto, S. (2019). Undergraduate students’ conceptual understanding on rational inequalities. In Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1211, (1). https://doi. org/10.1088/1742-6596/1211/1/012064 Annizar, A. M., Jakaria, M. H. D., Mukhlis, M., & Apriyono, F. (2020). Problem solving analysis of rational inequality based on IDEAL model. In Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1465(1). https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1465/1/012033 Bicer, A., Capraro, R. M., & Capraro, M. M. (2014). Pre-service Teachers’ Linear and Quadratic Inequalities Understandings. International Journal for Mathematics Teaching & Learning. Brewer, S. (2020, August 30). 4 Powerful Inquiry Based Teaching Strategies. STEAM Powered Family. https://www.steampoweredfamily.com/inquiry-based-teaching-strategies/ El-khateeb, M. (2016). Errors Analysis of Solving Linear Inequalities among the Preparatory Year Students at King Saud University. Journal of education and practice, 7(12), 124-133. Ernst, D. C., Hodge, A., & Yoshinobu, S. (2017). What is inquiry-based learning. Notices of the AMS, 64(6), 570-574. Gindya, N. H. M. S. (2022). Using Inquiry-Based Learning to Enhance Primary Stage Students’ 21st Century EFL Literacy. Research in Language Teaching, 18(18), 458 – 500. Harackiewicz, J. M., Smith, J. L., & Priniski, S. J. (2016). Interest matters: The importance of promoting interest in education. Policy insights from the behavioral and brain sciences, 3(2), 220-227. Hidayat, L. E., & Praseno, M. D. (2021). Improving students’ writing participation and achievement in an Edpuzzle-assisted flipped classroom. EDUCAFL: Journal of Education of English as Foreign Language, 4(1), 1-8. Jerry, F. C., & Jamaludin, K. A. (2021). Pelaksanaan Pembelajaran Berasaskan Inkuiri Kritis Dalam Mata Pelajaran Matematik. Jurnal Dunia Pendidikan, 3(2), 386-400. Kaufmann, J. (2014, Sept 26). Re: What do you consider a good standard deviation?. Research Gate.https://www.researchgate.net/post/What-do-you-consider-a-good-standarddeviation ISSN: 2289-8808 e-ISSN: 7210-7132 Inquiry-based Learning Via Edpuzzle: Solving Rational Inequaliry MIJORiTE Vol. 3: 1 - 11 (2022)

© 2022 Institute of Teacher Education, Penang Campus 11 Kidman, G. (2019, April 30). Explainer: What Is Inquiry-Based Learning and How Does It Help Prepare Children for the Real World. The Conversation. http://theconversation.com/ explainer-what-is-inquiry-based-learningand-how-does-it-help-prepare-children-for-thereal-world-115299 Mayang, G., Efendi, A., & Prakisya, N. T. (2021). The Effectiveness of Problem-Based Learning Assisted by EdPuzzle on Students’ Critical Thinking Skills. Indonesian Journal of Informatics Education, 5(1), 9-15. Mischel, L. J. (2019). Watch and learn? Using EDpuzzle to enhance the use of online videos. Management Teaching Review, 4(3), 283-289. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2008). Introducing technological pedagogical content knowledge. Proceedings from the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. New York City. http://punya.educ.msu.edu/presentations/AERA2008/MishraKoehler_ AERA2008.pdf Ndlovu, L., & Ndlovu, M. (2020). The effect of graphing calculator use on learners’ achievement and strategies in quadratic inequality problem solving. Pythagoras, 41(1), a552. Prasad, K. (2008). Use of information technology in supply chain management in ceramic tile industry in Sri Langka: A study of two major players. [Master’s thesis, University of Moratuwa]. Electronic Thesis and Dissertations. http://dl.lib.uom.lk/bitstream/ handle/123/199/Chapter05.pdf?sequence=6&isAllowed=y#:~:text=In%20the%20 T%2DTest%2C%20the, mean%20and%20the%20test%20value. Rooney, C. (2012). How am I using inquiry-based learning to improve my practice and to encourage higher order thinking among my students of mathematics? Educational Journal of Living Theories, 5(2). Scardamalia, M. (2002). Collective cognitive responsibility for the advancement of knowledge. Liberal education in a knowledge society, 97, 67-98. Sousa, D. A. (2008). How the Brain Learns Mathematics? Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Tsamir, P., & Almog, N. (2001). Students’ strategies and difficulties: the case of algebraic inequalities. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 32(4), 513-524. ISSN: 2289-8808 e-ISSN: 7210-7132 Inquiry-based Learning Via Edpuzzle: Solving Rational Inequaliry MIJORiTE Vol. 3: 1 - 11 (2022)

© 2022 Institute of Teacher Education, Penang Campus 12 STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS TOWARDS SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING AND MATHEMATICS (STEM) YEOH POH CHOO, PhD1 , FOO LAY KUAN2 Institut Pendidikan Guru Kampus Pulau Pinang1,2 Abstract This study explores the perceptions of students on Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM). The study employed the survey research design and utilised a convenience sample of 266 students from various academic groups of Teacher Education Institute, Penang Campus. The STEM Semantics Survey instrument (scale 1-7) developed by Tyler-Wood et al. (2010) was used to collect data online. The instrument has respectable to excellent internal consistency reliability (Cronbach’s Alpha=.84 to .93) and also good content, construct and criterion-related validity. Descriptive statistics were used to analyse the data. The overall analysis of survey data shows that the means of students’ perceptions of STEM in all the aspects of this study are above the centre point of the 7-point semantic survey scale, indicating a relatively high general perception of STEM. The combined mean values for all scales are above 5.00, indicating that the students have positive perceptions of STEM and STEM career in general. The combined mean of female students’ perception of STEM is slightly higher than that of male students. The perceptions of science students on STEM are the highest while the TESL students’ perceptions on STEM are the lowest. Students who have been involved in STEM activities also have higher perceptions on STEM compared to those who are not involved. These findings provide insights on the entry behaviours about STEM among the students and furnish information which enables the planning of relevant activities to enhance the integration of STEM in the teaching and learning in the Teacher Education Institute. Keywords: STEM, students’ perceptions, entry behaviours, teaching and learning INTRODUCTION Science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) pervades every aspect of our lives and the future generations need to be equipped with knowledge and skills in STEM to be successful. Current education needs focus on STEM literacy among the students and the capability of the teachers to integrate STEM in the teaching and learning in various subjects in schools. In line with the emphasis on STEM literacy, the teacher education institutions in Malaysia are preparing student teachers to meet the current challenges in promoting STEM education in schools. In the Malaysian Education Blueprint 2013-2025, the Ministry of Education Malaysia MALAYSIAN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN TEACHER EDUCATION (MIJORiTE) ISSN: 2289-8808 e-ISSN: 7210-7132 Students’ Perceptions Towards Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) MIJORiTE Vol. 3: 12 - 23 (2022)

© 2022 Institute of Teacher Education, Penang Campus 13 (2013) highlighted six key attributes namely knowledge, thinking skills, leadership skills, bilingual proficiency, ethics and spirituality as well as national identity, which are needed by every student to be globally competitive. Therefore, there is a need for students’ involvement in the field of science, technology, engineering and mathematics that develops and enhances competencies in critical thinking and creativity to prepare them for careers in STEM areas. To realise this objective, the student teachers in the Institute of Teacher Education as future educators need to have greater awareness to learn about STEM education and contribute to the preparation of literacy in STEM among the students in schools. The objective of this study is to explore the students’ perceptions towards Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM). The entry behaviours about STEM among the student teachers in Institute of Teacher Education can provide useful information for planning relevant activities to enhance the integration of STEM in the teaching and learning process of various courses in the Institute of Teacher Education. LITERATURE REVIEW Many countries in the world are investing in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) education as it is viewed as necessary to facilitate economic development, international competitiveness and job creation (Zenobia Ismail, 2018). STEM disciplines are increasingly emphasized in schools and tertiary education in line with the growing awareness of the impact of technology and the influence of artificial intelligence, automation and big data in the new world of work (Freeman et al., 2019). In the STEM country comparisons report, Marginson et al. (2013) defined STEM as learning and/or work in the fields of science, technology, engineering and mathematics which includes prior learning at school before entering into the specific disciplines. The report which was grounded in 22 commissioned studies of educational policies and practices in relation to STEM around the world identified many points that indicate a strong influence of families, and public attitudes on STEM participation. Positive family attitudes to STEM that affect student participation was expressed in various ways, such as out of school tutorial provision, parent committees supporting schools, participation in informal science (mainly) and mathematics activities and linkages with local communities. It was also observed that family perspectives on STEM, and on education generally, influence students through role modelling of respect for STEM studies, and advice on potential careers in the STEM fields. The researchers also noted that families’ high expectations and modelling of STEM interest and career paths correlate with students’ self-efficacy in relation to learning science and mathematics (Marginson et al., 2013). Besides family perspectives on STEM, learning environments was found to have influence on students’ and educators’ perception on STEM learning. In a study by Roberts et al. (2018), it was found that middle level students who were exposed to STEM learning in informal learning environments perceived that such learning environments ISSN: 2289-8808 e-ISSN: 7210-7132 Students’ Perceptions Towards Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) MIJORiTE Vol. 3: 12 - 23 (2022)

© 2022 Institute of Teacher Education, Penang Campus 14 provided context and purpose to their formal learning. Furthermore, learning STEM in informal learning environment extended and deepened STEM content learning while providing opportunity and access to content, settings and materials that most other middle level students otherwise would not have access to. Similarly, a study on learning environment in the STEM-based outreach activities in secondary school by Vennix et al. (2016) revealed that students had positive scores for scales that indicate positive attitudes towards STEM, and positive scores in the outreach learning environment which are indicators of possible motivation for STEM. They suggested that outreach activities in addition to regular learning environment would potentially be an added value to students’ motivation for science and science learning. Although numerous initiatives have been taken by countries to promote STEM, it is also of equal importance to gauge the impact of programmes, such as inclination to participate in STEM fields, which relates to interest and mastery in STEM areas. An instrument known as the STEM Semantics Survey was developed by Tyler-Wood et al. (2010) to measure interest in science, technology, engineering and mathematics as well as interest in STEM careers in general. This was in response to the need of the The Innovative Technology Experiences for Students and Teachers (ITEST) Programme to address the challenge to verify increased student interest in or induction into STEM careers within a short period of time. The results indicated that the STEM Semantics Survey was capable of measuring stable psychological constructs with sufficient consistency to assess changes in teacher and student perceptions on STEM that resulted from project activities during years 2 and 3 of the Middle Schoolers Out to Save the World (MSOSW) ITEST Project. In a recent research, Ashlock et al. (2021) assessed the gender gaps in academic efficacy across three STEM fields (computing, mathematics and science) among the middle schoolers in three school districts in the Southeastern United States. They found that girls appeared slightly behind boys on operational computer skills and the male advantages in computer efficacy was twice as large as the difference in mathematics and science. This findings can be related to the UNESCO report (UNESCO, 2017) on girls’ and women’s education in STEM which stated that across the world, only 30% of female students pursue STEM related higher education studies. Girls’ under-representation in STEM education is deep rooted and dampens the progress towards sustainable development. As such, education systems and schools play a central role in determining girls’ interest in STEM subjects and in providing equal opportunities to access and benefit from quality STEM education. In the local front, STEM has been a subject of extensive research over the past few years. In the aspect of attitudes towards STEM, Pau and Siti Mistima Maat (2018) found that the attitudes of fifty five secondary school teachers towards integration of STEM in Malaysia were overall positive. In addition, their research findings also showed that among the STEM subjects, mathematics had the highest score in teachers’ attitude while engineering subject scored the least. However, the findings from the research done by Nur Farhana Ramli and Othman Talib (2017) on five secondary school teachers in Malaysia ISSN: 2289-8808 e-ISSN: 7210-7132 Students’ Perceptions Towards Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) MIJORiTE Vol. 3: 12 - 23 (2022)

© 2022 Institute of Teacher Education, Penang Campus 15 showed that the teachers’ understanding about implementing STEM was insufficient and the barriers to STEM implementation highlighted were motivation, long syllabus, time constraint, lack of training, inadequate facilities, students’ involvement and school community response. Jekri and Han (2020) also identified the lack of basic knowledge of STEM teaching and learning as the main challenge faced by teachers in implementing STEM teaching and learning in secondary schools. To strengthen the STEM education and also to increase the interest of students and teachers’ awareness of STEM education, Suraya Bahrum et al. (2017) proposed the integration of art in STEM. Jekri and Han (2020) on the other hand, proposed improving teachers’ knowledge and skills through courses and workshops. In the aspect of integration of STEM in schools, Ng and Adnan (2018) conducted a quasi experimental research on two classes of Year One students in the ordinary school under Ministry of Education of Malaysia. Their research findings showed that the use of STEM modules based on the Project based Inquiry Learning (PIL) comprising four phases (Inquiry, Exploration, Experimentation and Reflection) had helped the teachers to be more confident and able to carry out STEM education in school. Regarding STEM career, Fazilah Razali et al. (2020) found that science motivation has direct influence towards the formation of STEM-related careers among the 419 form four science students in Selangor, Malaysia. METHODOLOGY This study employs the survey research design. The population of this study comprises of 568 students of Bachelor of Education Degree Programme (PISMP) from five different majors and 49 students of Preparatory Course (PPISMP) from 2 different majors who are studying in the Teacher Education Institute in Penang. Table 1 shows the distribution of population and samples who participated in this research. The age group of the sample range from 18 to 23 years old. The type of non-probability sampling method used in this study is convenience sampling. The convenience sample is made up of 266 students from PISMP and PPISMP who are majoring in Malay Language, Mathematics, Islamic Education, Science and Teaching of English as a Second Language (TESL). The STEM Semantics Survey instrument developed by Tyler-Wood et al. (2010) was used in this study. The survey was administered to a group of 229 students of PISMP and 37 students of PPISMP from 26 January to 4 February 2022. The survey data was collected online using Google form and all the responses are kept confidential. ISSN: 2289-8808 e-ISSN: 7210-7132 Students’ Perceptions Towards Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) MIJORiTE Vol. 3: 12 - 23 (2022)

© 2022 Institute of Teacher Education, Penang Campus 16 Table 1 Population and sample distribution Programme Major Population (N=617) Sample (N=266) PISMP Malay Language 28 28 Mathematics 256 97 Islamic Education 99 31 Science 68 45 TESL 117 28 PPISMP Science 19 19 Mathematics 30 18 Table 2 shows that the internal consistency reliabilities for the STEM Semantics Survey scales ranged from Cronbach’s Alpha=.84 to .93. The instrument to assess the perception of science, technology, engineering, mathematics and STEM careers has respectable to excellent internal consistency reliability as well as good content, construct and criterion-related validity. The STEM Semantics Survey has 5 scales with 5 items for each scale making a total of 25 items. The survey answering options are fascinatingordinary, appealing-unappealing, exciting-unexciting, means a lot-means nothing, interesting-boring, each of which has a scale of 1 to 7. The data collected were analysed using descriptive statistics by calculating the mean and standard deviation (SD) as well as frequency and percentage. Table 2 Internal Consistency Reliabilities for STEM Semantics Survey Scales Scale Number of Items Alpha Science 5 .84 Mathematics 5 .88 Engineering 5 .92 Technology 5 .91 STEM career 5 .93 Source: Tyler-Wood et al. (2010) FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION The findings from the overall analysis of survey data show that the means of students’ perceptions of STEM in all the aspects of this study are above the centre point of the 7-point semantic survey scale. The perceptions of STEM of the students who are not involved in STEM activities in the engineering scale (Table 7) have the lowest mean value (mean=4.68, SD=1.39) while the science students’ perceptions of STEM in the science scale (Table 5) have the highest mean value (mean=6.43, SD=0.85). ISSN: 2289-8808 e-ISSN: 7210-7132 Students’ Perceptions Towards Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) MIJORiTE Vol. 3: 12 - 23 (2022)

© 2022 Institute of Teacher Education, Penang Campus 17 Table 3 shows the mean and standard deviation (SD) of students’ perceptions of STEM. The combined mean shows a relatively high score for all scales of STEM, indicating that the students have positive perceptions of STEM and STEM career in general. The Science (mean=5.80, SD=1.27) and Technology (mean=5.86, SD=1.34) disciplines have higher combined mean while the Engineering discipline recorded the lowest combined mean (mean=5.15, SD=1.15). The students responded more positively to the construct ‘To me, this topic means a lot’ compared to other constructs, indicating the students’ high affinity towards STEM as the exposure of STEM related activities started since the launching of Malaysia Education Blueprint 2013-2025. The findings are in line with the effort and objectives of Ministry of Education Malaysia (2013) to strengthen the quality of Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) education through an enhanced curriculum, the testing and training of teachers and the use of blended learning models. Table 3 Mean and Standard Deviation (SD) of Students’ Perceptions of STEM (N=266) Item Science Technology Engineering Mathematics STEM Career Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) To me, this topic is fascinating 5.53 (1.46) 5.58 (1.50) 4.99 (1.46) 5.21 (1.57) 5.45 (1.49) To me, this topic is appealing 5.53 (1.29) 5.59 (1.46) 4.92 (1.52) 5.21 (1.56) 5.55 (1.40) To me, this topic is exciting 5.74 (1.33) 5.74 (1.45) 4.98 (1.48) 5.33 (1.50) 5.64 (1.36) To me, this topic means a lot 6.13 (1.10) 6.20 (1.17) 5.52 (1.34) 6.00 (1.17) 6.16 (1.10) To me, this topic is interesting 6.03 (1.12) 6.20 (1.04) 5.32 (1.35) 5.82 (1.20) 6.06 (1.02) Combined mean 5.80 (1.27) 5.86 (1.34) 5.15 (1.43) 5.51 (1.41) 5.77 (1.29) Note: Scale is 1-7; 1 is ordinary, unappealing, unexciting, means nothing, boring and 7 is fascinating, appealing, exciting, means a lot, interesting Although the students are trained to be teachers, they also have high perceptions on STEM career. According to Fazilah Razali et al. (2020), science motivation has direct influence towards the formation of STEM-related careers. A number of constructs under the Engineering discipline showed a mean score below 5.00. This could be due to the practice of the traditional school education which have not emphasized design activity and design thinking which are often viewed as belonging to professional mathematicians and scientists and not students (Li et al., 2019). This suggests the need for students to be exposed to engineering design process in teaching and learning in school. Edy Hafizan Mohd Shahali et al. (2017) found that exposing early secondary to engineering design process in integrated STEM education had positive impact on their level of interest ISSN: 2289-8808 e-ISSN: 7210-7132 Students’ Perceptions Towards Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) MIJORiTE Vol. 3: 12 - 23 (2022)

© 2022 Institute of Teacher Education, Penang Campus 18 towards those subjects and related careers. Table 4 shows the mean and standard deviation of students’ perception of STEM according to gender. The combined mean (mean=5.65, SD=1.32) of female students’ perception of STEM is slightly higher than the combined mean (mean=5.53, SD=1.38) of male students. The mean score for each scale of science, technology, engineering, mathematics and STEM career are above the average mean for both male and female students. Generally, both the male and female students have positive perceptions of STEM and STEM career. However, Ashlock et al. (2021) found that there are gender gaps in academic efficacy across three STEM fields (computing, mathematics and science). According to Nor’Aidah Nordin (2020), girls outperformed the boys in STEM performance by gender based on the PISA 2012 analysis, enrolment in the first year university admission in 2013 and survey on the popular career among the PISA 2018 students. Table 4 Mean and Standard Deviation (SD) of Students’ Perceptions of STEM According to Gender Scale Male (N=78) Female (N=188) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Science 5.63 (1.41) 5.86 (1.20) Technology 5.76 (1.44) 5.90 (1.30) Engineering 5.05 (1.48) 5.18 (1.42) Mathematics 5.46 (1.51) 5.54 (1.37) STEM Career 5.77 (1.29) 5.77 (1.29) Combined mean 5.53 (1.38) 5.65 (1.32) Note: Scale is 1-7; 1 is ordinary, unappealing, unexciting, means nothing, boring and 7 is fascinating, appealing, exciting, means a lot, interesting When the data was analysed according to academic groups (Table 5), the perceptions of Science students on STEM were the highest (mean=5.92, SD=1.16) while the TESL students’ perceptions on STEM were the lowest (mean=5.32, SD=1.62). It is interesting to note that Mathematics students recorded a combined mean of 5.51, which is below that of the Malay Language and Islamic Education students. The Science group that has the highest combined mean is in line with the highest percentage (87.5%) of students’ involvement in STEM related activities. The percentage of Mathematics students’ involvement in STEM activities is 82.6% and in the other academic groups (Malay Language, Islamic Education and TESL) the students’ involvement range from 71.4% to 78.6% (Table 6). ISSN: 2289-8808 e-ISSN: 7210-7132 Students’ Perceptions Towards Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) MIJORiTE Vol. 3: 12 - 23 (2022)

© 2022 Institute of Teacher Education, Penang Campus 19 Table 5 Mean and Standard Deviation (SD) of Students’ Perceptions of STEM According to Academic Groups Scale Malay Language (N=28) Mathematics (N=115) Islamic Education (N=31) Science (N=64) TESL (N=28) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Science 5.69 (1.22) 5.51 (1.23) 5.90 (1.32) 6.43 (0.85) 5.46 (1.64) Technology 5.96 (1.10) 5.70 (1.36) 5.90 (1.46) 6.13 (1.10) 5.76 (1.71) Engineering 5.29 (1.34) 5.00 (1.40) 5.19 (1.47) 5.38 (1.40) 5.03 (1.62) Mathematics 5.38 (1.22) 5.64 (1.38) 5.60 (1.60) 5.60 (1.32) 4.83 (1.55) STEM Career 5.90 (1.18) 5.68 (1.31) 5.68 (1.37) 6.04 (1.07) 5.52 (1.56) Combined mean 5.64 (1.21) 5.51 (1.34) 5.65 (1.45) 5.92 (1.16) 5.32 (1.62) Note: Scale is 1-7; 1 is ordinary, unappealing, unexciting, means nothing, boring and 7 is fascinating, appealing, exciting, means a lot, interesting Table 6 shows the frequency and percentage of students’ involvement in STEM activities according to academic groups. The highest percentage of students involved in STEM is the science academic group (87.5%) followed by mathematics academic group (82.6%). A for the Malay Language, Islamic Education and TESL academic groups student involvement in STEM activities range from 71.4% to 78.6%. This shows that most students, irrespective of academic groups, are directly or indirectly involved in STEM related activities. Roberts et al. (2018) found that STEM summer informal learning environment influenced students’ perceptions of STEM learning among the upperlevel elementary and middle level students in USA. In addition, the STEM learning activities that relate to the real life problems have helped those students who do not like mathematics to understand why they need to learn mathematics in school. Table 6 Frequency (f) and Percentage (%) of Students’ Involvement in STEM Activities According to Academic Groups Academic Group Involved in STEM Activities (N=217) Not involved in STEM Activities (N=49) f (%) f (%) Malay Language (N = 28) 20 (71.4) 8 (28.6) Mathematics (N = 115) 95 (82.6) 20 (17.4) Islamic Education (N = 31) 24 (77.4) 7 (22.6) Science (N = 64) 56 (87.5) 8 (12.5) TESL (N = 28) 22 (78.6) 6 (21.4) ISSN: 2289-8808 e-ISSN: 7210-7132 Students’ Perceptions Towards Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) MIJORiTE Vol. 3: 12 - 23 (2022)

© 2022 Institute of Teacher Education, Penang Campus 20 Table 7 shows the mean and standard deviation of students’ perceptions according to involvement of STEM activities. The mean values for students who are involved in STEM activities for all scales are generally higher than the mean values for students who are not involved in STEM activities. For students who are involved in STEM related activities, the scale with the highest mean is Technology (mean=5.96, SD=1.28) and the scale with the lowest mean is Engineering (mean=5.25, SD=1.42). This finding is in accordance with the research done by Pau and Siti Mistima Maat (2018) that mathematics has the highest score in teachers’ attitude while engineering subject scored the least among the secondary school teachers towards integration of STEM. Table 7 Mean and Standard Deviation (SD) of Students’ Perceptions of STEM According to Involvement in STEM Activities Scale Involved in STEM Activities (N=217) Not involved in STEM Activities (N=49) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Science 5.89 (1.22) 5.34 (1.36) Technology 5.96 (1.28) 5.44 (1.52) Engineering 5.25 (1.42) 4.68 (1.39) Mathematics 5.60 (1.40) 5.16 (1.43) STEM Career 5.88 (1.22) 5.30 (1.45) Combined mean 5.72 (1.31) 5.18 (1.43) Note: Scale is 1-7; 1 is ordinary, unappealing, unexciting, means nothing, boring and 7 is fascinating, appealing, exciting, means a lot, interesting CONCLUSION Based on the findings of the STEM Semantics Survey conducted on a group of students from the Teacher Training Institute of Penang, it can be concluded that students have relatively high perceptions of STEM in all the aspects of this study, with scores above the centre point of the 7-point semantic survey scale. Analysis of data also revealed that science students perceive STEM more highly than students from other fields. The high combined mean values for all scales also shows that students have positive perceptions of STEM and STEM career in general. The combined mean of female students’ perception of STEM is slightly higher than that of male students. The perceptions of science students on STEM are the highest while the TESL students’ perceptions on STEM are the lowest. Students who have been involved in STEM activities also have higher perceptions on STEM compared to those who are not involved. It is evident from the findings of this study that students of the Teacher Training Institute of Penang have high regard for STEM even though there are no formal classes on STEM conducted in the institute. Recognising the significance and growing prevalence of ISSN: 2289-8808 e-ISSN: 7210-7132 Students’ Perceptions Towards Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) MIJORiTE Vol. 3: 12 - 23 (2022)

© 2022 Institute of Teacher Education, Penang Campus 21 STEM and STEM education in the world, it is important to nurture the high perceptions of the students and continue to motivate all students to be interested in STEM. In order to cultivate the interest of students towards STEM, the integration of STEM in teaching and learning should enable students to experience learning in a real-world situation. Students should be given opportunities to see how the concepts they study in separate classes, for example, physics and trigonometry, can be integrated in real-life. As pointed out by Todd and Knowles (2016), students are often disinterested in science and math when they learn in an isolated and disjoined manner, missing connections to crosscutting concepts and real-world applications. Frequent exposure of students to STEM disciplines would make them more familiar with the concepts, activities and challenges on STEM. Students can be exposed to STEM disciplines in formal settings such as lectures and competitions, or in unstructured environments, such as clubs, after school activities and events related to STEM, such as STEM kiosks, STEM challenges and innovative STEM workshops. Besides, the involvement of students in STEM-based outreach learning activities could also enhance students’ participation in STEM (Venix et al., 2017). Although engineering is not taught as a subject in schools, the engineering discipline requires the use of scientific and mathematical concepts to address the types of illstructured and open-ended problems that occur in the real world. Moreover, design and design thinking are vital to creativity and innovation, and have become increasingly important in the current movement of developing and implementing integrated STEM education (Li et al., 2019). Hence, it is imperative to provide students with opportunities to learn about engineering and participate in engineering design either in their formal, informal or non-formal settings (Edy Hafizan Mohd Shahali et al., 2017). In the Malaysian scenario, as STEM education progresses towards excellence with increased operational flexibility in the third wave of the Malaysian Education Blueprint, teachers in schools should be ready and well-equipped to integrate STEM in teaching and learning. Professional development on STEM teaching and learning is seen as of utmost importance to prepare teachers with the ability to promote STEM practices (Jekri & Han, 2020) and to assist students in preparing them for the 21st century challenges. The development of teaching and learning modules and exemplars integrating STEM in the curriculum would serve as valuable guides for teachers to implement STEM teaching and learning in schools. Education institutions should also strive to increase teachers’ interest in STEM disciplines, as highly motivated teachers would in turn ignite the sparks for students to be interested in STEM. REFERENCES Ashlock, J., Stojnic, M., & Tufekci, Z. (2021). Gender differences in academic efficacy across STEM fields. Sociological Perspectives, 1-25. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F07311214211028617 Edy Hafizan Mohd Shahali, Lilia Halim, Mohamad Sattar Rasul, Kamisah Osman & Mohd Afendi Zulkifeli (2017). STEM learning through engineering design: Impact on middle ISSN: 2289-8808 e-ISSN: 7210-7132 Students’ Perceptions Towards Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) MIJORiTE Vol. 3: 12 - 23 (2022)

© 2022 Institute of Teacher Education, Penang Campus 22 secondary students’ interest towards STEM. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics Science and Technology Education, 13(5), 1189-1211. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2017.00667a Fazilah Razali, Umi Kalthom Abdul Manaf, & Ahmad Fauzi Mohd Ayub. (2020). STEM education in Malaysia towards developing a human capital through motivating science subject. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 19(5), 411-422. https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.19.5.25 Freeman, B., Marginson, S., & Tytler, R. (2019). An international view of STEM education. In A. Sahin & M. Mohr-Schroeder (Eds.), STEM education 2.0: Myths and truths- -what has K-12 STEM education research taught us? (pp. 350-363). Brill. https://doi. org/10.1163/9789004405400_019 Jekri, A., & Han, C. G. K. (2020). Cabaran dalam melaksanakan pengajaran dan pembelajaran STEM di sekolah menengah. International Journal of Education, Psychology and Counseling, 5(34), 80-79. https://doi.org/10.35631/IJEPC.534006 Li, Y., Schoenfeld, A.H., diSessa, A. A., Graesser, A. C., Benson, L. C., English, L. D., & Duschl, R. A. (2019). Design and design thinking in STEM education. Journal for STEM Education Research, 2, 93-104. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41979-019-00020-z Marginson, S., Tytler, R., Freeman, B., & Roberts, K. (2013). STEM country comparisons: International comparisons of science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education - Final Report. Australian Council of Learned Academies. Ministry of Education Malaysia. (2013). Malaysia education blueprint 2013-2025: Preschool to post-secondary education. Ministry of Education Malaysia. Ng, C. H., & Adnan, M. (2018). Integrating STEM education through Project-Based Inquiry Learning (PIL) in topic space among year one pupils. In IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering (Vol. 296, No. 1, p. 012020). IOP Publishing. https://doi. org/10.1088/1757-899X/296/1/012020 Nor’Aidah Nordin. (2020, November 23). Activities for STEM education in Malaysia. AsiaPacific Economic Cooperation website: https://www.apecstemplustw.org/blog/activitiesfor-stem-education-in-malaysia Nur Farhana Ramli, & Othman Talib. (2017). Can education institution implement STEM: From Malaysian teachers’ view. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 7(3), 721-732. http://dx.doi.org/10.6007/IJARBSS/v7-i3/2772 Pau, L. C., & Siti Mistima Maat. (2018). An exploratory study of teachers’ attitudes towards integration of STEM in Malaysia. International Journal of Electrical Engineering and Applied Sciences, 1(1), 45-50. https://smk.ukm.my/erep/fail3.cfm?komp=TGG2018484 Roberts, T., Jackson, C., Mohr-Schroeder, M. J., Bush, S. B., Maiorca, C., Cavalcanti, M.. Schroeder, D. C., Delaney, A., Putnam, L., & Cremeans, C. (2018). Students’ perceptions of STEM learning after participating in a summer informal learning experience. International Journal of STEM Education, 5(35), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-018-0133-4 Suraya Bahrum, Norsalawati Wahid, & Nasir Ibrahim. (2017). Integration of STEM education in Malaysia and why to STEAM. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 7(6), 645-654. http://dx.doi.org/10.6007/IJARBSS/v7-i6/3027 Todd, R. K., & Knowles, J. G. (2016). A conceptual framework for integrated STEM education. International Journal of STEM Education, 3(11). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-016- 0046-z Tyler-Wood, T., Knezek, G., & Christensen, R. (2010). Instruments for assessing interest in STEM content and careers. Journal of Information Technology for Teacher Education, 18(2), 341-363. https://www. researchgate.net/publication/267414391_Instruments_for_ Assessing_Interest_in_STEM_Content_and_Careers ISSN: 2289-8808 e-ISSN: 7210-7132 Students’ Perceptions Towards Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) MIJORiTE Vol. 3: 12 - 23 (2022)

© 2022 Institute of Teacher Education, Penang Campus 23 UNESCO. (2017). Cracking the code: Girls’ and women’s education in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM). UNESCO. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/ pf0000253479 Vennix, J., den Brok, P., & Taconis, R. (2017). Perceptions of STEM-based outreach learning activities in secondary education. Learning Environ Res, 20, 21-46. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10984-016-9217-6 Zenobia Ismail. (2018). Benefits of STEM education - Helpdesk Report. University of Birmingham. https:// opendocs.ids.ac.uk/opendocs/bitstream/handle/20.500.12413/14258/418_ Benefits_of_STEM_Education.pdf ISSN: 2289-8808 e-ISSN: 7210-7132 Students’ Perceptions Towards Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) MIJORiTE Vol. 3: 12 - 23 (2022)

© 2022 Institute of Teacher Education, Penang Campus 24 HYBRID ONLINE LEARNING PLATFORMS TO CATER THE NEEDS OF SOCIETY 5.0: A CONCEPTUAL PAPER Lee Pui Har1 , Angeline Chong Suet Kee2 , Gurminderjeet Kaur A/P Kartar Singh3 Politeknik METrO Kuantan1 , Politeknik Sultan Haji Ahmad Shah2 , Kolej Komuniti Sungai Siput3 Abstract This paper aims to conceptualise several concepts of online learning instruction in the era of Industry 4.0 to cater to the needs of Society 5.0 in Malaysia’s higher education context. This study is developed on secondary data supplemented by the support of current literature reviews. Industrial Revolution 4.0 and Society 5.0 have called for Education Revolution 5.0, urging improvement and more personalised and digitalised learning instruction. Therefore, education instruction needs to be integrated and improved constantly to keep on par with the needs of the present Education Revolution 5.0 that very much focuses on personalisation. This paper analysed the literature on some online teaching and learning instructions namely massive online open courses (MOOC), differentiated instruction (DI) and mastery learning. A hybrid blended MOOC instruction model that caters to Society 5.0 learners’ needs was proposed after the strengths and weaknesses of these teaching instructions were reviewed. The conceptual paper provides literature references that will enhance future education instruction innovation activities. Keywords: e-Learning, Differentiated Instruction, Mastery Learning, Online Learning Platform, Mix Ability Classroom INTRODUCTION Malaysia is currently facing Industrial Revolution 4.0 or IR 4.0, which propels the whole nation into amazing technological breakthroughs resulting from the rapid advancement in communication speed as well as business exchange (Ahmad, Adnan, Yusof, Mohd Kamal & Mustafa Kamal, 2019). Therefore, to cite Mustafa Kamal, Mustafa Kamal, Adnan, Yusof, Ahmad & Mohd Kamal (2019), teaching pedagogies have also evolved due to the direct and indirect impact of the technological evolution or IR 4.0 that contribute to the advancement in the current society. The Covid-19 pandemic, however, has shut down economies and has also wreaked havoc on education institutions in many countries. COVID-19 has struck our educational system like a bolt of lightning, shaking it to its foundations. Each level of education has its own set of issues, and they may be forced to initiate a learning revolution. Besides that, each student is unique and they need to bear the demands of online work and should be technologically smart enough to traverse new platforms. The COVID-19 pandemic MALAYSIAN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN TEACHER EDUCATION (MIJORiTE) ISSN: 2289-8808 e-ISSN: 7210-7132 Hybrid Online Learning Platforms to Cater The Need of Society 5.0 MIJORiTE Vol. 3: 24 - 33 (2022)

© 2022 Institute of Teacher Education, Penang Campus 25 directed the planet into the subsequent industrial revolution, leading to Society 5.0, where the quantity of knowledge could also be overwhelming for the Industry 4.0 technologies to process (Sarfraz, Sarfraz, Iftikar & Akhund, 2021). Associated with the Industrial Revolution 4.0, Japan was one of the first countries to introduce Society 5.0 to cater to the needs of the IR 4.0 needs and by taking the community and social needs into consideration. Society 5.0 is defined as a human-centered society; finding balanced solutions to social problems and economic development that integrates cyberspace and physical space through a system. The Society 5.0 concept follows the previous four descriptions of society with more synthetic and eclectic content. The structure of the societies is the hunter and gatherer society (Society 1.0), agricultural society (Society 2.0), industrial society (Society 3.0), and information society (Society 4.0) throughout history (Toprak, Bayraktar & Ozyilmaz, 2020). However, the teaching of the English Language at all levels in Malaysia is fraught with challenges and frustrations (Hiew, 2012). For instance, the latest Malaysia Education Blueprint (MOE, 2015) elaborated that employers reported that graduates were lacking in essential elements for success in the 21st century like communication skills in English and English language proficiency. Bryner (2007) claimed that when conventional approaches were used in English language lessons, most students found it boring and it could not arouse their interest in the lesson. Stavroula et al. (2011) seconded that traditional approaches do not ease the knowledge construction for all students in a naturally formed mix-ability setting and caused poor mastery of knowledge. Technology, conversely, continues to push e-Learning and higher education more as computer and internet availability expands globally, better community bandwidth allows richer instructional experiences, and the emergence of social networking introduces extra engagement amongst participants. For 20 years, there had been adjustments in technological schooling that few humans ever dreamed of (Essays, 2013). Technological advances may enhance our perception of the learning process, help in our access to content, increase learners’ retention by improving the educational experience, or make learning affordable by addressing systemic inequalities (Hatterer, 2015). Emerging models like Massive Online Open Courses (MOOC) and flipped classrooms are used for delivering learning content online to an unlimited number of students (Pirani, 2013). Nowadays, with increasingly sophisticated technology, learning does not have to be done only in conventional ways such as face-to-face meetings in a classroom. The new learning method that is in accordance with the digital era is blended/ hybrid learning and E-learning. At present, technology-based distance education must be developed to provide a quality education that can be accessed by anyone, at anytime and anywhere. Therefore e-learning and blended learning are the right learning methods to be pursued in today’s digital age. In particular, blended learning can facilitate more learning because it can bridge face-to-face meetings and distance education and can be tailored to fulfil specific needs. Flexibility and innovation are important keys in providing learning facilities in today’s digital era (Sudibjo, Idawati & Harsanti, 2019). ISSN: 2289-8808 e-ISSN: 7210-7132 Hybrid Online Learning Platforms to Cater The Need of Society 5.0 MIJORiTE Vol. 3: 24 - 33 (2022)

© 2022 Institute of Teacher Education, Penang Campus 26 Recognizing these shortcomings in our education system, as outlined in the first wave of the Malaysian Education Plan 2015-2025, the government planned to design “flagship” MOOCs of Higher Education Institutions (HLIs) in characteristic fields of Malaysia and the National e-learning policy. To achieve these outcomes, the ministry will work with HLIs to build capacity in the academic community and explore the creation of a national e-learning platform to coordinate and drive content development. Key initiatives include: (1) the launch of MOOCs on specific topics in Malaysia; (2) making online learning an integral part of higher education and lifelong learning, starting with the conversion of mainstream university courses into MOOCs and e-learning; (3) require up to 70% of programs to use blended learning models; (4) Configuration of the required IT infrastructure (physical network infrastructure, information structure, platform, devices and equipment); and also (5) strengthen the capacity of the academic community to deliver large-scale online learning. Therefore, it is imperative to integrate e-learning into the teaching system of a given subject in order to achieve the objectives described in the MEB (HE). As of this writing, there are only a handful of higher education institutions that have launched a MOOC initiative. Malaysia’s first university announced its pilot MOOC offering in March 2013. Five other colleges followed in 2014 - four of their public universities and one, namely Open University Malaysia (OUM), a private educational institution, Open and Remote (ODL), started offering MOOCs on two different platforms (Mansor, Latifah & Tengku Amina, 2015). As for Malaysian Polytechnics, the implementation of MOOC was firstly introduced in 2015 with Communicative English as the targeted course. As previous studies have indicated that most of the research conducted on MOOCs is almost all based in North America and Europe and presents results from the Western perspective, this leads to a lack of contributing studies in terms of the Eastern perspective (Norazah, Helmi & Mohammad Amin, 2016). Additionally, Industrial Revolution 4.0 and Society 5.0 called for Education Revolution 5.0, pushing for improvement and more personalized and digitised learning education. LITERATURE REVIEW One of the system aspiration outcomes of the Malaysia National Education Blueprint for Higher Education 2015-2025 is to achieve education quality by integrating technologies and innovations to address students’ needs for a better learning experience (MOE, 2015). There are many studies related to e-learning methods. These studies proved that students with the e-learning method had an excellent understanding of the materials. Likewise, a similar result was also demonstrated by another research on medical students studying with distance learning based on traditional systems combined with e-learning methods. It was revealed that students were interested in learning (Airawaty & Widarjo, 2020). MASSIVE ONLINE LEARNING COURSE (MOOC) According to Waldrop (2013) and Daniel (2012), Massive Open Online Course or better known as MOOC has made history in the field of higher education creating a phenomenon ISSN: 2289-8808 e-ISSN: 7210-7132 Hybrid Online Learning Platforms to Cater The Need of Society 5.0 MIJORiTE Vol. 3: 24 - 33 (2022)

© 2022 Institute of Teacher Education, Penang Campus 27 where rapid and extensive interest has flourished from it. The idea of this online platform is to provide the opportunity for the public to experience world-class education from some prestigious educational institutions around the world where the learners could take control of their learning in terms of pace as well as learning content with the assistance of connection that they have built in the process of learning through interacting with a network of people. (Marques, 2013; Rivard, 2013; Schulze, 2014) In addition, some of the reasons that MOOC has gained popularity are that it is free, massive in the number of learners as well as open to all. When this hybrid form of MOOC is used, it could significantly boost the learning outcomes as well as lower the cost of education. (Bruff et al. 2013; Griffiths, 2014; Caulfield et al., 2013; Holotescu et al., 2014; Firmin et al., 2014) To further support this claim, Garrison and Vaughan (2008) also stressed the essential guideline of blending face-to-face verbal communication and online composed communication in the learning process as the qualities of both learning instructions are mixed into a one of a kind learning encounter consistent with the intended learning content and purpose. In other words, MOOC is a form of the online flipped classroom that has the potential to offer an amazing asset of materials such as interactive lecture videos, tests, and assignments. Nevertheless, it is undeniably a challenge to synchronise MOOC with the conventional physical class, institution’s policies and LMS. DIFFERENTIATED INSTRUCTION (DI) With the diverse contemporary classrooms, educational authorities, educators and school administrators are searching for teaching and learning strategies that are able to cater to different learning profiles. For instance, the inclusion of students with special needs, students from non-English speaking backgrounds, students from varied cultural backgrounds, and students on accelerated programs, compel educators to reevaluate their teaching and instructional practices (Subban, 2006). Therefore, a teaching and learning method which is able to cope with students with different learning abilities is crucial. Roy, Guay, and Valois (2013) justified Differentiated Instruction (DI) as “an approach by which teaching is varied and adapted to match students’ capabilities using methodical procedures to monitor the academic development, and data-based decisionmaking” (p. 1187). It is known to be compelling and effective in reforming the traditional classroom to accommodate students of diverse levels, interests and learning preferences (Tomlinson & Imbeau, 2010; Coubergs, Struyven, Vanthournout, & Engels, 2017; Prast, Van de Weijer-Bergsma, Kroesbergen, & Van Luit, 2015; Roy et al., 2013; Gaitas & Alves Martins, 2017; Van Tassel-Baska, Quek, & Feng, 2006; Brimijoin, & Narvaez, 2008; Van de Grift et al., 2011). However, the readiness of educators in adapting these approaches determines the implementation and feasibility of differentiated instruction in a classroom. MASTERY LEARNING Concurrent with the principle of Differentiated Instruction, Mastery Learning (ML) ISSN: 2289-8808 e-ISSN: 7210-7132 Hybrid Online Learning Platforms to Cater The Need of Society 5.0 MIJORiTE Vol. 3: 24 - 33 (2022)

© 2022 Institute of Teacher Education, Penang Campus 28 is an instructional approach in which instructive progress is based on displayed performance and not curricular time (Yudkowskh et. al., 2015). Candler (2010) defined it as an instructional procedure that proposes to students several prospects exhibit content mastery. Learners practice and retest repeatedly until they achieve an elected mystery level; the ultimate stage of attainment is the same for all, although time to mastery may vary. Mastery learning programs have a long history of proven to be effective (Guskey & Gates, 1986; Kulik, Kulik & Bangert-Drowns, 1990; Husky, 2009; Marzano, 2009; Rosenshine, 2009) and have been shown to be greater to substitute instructional approaches (Archin & Opoku. 2020; Elaldi, 2016; Adeyemi, 2007; Adeniji et al., 2018). The significance of mastery learning is undeniable as numerous forms of simulation-based models are being established, and they have revealed massive benefits to accommodate students’ learning from different levels of proficiencies and abilities. CONCEPTUAL MODEL DEVELOPMENT In the process of knowledge creation, the development of theory and models are essential. However, many researchers reported that there is still a lack of initiative in understanding, developing and using educational theory in the research domain of blended learning. (Halverson, 2012; Graham, 2013; Drysdale et al., 2013) Although blended learning is still considered new in research, it serves as valuable literature in the field of distance learning and technology-assisted learning (Marsaglia, Kemp, Jefferson, Bradley & Silberman, 2014). Therefore, based on the conceptualisation of the teaching and learning instruction models, it referred to a hybrid blended MOOC instructional model which was developed by combining the Blended MOOC model by Siemens, with two promising instructional models namely, Differentiated Instruction Model by Tomlinson and Mastery Learning Model by Bloom with the attempt to ameliorate and enhance the current blended MOOC model. Figure 1: Proposed Hybrid Blended MOOC Instructional Model ISSN: 2289-8808 e-ISSN: 7210-7132 Hybrid Online Learning Platforms to Cater The Need of Society 5.0 MIJORiTE Vol. 3: 24 - 33 (2022)

© 2022 Institute of Teacher Education, Penang Campus 29 There are generally two main types of MOOC with clear distinctiveness in terms of embedded pedagogy that are cMOOC and xMOOC. Siemens (2012), one of the founders of MOOC, elaborated that the cMOOC model stresses autonomy, creativity, social networking learning and creation, while the xMOOC model highlights traditional learning approaches via evaluation such as tests, quizzes and video presentations. In other words, the focus of cMOOCs is knowledge and information creation while the focus of xMOOC is on information duplication. (Siemens, 2013). However, one of the issues with the current MOOC is the omitted benefits and importance of face-to-face communication (Schulmeister, 2014; Hollands & Tirthali, 2014). Thus, the requirement of human touch or interaction was one of the needs of the learners (society 5.0) who are currently moving towards Industrial Revolution 5.0. This was further supported by Bill Gates, a successful computer programmer and entrepreneur, that MOOC should be applied in a blended learning environment. Young (2012) further emphasises the need for the element of face-to-face interaction in designing and teaching secondary communication. These different schools of thought have elevated the concerns about the roles of MOOC in the classroom and how it should blend into tertiary education to complement and serve as a substitute teaching and learning instruction. Therefore, some researchers proposed Blended MOOC (bMOOC) as they saw its potential in catering to the needs of a variety of learners. For instance, quality learning content; openness & flexibility; blended & student-centered learning; lifelong & networking learning; and instructional design & learning methodology (Yousef, Chatti, Schroeder & Wosnitza, 2015). Differentiated Instruction Model and Mastery Learning Model not only share some similar elements of the current blended MOOC model proposed by Siemens but offer some added values that the current bMOOC model is lacking to further fulfil different MOOC learner perspectives. Mastery learning and cMOOC both are student-centered and flexible in self-organisation. When Mastery learning is inculcated in the process of cMOOC instruction, it is believed that the learning process will be more effective with better knowledge construction as it allows learners to advance progressively after the mastery of each component with the assistance of face-to-face interaction as human interaction is one of the key elements of education 5.0 that caters the need of the learners in this era. Furthermore, the multiple assessment element in mastery learning also converges xMOOC with cMOOC apart from face-to-face learning instruction. As all learners are from different backgrounds (proficiency level, learning style, etc.), blended MOOC should also address the needs of different learners especially based on their proficiency level. With differentiated instruction, the same learning objectives could be achieved by providing a variety of quality e-contents such as worksheets of different amounts of guided input, short video lectures, mini-games, etc. With the supplement of differentiated instruction, xMOOC consists of a clear instructions design approach with a focus on qualities educational content where teachers constrict the learning objective will make the learning process more effective and systematic while cMOOC provides the learner with the opportunity to further enhance their knowledge through social network ISSN: 2289-8808 e-ISSN: 7210-7132 Hybrid Online Learning Platforms to Cater The Need of Society 5.0 MIJORiTE Vol. 3: 24 - 33 (2022)

© 2022 Institute of Teacher Education, Penang Campus 30 learning with the general public instead of just within the same class or institution. CONCLUSION A Hybrid Blended MOOC Instruction model that caters to Society 5.0 learners’ needs was proposed after the current MOOC teaching instructions were reviewed. The proposed instructional model aims to upgrade the currently available MOOC model to fulfil the education shift highlighted in the Malaysian National Education Blueprint (Higher Education) 2015-2025 in achieving its goal to increase education quality and accessibility that is on par with the present education advancement. More insight into the effectiveness and outcome of the proposed model needs to be further explored with empirical data. Nonetheless, it is hoped that this conceptual paper will provide valuable addition of literature references and enhance future education instruction innovation activities in the MOOC that are essential to further propel the education quality advancement in this era. REFERENCE Adeniji, S. M., Ameen, S. K., Dambatta, B. U., & Orilonise, R. (2018). Effect of mastery learning approach on senior school students’ academic performance and retention in circle geometry. International Journal of Instruction, 11(4), pp. 951-962. https://www.e-iji.net Adeyemi, B. A. (2007). Learning social studies through mastery approach. Educational Research and Review. 2(4), 60-63. https://doi.org/10.5897/ERR.9000222 Ahmad, M. K., Adnan, A. H. M., Yusof, A. A., Mohd Kamal, M. A., & Mustafa Kamal, N. N. (2019). Using new technologies to teach English in Malaysia - issues and challenges. [Paper presentation] International Invention, Innovative & Creative Conference (InIIC Series 1/2019), Malacca, Malaysia. Airawaty. D. & Widarjo, W. (2020). Facing revolution industrial 4.0 and society 5.0 e-learning be as effective as traditional learning: Evidence from Indonesia. Proceedings of the 1st Progress in Social Science, Humanities and Education Research Symposium (PSSHERS 2019). Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, 464. 1154-1157. https://doi.org/10.2991/assehr.k.200824.250 Archin, D. & Opoku, W. (2020, July). A meta-analysis on effects of mastery learning strategy (MLS) on academic achievements of learners. International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS), 4(7), ISSN 2454-6186 Bruff, D.O., Fisher, D. H., McEwen, K. E., & Smith, B. E. (2013). Wrapping a MOOC: Student perceptions of an experiment in blended learning. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 9(2), 187-199. https://my.vanderbilt.edu/douglasfisher/files/2013/06/ JOLTPaperFinal6-9-2013.pdf Bryner, J. (2007, February 28). Most students bored at school. Live Science. http://www. livescience.com/1308-students-bored-school.html Candler, J. (2010). Brief notices of Haiti: With its condition, resources, and prospects. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Caulfield, M., Collier, A., & Halawa, S. (2013, October 7). Rethinking on line community in MOOC use for blended learning. Educause. http://www.educause.edu/ero/article/ rethinking-online-community-moocs-used-blended-learning ISSN: 2289-8808 e-ISSN: 7210-7132 Hybrid Online Learning Platforms to Cater The Need of Society 5.0 MIJORiTE Vol. 3: 24 - 33 (2022)

© 2022 Institute of Teacher Education, Penang Campus 31 Coubergs, C., Struyven, K., Vanthournout, G., & Engels, N. (2017). Measuring teachers’ perceptions about differentiated instruction: The DI-Quest instrument and model. Studies in Educational Evaluation 53, 41-54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2017.02.004 Daniel, J. (2012). Making sense of MOOCs: Musings in a maze of myth, paradox and possibility. Journal of Interactive Media in Education (JiME), 2012(3), 18. http://doi. org/10.5334/2012-18 Drysdale, J. S., Graham, C. R., Halverson, L. R., & Spring, K. J. (2013). Analysis of research trends in dissertations and theses studying blended learning. Internet and Higher Education, 17(1), 90–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2011.03.031 Elaldi, S. (2016). The effect of mastery learning model with reflective thinking activities on medical students’ academic achievement: An experimental study. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 4(5), 30-40. Essays, U. (2013). Technological advancement in education education essay. https://www. uniassignment.com/essay-samples/education/technological-advancement-in-educationeducation-essay.php Firmin,R., Schiorring, E.,Whitmer, J., Willett, T., Collins, E. D., & Sujitparapitaya, S. (2014). Case study: Using MOOCs for conventional college coursework. Distance Education, 35(2), 178-201. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2014.917707 Gaitas, S. & Alves Martins, M. (2017, August). Teacher perceived difficulty in implementing differentiated instructional strategies in primary school. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 21(5), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2016.1223180 Garrison, D. & Vaughan, D. (2008). Blended Learning in Higher Education: Framework, Principles, and Guidelines. Jossey-Bass. http://doi.org/10.1002/9781118269558 Guskey, T & Gates. (1986). Staff development and the process of teacher change. Educational Researcher, 15(5), 5-12. https://doi.org/10.2307/1174780 Guskey, T. R. (2009). Mastery learning. In T.L. Good (Ed.), 21st century education: A reference handbook, (pp. 194–202). Sage. Griffiths, R., Chingos, M., Mulhern, C., & Spies, R. (2014). Interactive online learning on campus: Testing MOOCs and other platforms in hybrid formats in the University System of Maryland (ITHAKAS+R Report). Ithaka. http://www.sr.ithaka.org/sites/default/files/ reports/S-R_Interactive_Online_Learning_Campus_20140716.pdf Hatterer, J. (2015, March 5). The most significant technological advances in education for 2015. Noodle. https://www.noodle.com/articles/top-technology-trends-in-education-in-2015 Hiew, W. (2012). English language teaching and learning issues in Malaysia: learners’ perceptions via Facebook dialogue journal. Journal of Arts, Science & Commerce, 3(1), 11-19. http:// www.researchersworld.com/vol3/Paper_02.pdf Hollands, F. M. & Tirthali, D. (2014, May). MOOCs: Expectations and reality. Full report. ERIC. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED547237.pdf Holotescu, C., Grosseck, G., Cretu, V., & Naaji, A. (2014). Integrating MOOCs in blended courses. Proceedings of the International Scientific Conference of e-Learningand Software for Education,Bucharest, 243-250. https://doi.org/10.12753/2066-026X-14-034 Kulik, C. C., Kulik, J. A., & Bangert-Drowns, R. L. (1990). Effectiveness of mastery learning programs: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 60, 265–299. Mansor, F., Latifah, A.L., Tengku Amina, M. (2015, March 10-11). MOOCs in Malaysia: a preminary case study. [Paper presentation] e-ASEM Forum: Renewing the Lifelong Learning Agenda for the Future, Bali, Indonesia. http://library.oum.edu.my/ repository/1022/1/library-document-1022.pdf Marques, J. (2013). A short history of MOOCs and distance learning. MOOC News and Reviews, http://moocnewsandreviews.com/a-short-history-ofmoocs-and-distance-learning Marsaglia, M., Kemp, W., Jefferson, S., Bradley, C., & Silberman, E. (2014). MOOCS and ISSN: 2289-8808 e-ISSN: 7210-7132 Hybrid Online Learning Platforms to Cater The Need of Society 5.0 MIJORiTE Vol. 3: 24 - 33 (2022)

© 2022 Institute of Teacher Education, Penang Campus 32 applied learning theories. MOOCs and Applied Learning Theories, https://dl.icdst.org/ pdfs/files1/49d0968bdda4e5b19ec139a9a80c827c.pdf Marzano, R. J. (2009). Setting the record straight on “high yield” strategies. Phi Delta Kappan, 91(1), 30–37 Ministry of Education (MOE) (2015). Executive summary Malaysia education blueprint 2015- 2025 (higher education). Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia. Mustafa Kamal, N. N., Adnan, A. H. M., Yusof, A. A., Ahmad, M. K., & Mohd Kamal, M. A. (2019). Immersive Interactive Educational Experiences - adopting Education 5.0, Industry 4.0 learning technologies for M’sian universities. Proceedings of the International Invention, Innovative & Creative (InIIC) Conference, 2019(1), 190-196. https://papers. ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3511172 Norazah, N., Helmi, N., Mohammad Amin, E. (2016). Technology acceptance of massive online course in Malaysia. Malaysian Journal of Distance Education, 17(2), 1-16. http://dx.doi. org/10.21315/mjde2015.17.2.1 Pirani, J. (2013, Novermber 4). A compendium of MOOC perspectives, research, and resources. Educause. http://er.educause.edu/articles/2013/11/a-compendium-of-mooc-perspectivesresearch-and-resources Rivard, R. (2013). Coursera’s contractual elitism. Inside Highered.http://www.insidehighered.com/ news/2013/03/22/coursera-commits-admitting-only-elite-universities#sthash.2kpyYKgb. dpbs Roy. A, Guay. F, and Valois, P. (2013) Teaching to address diverse learning needs: Development and validation of a differentiated instruction scale. International Journal of Inclusive Education 17(11). https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2012.743604 Rosenshine, B. (2009). Systematic instruction. In T. L. Good (Ed.), 21st century education: A reference handbook, (pp. 235–243). Sage. Sarfraz, Z., Sarfraz, A., Iftikar, H.M., Akhund, R. Is COVID-19 pushing us to the fifth industrial revolution (society 5.0)?. Pakistan Journal of Medical Science, 37(2), 591-594. https:// doi.org/10.12669/pjms.37.2.3387 Schulmeister, R. (2014). The position of xMOOCs in educational systems. E-learning & Education (eleed), 10. https://eleed.campussource.de/archive/10/4074 Schulze (2014). Massive open online courses (MOOCs) and completion rates: are self-directed adult learners the most successful at MOOCs? (Publication No. 36229960) [Doctoral dissertation, Pepperdine University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global. Siemens, G. (2012). What is the theory that underpins our moocs?. Elearning Space. Siemens, G. (2013). Massive open online courses: Innovation in education?. In R. McGreat, W. Kinuthia & S. Marshall (Eds.), Open Educational Resources: Innovation, Research and Practice (pp. 5-16). FSC Stavroula, V.A., Leonidas, K. & Marry, K. (2011, January 4-7). Investigating the impact of differentiated instruction in mixed ability classrooms: It’s impact on the quality and equity dimensions of education effectiveness. [Paper presentation]. The International Congress for School Effectiveness and Improvement 2011. Limassol, Cyprus. https://pdf4pro.com/ amp/view/investigating-the-impact-of-differentiated-instruction-in-3f6d99.html Subban, P. (2006). Differentiated instruction: A research basis. International Education Journal 7(7). https://www.researchgate.net/publication/253759500_Differentiated_ instruction_A_research_basis Sudibjo, N., Idawati, L. & Harsanti, H.G.R. (2019). Characteristics of learning in the era of industry 4.0 and society 5.0. Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, 372, 276-278. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ Tomlinson, C. A., & Imbeau, M. B. (2010). Leading and managing a differentiated classroom. ASCD. ISSN: 2289-8808 e-ISSN: 7210-7132 Hybrid Online Learning Platforms to Cater The Need of Society 5.0 MIJORiTE Vol. 3: 24 - 33 (2022)

© 2022 Institute of Teacher Education, Penang Campus 33 Toprak, M., Bayraktar, Y., & Ozyilmaz, A. (2020). The COVID-19 pandemic and the digital trasformation in Turkish higher education: an evaluation from the prespective of industry 4.0 and society 5.0. In D. Demirbas, V. Bozkurt, & S. Yorgun (Eds.), The COVID-19 pandemic and its economic, social, and political impacts (pp.167-185). Istanbul University Press. https://doi.org/10.26650/B/SS46.2020.006 Van de Grift. W., Van der Wal, M. & Torenbeek, M. (2011, Jan). Development in teaching skills. In Pedagogische Studien 88(6), 416-432. Research Gate. https://www.researchgate.net/ publication/281390488_Development_in_teaching_skills Van de Weijer-Bergsma, E., Kroesbergen, E. H., Prast, E. J., & Van Luit, J. E. (2015). Validity and reliability of an online visual-spatial working memory task for self-reliant administration in school-aged children. Behavior Research Methods, 47, 708-719. https://doi.org/10.3758/ s13428-014-0469-8 Van Tassel-Baska, J., Quek, C., & Feng, A. X. (2006). The development and use of a structured teacher observation scale to assess differentiated best practice. Roeper Review, 29, 84-92. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02783190709554391 Waldrop, M. M. (2013). Online learning: campus 2.0. Nature, International Weekly Journal of Science, 495, 160-163. Young, J. R. (2012, June 25). A conversation with Bill Gates about the future of higher education. The Chronicle of Higher Education. https://www.chronicle.com/article/a-conversationwith-bill-gates-about-the-future-of-higher-education/ Yousef, A. M. F., Chatti, M. A., Schroeder, U., & Wosnitza, M. (2015). A usability evaluation of a blended MOOC environment: An experimental case study. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning (IRRODL), 16(2), 69-93. Yudkowsky R, Park, Y.S., Lineberry, M., Knox, A. & Ritter E.M. (2015). Setting mastery learning standards. Academic Medicine, 90(11), 1495-1500. http://doi.org/10.1097/ ACM.0000000000000887 ISSN: 2289-8808 e-ISSN: 7210-7132 Hybrid Online Learning Platforms to Cater The Need of Society 5.0 MIJORiTE Vol. 3: 24 - 33 (2022)

© 2022 Institute of Teacher Education, Penang Campus 34 DIGITAL INNOVATION APPS EVALUATION Siaw Nyuk Hiong1 , Agatha Anak Francis Umbit2 , Tay Pui Hoon3 IPGK Batu Lintang1,2,3 Abstract Digital Innovation is a course offered in Teacher Education Institute since 2018 to encourage students in designing and developing digital learning products. This research paper investigates the effectiveness of digital innovation apps developed by the students. Since evaluating apps can be a time consuming process, an easy to use apps evaluation tool ACE checklists is used to evaluate the digital innovations. Qualitative approach using purposeful sampling is used to select the apps for evaluation by the subject matter expert (SMEs). Data analysis from the evaluation showed that digital innovatin apps created are suitable for use by school students, the design of the applications are good, the instructional features are good and contents of the applications are aligned with the primary school curriculum. The main contribution from this research is empirical data that prove the effectiveness of the Digital Innovation course that have been implemented. Even though these findings could not be generalized to other teacher education institutes on the effectiveness of the course, nevertheless the data could be a source of reference for Malaysian Qualifications Agency during audit. Keywords: Digital, apps, education, evaluation INTRODUCTION Institut Pendidikan Guru Malaysia (IPGM) as the Leader of Excellence in Teacher Education has been given the mandate by Ministry of Education (MOE) Malaysia to train degree holder primary school teachers. Program Ijazah Sarjana Perguruan (PISMP) is a degree programme to train teachers to teach in primary school for various subjects. Courses offer through the programme are intended to give knowledge and provide experience related to the teaching professions for future teachers (Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia, 2017). Program Education Objectives (PEOs) are statements that described the expected education outcomes need to be achieved by every graduate of a PISMP academic program after graduation and have been working for 3 to 5 years. One of the PEOs of the Teacher Education Program is to enable teachers to generate problem solving solutions (PLO3) for teaching through scientific (LO3) approach in an innovative, creative and ethical manner (Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia, 2017). PLOs are statements that describe learning outcome which need to be achieved by every student at the end of completing MALAYSIAN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN TEACHER EDUCATION (MIJORiTE) ISSN: 2289-8808 e-ISSN: 7210-7132 Digital Innovation Apps Evaluation MIJORiTE Vol. 3: 34 - 44 (2022)

© 2022 Institute of Teacher Education, Penang Campus 35 all curriculum courses offered for an academic programme. PLO3 is the application of self-reflection, problem solving skills, scientific skills and creative thinking in teaching. For the first time starting from the academic year 2018, a course Digital Innovation has been introduced to all the students in Semester 2 Year 3 of the PISMP programme. This course provides opportunities for students to explain the concepts and the processes of innovation; generate ideas in developing innovation project; prepare, develop and implement innovation project for teaching and learning; promote, market and evaluate innovation project. Students are expected to apply critical thinking and problem-solving skills, communication skills and entrepreneurial skills during the course (Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia, 2017). They are being assessed 100% based on coursework, which is to produce a digital innovation based on teaching and learning issues. Many researches have reported positive instructional experience through the integration of apps in teaching (Miller, Krockover, & Doughy, 2013; Flewitt, Kucirkova, & Messer, 2014; Mohd Shoaib Ansari & Aditya, 2017). However, the instructional benefits from integrating education apps for learning can only be achieved if these apps are chosen appropriately (Perry et al., 2016). Furthermore, evaluating apps can be a time consuming process. Therefore, an evaluation tool that is easy to use and provide effective guide so that appropriate apps that meet curriculum and instructional features are used for teaching is very much in need (Lubniewski, Kathryn, McArthur & Harriott, 2018). Since many digital innovations have be created for the Digital Innovation course, it is the interest of this research to evaluate students’ digital innovation with an easy to use app evaluation tool by Lubniewski, Kathryn, McArthur and Harriott (2018). This will provide a quick check on how well the students’ digital innovations have met with current curriculum and instructional features for teaching. The main objective of this research is to evaluate the digital innovation apps produced by the students using the ACE app checklists (Lubniewski, Kathryn, McArthur & Harriott, 2018) by the Subject Matter Experts (SMEs). LITERATURE REVIEW MOBILE APPS FOR EDUCATION Nowadays, mobile application (apps) has rapidly increased and used in all sectors such as business, healthcare, sport, education and so forth. The use of these apps especially in education has several benefits such as providing fun learning, attractive and creative platforms which offers an easy way to performthe tasks. Student can grasp and learn things to enhance the learning process (Appentus Technologies, 2019). Hence, combination of mobile applications and education will give a great source of learning and teaching for students, teachers and lecturers. Apart from that, these apps can be installed in mobile devices such as smartphones, tablet computers, laptops with the availability of WiFi and used anytime and anywhere. ISSN: 2289-8808 e-ISSN: 7210-7132 Digital Innovation Apps Evaluation MIJORiTE Vol. 3: 34 - 44 (2022)

© 2022 Institute of Teacher Education, Penang Campus 36 In education sectors, apps such as Google Classroom, Schoology, Kahoot, Edmodo, Classdojo, Padlet, Quizlet, Socratic are among few apps that can be used and integrated in teaching and learning process, which can be installed in mobile devices. Integration of these apps in learning and teaching can make teachers and students be personally driven and motivated and teaching and learning become effectively (Hinze et. al, 2017), changed teaching and practices process (Hans & Sidana 2018), better interaction between students and teachers, unlimited learning (Nirav Shastri, 2019; Paresh Sagar, 2019), 24 hours a day availability and flexibility (Nirav Shastri, 2019) and make the classrooms more students friendly. In other words, these apps make the classroom more accessible to students. Several researches have been conducted related to the use of mobile apps in the classroom. For instance, Harjanto and Sumarni, (2019) presented Teachers’ Experiences on the Use of Google Classroom found that Google Classroom is an effective tool to promote collaborative learning, reduce problem, arrange students’ documents and save time. They admit that using Google Classroom also encourages teachers to be more creative in using the features to make teaching easier. (Zanira et al., 2019) stated that the use of Google Classroom in Islamic Education learning has a very positive and significant impact on students. They agreed that using Google Classroom makes teaching and learning more efficient, meaningful and helping students achieve good results. Another research conducted by Heggart and Yoo, (2018) stated that students strongly agree using Google Classroom in teaching and learning. The results showed that students can access to the information from the same source, through a variety of devices such as laptops, mobile, iPad or any tablet anytime. According to Heggart and Yoo, (2018) the advantages of Google Classroom provide benefits to students who are unable to attend school as they can have an access to the learning materials through devices. Benny and Prakash (2017) conducted study on uses of mobile apps in teaching and learning has evaluated the various mobile apps that can improve classroom experience and increase academic performance among the students. They also found that mobile apps help in developing better relationship between teacher and students as well as making it more user friendly. Luna-Nevarez and McGovern, (2018) investigated the impact of digital magazines, which were created and distributed through mobile app Flipboard. The result of the study showed that students were exposed to the digital magazines and displayed higher levels of enjoyment with class content and better performance on a knowledge assessment. Macaluso and Hughes (2016) studied on the impact of mobile applications or apps on student learning in an introduction to psychology course. They conducted a quantitative research on 54 undergraduate students. The result in the study found that there was a significant increase in performance from pretest to post test for the app group on all measures. However, there was no difference in self-reported ratings of enjoyableness between the app and the text conditions on the worksheet activity. ISSN: 2289-8808 e-ISSN: 7210-7132 Digital Innovation Apps Evaluation MIJORiTE Vol. 3: 34 - 44 (2022)

© 2022 Institute of Teacher Education, Penang Campus 37 Alqahtani & Mohammad, (2019) focused on the impact of mobile apps (Edmodo) in learning process. The study comprised of 70 undergraduate students in an Educational Technology course between age from 21 to 23. They found students had high satisfaction and positive attitudes towards the mobile learning application. Montrieux et al., 2015 explored teachers and students perceptions concerning to the impact of using mobile devices for teaching and learning purposes. The study comprised of 18 teachers and 39 students between age 11 to 18. The result showed that the use of tablet devices in the classroom setting has an impact on both teaching and learning process for instance, teachers have changed their teaching style and have changed students’ style of learning. The researchers admitted that the tablet devices provide interactive and new teaching and learning environments. MOBILE APPS CREATION TOOLS Among the most used online tools for creating mobile applications are App Inventor, Thunkable, AppsGeyser and AppyBuilder (Voštinár, 2018). Another media application that uses blocks to create application just like App Inventor, Thunkable, AppsGeyser and AppyBuilder is Scratch. The use of Scratch application can make students to be more creative (Muhammed Khamees Ihmaid, 2017). Many research have been carried out to show the effectiveness of using Scratch in teaching (Ferrer-Mico et al., 2012; Shin et al., 2013; Gülbahar & Kalelioğlu, 2014; Park & Shin, 2014; Kobsiripat, 2014; Calao et al., 2015; Korkmaz, 2016; Papatga & Ersoy, 2016). EDUCATION APPS EVALUATION Our society is moving to Information Age which also known as the Computer Age, Digital Age, New Media Age. To cope with this new technology age, Malaysian government has invested heavily in transforming teaching and learning of Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) education including adoption of iThink and Virtual Learning Environment (VLE) Frog (Nithia, K., Yusop & Razak, 2015). The use of applications for these devices has increased rapidly in the fields of education and child development (Kalogiannakis & Papadakis, 2017). With appropriate use of content and context, these apps may give positive impact to learning. Users can personalize their experience and interactivity features in these apps encourage student engagement compared to other machine learning approaches (Papadakis, Vaiopoulou, Kalogiannakis & Stamovlasis, 2020). According to Hirsh-Pasek, Zosh, Golinkoff, Gray, Robb and Kaufman (2015), apps that designed and aimed to promote four “pillars” of learning that include “active, engaged, meaningful and socially interactive learning” are considered educational. Nevertheless, young children’s development and learning processes are less considered. These apps may fail to promote multiple aspects of young children’s cognitive and social development, could not play a key role in the education ISSN: 2289-8808 e-ISSN: 7210-7132 Digital Innovation Apps Evaluation MIJORiTE Vol. 3: 34 - 44 (2022)

© 2022 Institute of Teacher Education, Penang Campus 38 of young children (Kalogiannakis & Papadakis, 2017). How do parents, custodians or teachers choose appropriate and high-quality educational apps? Literature has presented limited assessment tools for one to check validity and reliability of educational apps (Papadakis, Vaiopoulou, Kalogiannakis & Stamovlasis, 2020). For educators, the challenge of finding a good app is not easy. Great number of educational apparatus in the market poses a problem in finding and choosing good apps. Many teachers rely on colleagues or word of mouth, or go with the first apparatus they find that meets their needs. Thus, learning how to judge an app accurately without putting too much time and money is essential (McQuiggan, Kosturko, McQuiggan & Sabourin, 2015). One of the ways to select a good application is through the use of a checklist. “A Very Good Visual on How to Evaluate Educational Apps to Use in Your Class” (2017) suggests to check from five aspects – engagement, developmental appropriateness, instructional design, motivation and accessibility. Another evaluation checklist “Great apps evaluation” guides educators to determine if the app they have chosen is good for classroom purposes. This check from purpose, alignment, pedagogical framework, personalization, sharing and access to work, ease of use, privacy, app citizenship and accessibility. The third evaluation checklist developed in the research titled “Evaluating Instructional Apps Using the App Checklist for Educators” (ACE) (Lubniewskia, McArthur & Harriott, 2017) evaluated educational apps from student interest, design features, connection to curriculum, instruction features, rating and review. In this research, the checklist developed in “Evaluating Instructional Apps Using the App Checklist for Educators” (ACE) is chosen. ACE checklist is useful, easy to use and research-based. It supports teachers and helps them to evaluate apps for today’s classrooms (Lubniewski, McArthur & Harriott, 2017). This checklist will be adapted and used as a rubric to evaluate the effectiveness of the digital innovation applications developed for education which created by the students in the Digital Innovation course. METHODOLOGY The researchers were teaching the Digital Innovation course for 6 groups of PISMP undergraduate students. The groups consisted of a total of 120 students taking four different major: (i) Tesl, (ii) Chinese Language, (iii) Mathematics and (iv) Malay Language. Digital Innovation is a two credits course in which two hours of face to face interactions that cover lectures and tutorials was conducted every week. Students were being exposed to various online digital tools that can be used for their innovation projects. They were being guided from the beginning to relate the project to solve teaching-learning problems which they have identified during their first practicum or from issues identified through literature reviews. Students were given two months to prepare a proposal for their project. A prototype of the innovation app was prepared based on the proposal which was evaluated through test-runs. The test-run results were ISSN: 2289-8808 e-ISSN: 7210-7132 Digital Innovation Apps Evaluation MIJORiTE Vol. 3: 34 - 44 (2022)

© 2022 Institute of Teacher Education, Penang Campus 39 documented and submitted as a report for assessment. Finally, students present their innovations orally. Some of the apps selected for the evaluation in this research were shown in Figure 1. Figure 1 Apps Developed By Students “zhuang lian xiong di” apps “wu di zhuang yuan” apps “StoryGo!” Apps “Vocabularace” Apps This research used a qualitative approach to evaluate innovation apps developed by the students using an evaluation rubric. The evaluation rubric was adapted from Lubniewski, McArthur and Harriott (2018) ACE checklist. The rubric evaluates four aspects: Student Interest, Design Features, Connection to Curriculum and Instructional Features of the apps. Each aspect of the rubric has four analytic evaluation categories for the SMEs to check on. The categories are: Strongly Agree, Agree, Disagree, Strongly Disagree. The SMEs are the lecturers from the institute teaching the four majors taken by the students. Since the content of the apps developed were related to the major taken by the students, thus purposeful sampling method was used. Purposeful sampling is used in qualitative research to identify and select phenomenon of interest (Palinkas, et al., 2015). The phenomenon of interest in this research were the innovation apps developed by the students for the four majors and the SMEs involved to evaluate the apps. A total of 16 innovation apps (4 apps from each major) were selected to be evaluated by 8 SMEs (2 SMEs from each major). Figure 2 showed the conceptual framework for the research. ISSN: 2289-8808 e-ISSN: 7210-7132 Digital Innovation Apps Evaluation MIJORiTE Vol. 3: 34 - 44 (2022)

© 2022 Institute of Teacher Education, Penang Campus 40 Figure 2 Research Conceptual Framework FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS Data analysis for the evaluation checklist on Student Interest aspect showed that all the SMEs have positive findings that the apps were easy to use, suitable for the student’s developmental level and the apps can increase students’ interest in the topic. As for the aspect on Design Features, all SMEs found that the apps layout is attractive and have graphics as well as aimations. Even though majority (93.75%) of the SMEs found that the apps layout is clear and provide performance feedback to students, minority (6.25%) of them disagree with these findings. The SMEs findings on “educators access to student performance data” in the apps have equal views from those who say “the apps have” and those who say otherwise. Majority (68.75%) of the SMEs found that the apps do not collect data over multiple uses. Data analysis for the aspect on Connection to Curriculum showed that all the SMEs found that the apps have content closely related to the DSKP, matches with student learning skills and aligns with student learning outcome. Even though majority (93.75%) of the SMEs found that the apps have content that is applied to real world situations and content that can improve students’ academic skills, minority (6.25%) of them do not agree with these. The SMEs have almost equal positive (56.25%) and negative views (43.75%) on the findings that the apps have content which improves students’ critical thinking skills. Data analysis for Instruction Features aspect show that majority (93.75%) of the SMEs found that the apps require students to memorize basic facts even though there are some who found it otherwise (6.25%). Majority of the SMEs (75%) found that the apps do not require students to explain ideas and concepts. SMEs have equal positive and negative views on the finding that the apps requires students to apply information to various situations. Majority of the SMEs (81.25%) found that the apps requires students to make connection among concepts. Similarly, majority of them (75%) also found that the apps require students to create original work. From the comments given by the SMEs, it has shown clearly that majority of the SMEs like these learning apps and will recommend these application to other teachers. According to the SMEs, game-like applications can motivate students to learn. It makes ISSN: 2289-8808 e-ISSN: 7210-7132 Digital Innovation Apps Evaluation MIJORiTE Vol. 3: 34 - 44 (2022)

© 2022 Institute of Teacher Education, Penang Campus 41 learning more interesting. One SME suggested that teachers could use the applications for revision purposes but not for teaching. Other SMEs suggested that some of these applications need to be modified and improved for better usage. One SMEs who evaluated “FracXD” application has suggested not to recommend the application to other teachers as some improvement needs to be made on it. More examples should be added and single diagram should be used to illustrate the addition of two proper fraction ¼ + ½ =¾. The SMEs also suggested that the task for “Kembara” (Tour) to add some creative design and different representational skill for addition of fractions (e.g. ½ + 1/3 can be presented as ½ + ) as well as to add complexity to increase pupils concreteabstract skill. As for the application “Divisioninja”, the SMEs suggested to add “pause” button and also more explanation as well as instructioin on “back to / exit puzzle” into it. More on different types of practices like “choose and clicks” or “fill in the blanks” from given numbers should also be added. In addition to that, the application should have clear instruction(s), more challenging timing for quizzes and more examples for division using standard written format. SMEs for the application “Jojo’s length adventure” only suggested to add in expressions like “teruskan usaha” and ”jangan putus asa”. Comments are also given by the SMEs to improve the interactivity, functionality, content accuracy and presentation for the applications “wu di zhuang yuan” and “zhuang lian xiong di”. SMEs also commented that the “Story Go” application should correct some grammatical, punctuation and content errors found in it. For “It’s Vocabularace Time”, suggestions like “improve the instruction sentence structure and layout”, “avoid animated objects during instruction” and “access to internet connection” are given by the SMEs. For the application “KASENDIMA”, there is no suggestion given for further improvement. All of the SMEs agree that the applications created are suitable for use by school. They also agree that the design of the applications are good (73.47%) but some are lacking in interactivity. Contents of the applications are aligned with the primary school curriculum (89.58%). The SMEs also agreed that the instructional features are good (45%). However, some of the instructional content need to be improved. In addition to that, there are also some technical flaws during the implementation of the applications. These technical issues could be rectified to improve the effectiveness of the applications. These research findings implied that students taking the Digital Innnovation course have the technology and content competency to develop reasonably good digital applications for teaching and learning. Based on the TPACK framework (Koehler & Mishra, 2009), the course could be inferred as successful in equipping these student teachers to integrate technology with the content knowledge (TCK) for teaching and learning. TCK is defined as knowledge about how to use technology to represent/research and create the content in different ways without consideration about teaching (Cox & Graham, 2009; Koehler & Mishra, 2009; Mishra & Koehler, 2006). ISSN: 2289-8808 e-ISSN: 7210-7132 Digital Innovation Apps Evaluation MIJORiTE Vol. 3: 34 - 44 (2022)

© 2022 Institute of Teacher Education, Penang Campus 42 CONCLUSION Overall, students taking Digital Innovation course have the technology and content competency to develop reasonably good digital apps for teaching and learning. The apps created are suitable for use by school students, the design of the applications are good, the instructional features are good, contents of the applications are aligned with the primary school curriculum. Nevertheless, there are some lacking in interactivity, some of the instructional content need to be improved and there are also some technical flaws during the implementation of the apps. All these lacking could be rectified to improve the effectiveness of the apps. In addition, interactivity and content areas should be taken into deeper consideration to avoid drill-and-practice-style on a low level of thinking skills which promote rote learning, and unable to contribute to a deeper conceptual understanding of certain concepts (Papadakis, Kalogiannakis & Zaranis, 2017). The main contribution from this research is empirical data that prove the effectiveness of the Digital Innovation course that have been implemented. Even though these findings could not be generalized to other teacher education institutues on the effectiveness of the course, nevertheless the data could be a source of reference for Malaysian Qualifications Agency (MQA) during audit. REFERENCES Benny, A. P., & G S, P. (2017). Uses of mobile apps in teaching and learning. IOSR Journal of Humanities and Social Science (IOSR-JHSS), 22(12), 38–40. Cox, S., & Graham, C. R. (2009). Diagramming TPACK in practice: Using an elaborated model of the TPACK framework to analyze and depict teacher knowledge. Tech Trends: Linking Research & Practice to Improve Learning, 53(5), 60-69. Ferrer-Mico, T., Prats-Fernàndez, M., & Redo-Sanchez, A. (2012). Impact of Scratch programming on students´ understanding of their own learning process. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences. 46, 1219 – 1223. Flewitt, R., Kucirkova, N., & Messer, D. (2014). Touching the virtual, touching the real: iPads and enabling literacy for students experiencing disability. Australian Journal of Language & Literacy, 37(2), 107-116. Gülbahar, F., &Kalelioğlu, Y. (2014). The effects of teaching programming via Scratch on problem solving skills: A Discussion from Learners’ Perspective, 13(1), 33–50. Gunadarma University, Jakarta. Harjanto, A. S., & Sumarni, S. (2019). Teacher’s experiences on the use of Google Classroom. 3rd English Language and Literature International Conference (ELLiC), 3, 172–178. Heggart, K. R., & Yoo, J. (2018). Getting the most from Google Classroom: A pedagogical framework for tertiary educators. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 43(3), 140– 153. Hirsh-Pasek, K., Zosh, J. M., Golinkoff, R. M., Gray, J. H., Robb, M. B., & Kaufman, J. (2015). Putting education in “educational” apps lessons from the science of learning. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 16(1), 3-34. Kalogiannakis & Papadakis. An evaluation of Greek educational android apps for preschoolers. (2017). Esera 2017 Conference, 21-25th August. Dublin City University. Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia. (2017). Buku Panduan Akademik Sesi 2017/2018 Program Ijazah Sarjana Muda Perguruan Dengan Kepujian (PISMP). Kuala Lumpur. ISSN: 2289-8808 e-ISSN: 7210-7132 Digital Innovation Apps Evaluation MIJORiTE Vol. 3: 34 - 44 (2022)