Prosiding Persidangan Penyelidikan Pendidikan Peringkat Kebangsaan XVI Tahun 2022

394 Learning Initiative Malaysia (DELIMa) atau pelantar pembelajaran lain yang sesuai dan membolehkan guru mengakses Google Classroom serta aplikasi pembelajaran seperti Quizizz, Kahoot, Wordwall, Padlet dan sebagainya. Pelbagai aktiviti pembelajaran seperti kerja projek, kuiz, pembentangan, tunjuk cara dan lain-lain boleh dilakukan secara dalam talian dengan menggunakan pelantar pembelajaran yang sesuai. 3.3 Pelaporan PBD bagi Tahun 6 dan Tingkatan 3 Pada akhir sesi persekolahan, guru perlu menentukan Tahap Penguasaan Keseluruhan bagi sesuatu mata pelajaran. Tahap Penguasaan Keseluruhan ini merangkumi aspek pengetahuan, kemahiran dan nilai. Untuk itu, guru perlu mentaksir murid secara menyeluruh dan holistik dengan melihat pelbagai aspek semasa proses pembelajaran murid secara berterusan melalui pelbagai kaedah seperti pencapaian mereka dalam ujian topikal, pemerhatian, latihan, pembentangan, respon murid secara lisan, kerja projek, produk dan sebagainya. Guru hendaklah menentukan Tahap Penguasaan Keseluruhan berdasarkan pengetahuan, pengalaman, tanggungjawab profesional dan input murid serta perbincangan dengan rakan sejawat dalam mata pelajaran yang sama. Tahap penguasaan dilaporkan menggunakan templat pelaporan yang disediakan dalam fail Microsoft Excel dan boleh dicapai di portal BPK (bpk.moe.gov.my). Selaras dengan pemansuhan UPSR dan pembatalan PT3, terdapat beberapa perkara yang perlu diberi fokus agar ketekalan dan kebolehpercayaan PBD pada tahap yang optimum. BPK telah menambah baik pelaporan kelas PBD bagi Tahun 6 dan Tingkatan 3 dengan mengadakan penerangan ringkas (rubrik tafsiran umum) bagi setiap tahap penguasaan untuk kefahaman ibu bapa. Guru kelas juga diberikan panduan untuk menulis ulasan yang komprehensif meliputi pengetahuan, kemahiran dan nilai untuk setiap murid bagi membolehkan pelaporan PBD ini digunakan dalam permohonan ke sekolah khusus. Selain daripada itu, guru kelas boleh melaporkan aspek tingkah laku, bakat, minat dan kecenderungan murid. Ini membolehkan pelaporan digunakan oleh murid tahun 6 dan tingkatan 3 memohon ke sekolah khusus. Sejajar dengan pembatalan PT3 juga, pelaporan PBD yang komprehensif ini menjadi asas dalam pemilihan Pakej Tingkatan Empat. 3.4 Penjaminan Kualiti Peringkat Sekolah/PPD/JPN Penjaminan kualiti meliputi proses 4P iaitu pementoran, penyelarasan, pemantauan dan pengesanan. Proses ini akan diberi tumpuan yang khusus di peringkat sekolah dengan sokongan PPD dan JPN. Bimbingan berterusan kepada Pengetua dan Guru Besar (PGB) oleh IAB dan SIP+ dengan sokongan PPD dan JPN akan terus diperkasakan lagi agar proses 4P dilaksanakan dengan lebih berkesan. Pemantauan yang mantap serta tindakan ‘follow-up’ dan follow-through’ diperlukan di peringkat daerah dan negeri. Selain daripada itu, pemantauan berkala daripada KPM yang melibatkan BPK, LP dan BPSH dan semua bahagian operasi juga perlu ditambah baik untuk mengesan pelaksanaan penjaminan kualiti di semua peringkat sekolah, PPD dan JPN. Penjaminan kualiti yang baik akan memastikan pelaksanaan PBD yang berterusan, berkesan dan berkualiti.

395 3.5 Latihan dan Bimbingan Latihan dan bimbingan secara berterusan kepada guru-guru bermula dengan guru praperkhidmatan dan juga guru dalam perkhidmatan. Coaching & Mentoring kepada guru yang dijalankan oleh IPGM/BPG dan SISCA perlu dilihat kembali, diperhalusi dan penambahbaikan perlu dilakukan selaras dengan perubahan semasa yang berlaku. Coaching & Mentoring kepada pemimpin dan pentadbir sekolah iaitu Pengetua/Guru Besar (PGB) oleh IAB juga perlu diperkasakan lagi dengan sokongan dan bantuan SIP+, PPD dan JPN. PGB yang masih kurang menguasai pelaksanaan PBD perlu dikenal pasti dan coaching & mentoring yang bersasar perlu dilakukan. Penglibatan IAB di semua cawangan dengan bantuan SIP+ perlu digemblengkan sepenuhnya bagi memastikan follow-up dan follow-through perancangan pemerkasaan PBD berjalan sepertimana yang telah dirancang. Sebagai rumusan, pemerkasaan PBD memerlukan kerjasama bahagian KPM, JPN, PPD dan seterusnya peringkat sekolah. Penyelarasan di setiap peringkat amat diperlukan bagi memastikan penjaminan kualiti yang merupakan piawaian untuk menentukan kualiti pelaksanaan PBD mengikut garis panduan yang ditetapkan dapat dilaksanakan dengan berkesan. Kualiti hendaklah menjadi keutamaan dalam semua aspek dan peringkat pentaksiran. Pentaksiran yang berkualiti akan menghasilkan maklumat yang tepat dan menunjukkan perkembangan pembelajaran dan tahap penguasaan murid. Maklumat yang tepat boleh membantu guru dan juga murid melakukan perubahan yang sewajarnya bagi tujuan meningkatkan pengajaran dan pembelajaran. Inisiatif-inisiatif dalam pemerkasaan PBD memberikan hala tuju yang jelas dalam pelaksanaan PBD. 4.0 KESIMPULAN Pelaksanaan PBD yang berkesan bukan sahaja menyumbang kepada suasana pembelajaran yang menyeronokkan, malah ia juga merupakan kaedah pentaksiran yang autentik tanpa memberi tekanan kepada murid. Pentaksiran formatif yang berterusan dan pentaksiran sumatif yang dilakukan adalah untuk memberi fokus kepada perkembangan dan penguasaan murid dalam pembelajaran dan bukanlah untuk tujuan persaingan. Pelaksanaan PBD memerlukan guru memahami Standard Kandungan, Standard Pembelajaran dan Standard Prestasi di samping pelbagai kaedah pentaksiran. Murid juga perlu dimaklumkan tentang aspek atau kriteria yang ditaksir. Keadaan ini membolehkan murid ditaksir dengan adil dan dalam keadaan mereka tahu serta bersedia untuk ditaksir. Laporan pentaksiran seperti Tahap Penguasaan murid juga perlu dimaklumkan kepada murid dan ibu bapa agar semua pihak tahu dan seterusnya boleh mengambil tindakan susulan yang sesuai ke arah meningkatkan penguasaan murid dalam pembelajaran mereka. Pentaksiran merupakan sebahagian daripada PdP. Pentaksiran dalam bilik darjah ini menyumbang kepada pembentukan modal insan yang holistik dan seimbang seperti dihasratkan oleh Falsafah Pendidikan Kebangsaan. Pelaksanaan pentaksiran yang berterusan dalam bilik darjah diharap dapat diperkasakan dan dibudayakan oleh pihak sekolah. Pembudayaan PBD dalam kalangan guru berupaya menghasilkan anjakan kepada pendidikan yang tidak berorientasikan peperiksaan.

396 RUJUKAN Abdullah, N., Wong, K. T., Zaini, S. H., Ali, S. R., & Hasan, M. (2020). Science teacher’s teaching practise in the implementation of 21st century education in classroom. PalArch’s Journal of Archaeology of Egypt/Egyptology, 17(9), 933-941. Acar-Erdol, T., & Yildizli, H. (2018). Classroom assessment practices of teachers in Turkey. International Journal of Instruction, 11(3), 587–602. Ahmad, A. & Mahamod, Z. (2016). Tahap Kemahiran Guru Bahasa Melayu Sekolah Menengah dalam Melaksanakan Pentaksiran Berasaskan Sekolah Berdasarkan Jantina, Opsyen dan Tempat Mengajar. Jurnal Pendidikan Bahasa Melayu,5(1),18-29 Ali, R.M., & Veloo, A. (2017). Teachers’ autonomy and accountability in assessing Students’physical education in school-based assessment. In I. H. Amzat & N. P. Valdez (Eds.), Teacher development and towards professional empowerment practices perspectives ccross borders (p. 71). Spingers Ali, A. J., Abdullah, A. G. K., & Mohammad, I. (2019). Amalan pengupayaan dan autonomi guru dalam pembelajaran dan pemudahcaraan abad ke-21. Jurnal Kepimpinan Pendidikan, 6(Januari), 49–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tca.2018.07.022 Anniliza Mohd Isa, Al-Amin Mydin, Abdul Ghani Kanesan Abdullah, & Wan Fadhlurrahman Md Rasidi. (2020). Transformasi pendidikan tahap 1: Peperiksaan ke pentaksiran bilik darjah (PBD), kesan terhadap autonomi guru. Dalam Nurul Fadly Habidin, Tuan Waheda Tuan Chik, Sharon Yong Yee Ong, Ummu Aiman Muhammad, & Nursyazwani Mohd Fuzi, Isu dan cabaran dalam pendidikan: Strategi dan inovasi (pp. 218–231). Kaizentrenovation Sdn. Bhd. Aniza, A. & Zamri, M. (2015). Tahap kemahiran guru Bahasa Melayu sekolah menengah dalam melaksanakan pentaksiran berasaskan sekolah berdasarkan jantina, opsyen dan tempat mengajar. Jurnal Pendidikan Bahasa Melayu 5(1): 18-29. Arumugham, K.S (2020). Curriculum, Teaching and Assessment in The Perspective of Classroom Assessment. Asian People Journal, 3(1), 152-161. Bahagian Pembangunan Kurikulum. (2019). Panduan pelaksanaan pentaksiran bilik darjah Ed. ke-2. Putrajaya: Bahagian Pembangunan Kurikulum, Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia. Bahagian Pembangunan Kurikulum. (2017). Kurikulum Standard Sekolah Rendah (KSSR) (Semakan 2017) Kerangka kurikulum mata pelajaran. Putrajaya: Bahagian Pembangunan Kurikulum, Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia Black, P. (1998). Formative assessment: raising standards inside the classroom. School Science Review, 80(291), 39-49.

397 Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2018). Classroom assessment and pedagogy. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 25(6), 551-575. DeLuca, C., & Johnson, S. (2017). Developing assessment capable teachers in this age of accountability. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 24(2), 121-126. Gurnam, K. S., Sarjit, K., & Lee, J. C. (2018). CEFR-aligned school-based assessment in the Malaysian primary ESL classroom. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 8(2), 452-463. https://doi:org/10.17509/ijal.v8i2.13311 Guskey, T. R., & Jung, L. A. (2013). Answers to essential questions about standards, assessments, grading, and reporting. Corwin Press. Idris, Noorzeliana, Norazilawati Abdullah, & Saniah Sembak. (2014) “Isu dan cabaran pentaksiran berasaskan sekolah dalam kalangan guru.” In Proceding International Conference on Teachers Education, Brunei Retrived from http://www. academia. edu. Idris, N. (2016). Penilaian pelaksanaan pentaksiran berasaskan sekolah dalam kalangan guru. Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris. Ilhavenil N., Logeswari A., Siew S.K & Sudiman Musa. (2020). Teachers’ Perceptions on the Implementation of KSSR (Revised 2017) and KSSM: An Online Survey. Jurnal Kurikulum, 5, 153-163. Ilhavenil Narinasamy & Noraidah Nordin. (2018). Implementing classroom assessment in Malaysia:an investigation. Jurnal Kurikulum, 3, 55-63. Karen Reenai Hillson & Maslawati Mohamad (2020). The evaluation of classroom based reading assessment using context, input, process and product model. Prosiding on Regional Conference on Lesson Study (ReCoLS 2020), 113- 126 Lim, H.L., Wun, T.Y. & Chew, C.M. (2014). Enhancing Malaysian teachers’ assessment literacy. International Education Studies 7(10): 74-82. Mahaya Salleh, Azizah Sarkowi, Mohd Fairuz Jafar, Zakaria Mohd Arif & Hariyanti Abd Hamid. (2019).Tahap literasi guru terhadap pendekatan dalam pentaksiran bilik darjah. Seminar Antarabangsa Isu-Isu Pendidikan (ISPEN 2019). 12-24 Pattalitan Jr, A. P. (2016). The implications of learning theories to assessment and instructional scaffolding techniques. American Journal of Educational Research, 4(9), 696-700. http://pubs.sciepub.com/education/4/9/9 Rosli, R., Mokhsein, S. E., & Suppian, Z. (2022). Classroom Assessment Practices in Malaysian Primary Schools: A Meta-Analysis. Development, 11(1), 97-111. Rosli, S., Mahmud, S. F., & Azni, M. E. (2022). Mengintegrasi Falsafah Pendidikan Kebangsaan (FPK) Dalam Membangunkan Modal Insan Bersepadu. Jurnal Dunia Pendidikan, 4(1), 86-103.

398 Salleh, M., Sarkowi, A., Jafar, M. F., Arif, Z. M., & Hamid, H. A. (2019). Tahap literasi guru terhadap pendekatan dalam pentaksiran bilik darjah. Seminar Antarabangsa Isu-Isu Pendidikan (ISPEN 2019), 12–24. Siti Nor Aisah Moktar, Zaliza Hanapi, Tee, T.K., Suriani Mohamed & Ridzwan Che Rus.(2018). Kesediaan, Penerimaan Dan Pengoperasian Guru Reka Bentuk dan Teknologi Terhadap Amalan dalam Pentaksiran Berasaskan Sekolah. Sains Humanika,10(3-3), 89-94 Stillman, S. B., Stillman, P., Martinez, L., Freedman, J., Jensen, A. L., & Leet, C. (2018). Strengthening social emotional learning with student, teacher, and schoolwide assessments. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 55, 71–92. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.appdev.2017.07.010 Tante, A. C. (2018). Primary School Teachers’ Classroom-based Assessment Feedback Culture in English Language.International Journal of Educational Research Review,3(4),32-47. Wan Omar, S. H. (2019). Pengetahuan, Kemahiran, Sikap dan Masalah Guru Dalam Melaksanakan Pentaksiran Bilik Darjah Bahasa Melayu di Sekolah Rendah. Jurnal Pendidikan Bahasa Melayu, 9(3),56-67. Wiliam, D., & Leahy, S. (2015). Embedding formative assessment. FL: Learning Sciences International. Wong L.L, Osman, K., & Maat, S. M. (2018). Analisis Faktor Pengesahan bagi Instrumen Pengetahuan Guru Matematik Sekolah Rendah dalam Pentaksiran Berasaskan Sekolah (Confirmatory Factor Analysis of Primary Mathematics Teachers’ SchoolBased Assessment Knowledge Instrument). Jurnal Pendidikan Malaysia (Malaysian Journal of Education), 43(1SI), 11-20. Yates, A., & Johnston, M. (2018). The impact of school-based assessment for qualifications on teachers’ conceptions of assessment. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 25(6), 638-654. Yuh, T. J., & Kenayathulla, H. B. (2020). Pentaksiran Bilik Darjah dan prestasi murid Sekolah Jenis Kebangsaan Cina di Hulu Langat, Selangor. JuPiDi: Jurnal Kepimpinan Pendidikan, 7(3), 70-90. Zhao, X., Heuvel-Panhuizen, M. V. D. & Veldhuis, M. (2017). Classroom assessment in the eyes of Chinese primary mathematics teachers: a review of teacher-written papers. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 52, 42-54. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016%2Fj. stueduc.2016.12.002

399 KEMAHIRAN BERFIKIR ARAS TINGGI (KBAT): ANALISIS ITEM DAN PENCAPAIAN CALON SPM 2020 DR. FARIDAH JURAIME, LAILY FAZLIN KHAIRIL, DR. BAIDRUEL HAIRIEL ABD RAHIM, DR. RAHIMAH ADAM Lembaga Peperiksaan, KPM [email protected] ABSTRAK Menjawab item Kemahiran Berfikir Aras Tinggi (KBAT) dalam peperiksaan Sijil Pelajaran Malaysia (SPM) menuntut calon menggunakan kemahiran mengaplikasi, menganalisis, menilai, mencipta dan membuat refleksi berkenaan ilmu yang dipelajari dalam penyelesaian masalah yang dikemukakan dalam kertas peperiksaan SPM. Kajian ini menganalisis item KBAT bagi peperiksaan SPM tahun 2020. Kajian ini dilaksanakan untuk mengenal pasti keupayaan dan kualiti jawapan calon dalam menjawab item KBAT SPM 2020. Untuk tujuan kajian item KBAT ini, kaedah kuantitatif digunakan iaitu menggunakan skor jawapan item KBAT calon bagi sembilan mata pelajaran iaitu Bahasa Melayu, Bahasa Inggeris, Sejarah, Matematik, Sains, Matematik Tambahan, Fizik, Kimia dan Biologi. Analisis mendapati keupayaan calon menjawab item KBAT SPM 2020 secara keseluruhan menunjukkan peningkatan berbanding tahun 2019, dengan konstruk mencipta merupakan konstruk yang paling dikuasai oleh calon peperiksaan SPM 2020. Kata kunci: Kemahiran Berfikir Aras Tinggi (KBAT), Sijil Pelajaran Malaysia (SPM), analisis item, kuantitatif

400 1.0 PENGENALAN Kemahiran berfikir boleh didefinisikan sebagai proses menggunakan minda untuk mencari makna dan pemahaman terhadap sesuatu, menerokai pelbagai kemungkinan idea atau ciptaan, membuat keputusan dan menyelesaikan masalah dan seterusnya, membuat refleksi dan meta kognitif terhadap proses yang dialami (Lembaga Peperiksaan, 2013). Kemahiran Berfikir Aras Tinggi (KBAT) pula didefinisikan sebagai keupayaan untuk mengaplikasikan pengetahuan, kemahiran dan nilai dalam membuat penaakulan dan refleksi bagi menyelesaikan masalah, membuat keputusan, berinovasi dan mencipta sesuatu. Pelaksanaan KBAT di sekolah menggunakan pendekatan yang menyeluruh dan sistematik yang mengandungi tiga elemen utama iaitu kurikulum, pedagogi dan pentaksiran serta empat elemen sokongan iaitu kokurikulum, sokongan komuniti dan swasta, sumber dan bina upaya. Elemen kurikulum menerapkan unsur KBAT menerusi penulisan secara eksplisit dalam dokumen standard kurikulum yang menekankan keupayaan murid mengaplikasi, menganalisis, menilai dan mencipta (Bahagian Pembangunan Kurikulum, 2014). Seterusnya, pedagogi yang berkesan pula perlu diaplikasikan dalam bilik darjah agar murid boleh berfikir secara kritis dan kreatif, inovatif dan berupaya menyelesaikan masalah dalam kehidupan seharian. Pendekatan pengajaran dan pembelajaran (PdP) berfokus kepada murid seperti inkuiri, penyelesaian masalah berstruktur, projek, konstruktivisme, kontekstual dan kajian masa depan merupakan teras dalam pembelajaran (Surif et al., 2016). Akhirnya, kerangka pentaksiran yang mantap dapat mengetahui perkembangan dan pencapaian murid dalam menyelesaikan soalan aras kesukaran tinggi (Awang Ali et al., 2016). KBAT dalam konteks Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia (KPM) terdiri daripada empat konstruk. Konstruk pertama ialah mengaplikasi iaitu murid mampu menggunakan pengetahuan, kemahiran dan nilai berkaitan fakta, konsep, prinsip dan peraturan dengan betul, tepat, terperinci serta mendalam dalam situasi baharu. Konstruk kedua ialah menganalisis iaitu murid mampu menginterpretasikan maklumat yang diperoleh dengan betul serta memberi penerangan terperinci dan jelas berserta bukti yang tepat. Konstruk ketiga pula ialah menilai iaitu murid mampu membuat kesimpulan yang bernas dan tepat. Akhirnya, konstruk keempat ialah mencipta iaitu murid mampu menghasilkan idea baharu yang kreatif dan menarik dengan mengemukakan kaedah serta strategi dalam penyelesaian masalah (Bahagian Pembangunan Kurikulum, 2014). Item KBAT mula diperkenalkan dalam kertas peperiksaan SPM pada tahun 2014 untuk menguji keupayaan calon menggunakan kemahiran mengaplikasi, menganalisis, menilai dan mencipta untuk menyelesaikan masalah, membuat keputusan, berinovasi dan akhirnya, berupaya mencipta sesuatu (Lembaga Peperiksaan, 2013). Peratusan item KBAT dalam kertas peperiksaan SPM bermula dengan 20% pada tahun 2014 dan ditingkatkan secara berperingkat sehingga tahun 2021 seperti dipaparkan dalam Rajah 1.

401 Rajah 1 Peratusan Item KBAT dalam Kertas Peperiksaan 2.0 PERNYATAAN MASALAH Peratusan item KBAT telah meningkat sebanyak 20% pada tahun 2020 berbanding tahun pertama (2014) KBAT diperkenalkan dalam kertas peperiksaan SPM iaitu 40% daripada keseluruhan item dalam kertas peperiksaan. Satu kajian telah dijalankan oleh Lembaga Peperiksaan untuk mengenal pasti keupayaan calon menjawab kertas peperiksaan SPM 2020 yang mengandungi 40% item KBAT. Setiap item yang telah disenaraikan sebagai item KBAT dan kategori konstruknya dianalisis untuk mengenal pasti tahap keupayaan calon dalam menjawab item KBAT dan tahap kualiti jawapan item KBAT calon berdasarkan empat konstruk KBAT iaitu mengaplikasi, menganalisis, menilai dan mencipta. Kajian ini dilaksanakan sebagai keperluan menjamin kualiti kertas peperiksaan SPM. Kajian menganalisis item KBAT dalam kertas peperiksaan masih kurang dijalankan di Malaysia. 3.0 OBJEKTIF KAJIAN Objektif kajian ini adalah seperti berikut: i. mengenal pasti keupayaan calon menjawab item KBAT dalam SPM 2020; dan ii. mengenal pasti kualiti jawapan calon bagi item KBAT mengikut konstruk. 4.0 TINJAUAN LITERATUR Kajian terdahulu berkaitan KBAT lebih tertumpu kepada PdP, kesediaan, penglibatan, kefahaman, kompetensi dan pengetahuan guru-guru dalam KBAT. Berdasarkan satu analisis kajian yang telah dijalankan ke atas 20 item mata pelajaran Matematik tingkatan Satu untuk tajuk pecahan, analisis mendapati bahawa min bagi kesemua bahagian iaitu pengetahuan, kandungan item, kegunaan praktikal item dan kualiti item KBAT telah dirujuk kepada pakar yang terlibat dan seterusnya, dapat diguna pakai untuk PdPc mata pelajaran dan topik berkenaan (Adnan et al., 2018).

402 Seterusnya, dalam menilai item, penglibatan pakar melalui kepelbagaian perisian dan teknik juga penting bagi kebanyakan penyelidik contohnya, penggunaan teknik Fuzzy Delphi dilihat penting untuk mengenal pasti penerapan KBAT dalam PdP. Kajian yang dilakukan oleh (Syed Khalis dan rakan-rakan, 2019), pakar penilai dilihat sepakat terhadap pelaksanaan guru dalam kemahiran berfikir aras tinggi dalam PdP dengan nilai threshold (d) ≤0.2 malah pemikiran kritis dan konsep KBAT juga turut dilihat seiring dan sejalan. Namun demikian, secara teorinya, konsep pemikiran kritis adalah bersifat holistik terutamanya dengan kehadiran unsur kognitif dan afektif dalam cara dan proses berfikir (Mohd Zhaffar et al., 2017). Selain itu, terdapat juga kajian aplikasi KBAT untuk mata pelajaran Pendidikan Islam dan berdasarkan analisis dokumen ke atas kajian-kajian lepas dan kitab al-Quran mendapati Kemahiran Berfikir Aras Tinggi dalam Pendidikan Islam terbahagi mengikut pecahan bidang ilmu yang terdapat dalamnya (Wan Ali, Nursafra & Ab Halim, 2020). Fokus kajian KBAT yang melibatkan guru-guru dalam beberapa buah mata pelajaran melihat kepada keterlibatan, kesediaan, kompetensi, kefahaman dan pengetahuan mereka berkaitan KBAT. Kajian yang dilaksanakan ke atas 143 orang guru Sejarah mendapati bahawa kesediaan guru berada pada tahap sederhana namun positif terhadap perlaksanaan KBAT (Abdullah & Darusalam, 2018). Kajian berkenaan KBAT ini juga melihat tahap kompetensi guru dalam perlaksanaan KBAT dengan mengambil kira aspek perbezaan jantina dan opsyen mengajar. Seterusnya, kajian ke atas 100 guru Sejarah opsyen dan bukan opsyen mendapati bahawa tahap kompetensi dalam perlaksanaan KBAT berada pada tahap yang tinggi dan tiada impak yang signifikan terhadap KBAT dari aspek opsyen pengajaran dan gender (Fathizaki et al., 2021). Selain mata pelajaran sejarah, terdapat juga kajian berkaitan KBAT yang dijalankan ke atas guru. Analisis menunjukkan kesediaan guru berada pada tahap memuaskan (Siaw Wei & Hoon, 2020). Selain melihat kepada data yang mengukur kesediaan dilaksanakan ke atas guru-guru Bahasa Cina, satu kajian untuk mengenal pasti tahap kefahaman dan pelaksanaan KBAT guru-guru Bahasa Cina di sekolah telah dilaksanakan dan dapatan menunjukkan bahawa tahap pemahaman dan pengetahuan guru berada pada tahap sederhana. Kajian KBAT yang memberi fokus kepada kualiti PdPc dan perlaksanaan KBAT dalam kalangan guru juga dijalankan. Seterusnya, dalam konteks PdPc dan pelaksanaan KBAT, penggunaan Cognitive Research Trust (CoRT) sangat membantu. Namun demikian, kajian yang dijalankan ke atas guru-guru yang mengajar di sekolah Orang Asli menunjukkan penggunaan CoRT adalah pada peringkat sederhana sahaja dalam membantu proses KBAT di sekolah (Sarudin et al., 2020). Akhirnya, elemen KBAT seperti kemahiran mencerakinkan maklumat, menyiasat, mengaplikasi, menggambarkan dan mengelaskan turut menjadi fokus dalam sesi pengajaran dan pembelajaran pada peringkat prasekolah atau tadika. Dapatan kajian menunjukkan guru telah melaksanakan KBAT dalam PdP di peringkat tadika dan prasekolah (Nachiappan et al., 2019). Seterusnya, kajian yang melibatkan murid-murid turut melihat perkaitan antara KBAT dengan aktiviti Pembelajaran Abad ke-21 seperti dalam mata pelajaran Bahasa Melayu, dan penggunaan teknik menyoal dalam PdPc turut memberi impak kepada pelaksanaan KBAT. Kajian Peng dan Zul Hazmi (2018) mendapati tahap penguasaan murid terhadap aspek KBAT adalah memuaskan dan tiada perbezaan yang ketara antara praktis penyoalan

403 KBAT guru dengan latar belakang murid. Kajian berkaitan kemahiran menulis dalam Bahasa Melayu menunjukkan tahap kesediaan, sikap dan pengetahuan terhadap KBAT adalah tinggi serta terdapat pengaruh yang signifikan antara sikap dan kesediaan pelajar mengenai KBAT iaitu dalam kemahiran menulis berdasarkan jantina (Peng & Nur Juliana, 2021). Akhirnya, pengujian KBAT menerusi penulisan karangan Bahasa Melayu menunjukkan KBAT untuk penulisan terutamanya karangan adalah pada tahap sederhana (Norul Haida et al., 2019). Satu kajian tindakan berkaitan mata pelajaran Sains telah dilaksanakan bagi melihat keberkesanan KBAT dan pemikiran kritis melalui bimbingan guru dan rakan pembimbing yang melibatkan murid-murid tingkatan Tiga. Analisis mendapati murid lebih yakin untuk menjawab item KBAT apabila mendapat bimbingan guru dan rakan-rakan. Dapatan praujian dan ujian pos bagi mata pelajaran Sains menunjukkan peningkatan sebanyak 40% (Siti Sarah & Lilia, 2021). Akhirnya, aktiviti KBAT sering kali dikaitkan dengan Pembelajaran Abad ke-21 dan kajian yang melibatkan sampel sebanyak 200 pelajar tingkatan Empat bagi mengenal pasti tahap dan hubungan di antara aktviti KBAT dan pembelajaran abad ke-21, keterlibatan pelajar adalah pada tahap sederhana tinggi (Irwan Fariza et al., 2019). 5.0 METODOLOGI KAJIAN Kajian yang dijalankan ini menggunakan pendekatan kuantitatif dengan menganalisis skor item KBAT semua calon SPM 2020 bagi 16 kertas peperiksaan subjektif daripada Sembilan mata pelajaran iaitu Bahasa Melayu, Bahasa Inggeris, Sejarah, Matematik, Sains, Matematik Tambahan, Fizik, Kimia dan Biologi berdasarkan senarai item yang dikemukakan oleh pembina bagi setiap kertas peperiksaan SPM 2020. Calon SPM 2020 dikategorikan berdasarkan tiga tahap pencapaian bagi keseluruhan kertas peperiksaan SPM 2020 iaitu Cemerlang, Baik dan Berpotensi. Kualiti jawapan item KBAT calon dianalisis berdasarkan pencapaian tahap tinggi, sederhana, rendah dan sangat rendah berdasarkan empat konstruk iaitu mengaplikasi, menganalisis, menilai dan mencipta. 6.0 DAPATAN KAJIAN i. Profil Calon Kategori calon dianalisis berdasarkan jumlah skor keseluruhan yang diperoleh calon bagi 16 kertas peperiksaan daripada sembilan mata pelajaran yang terlibat dalam kajian ini. Analisis menunjukkan bahawa 19.36% calon cemerlang, 48.89% baik dan 31.75% adalah calon berpotensi seperti ditunjukkan dalam Rajah 2. Rajah 2 Profil Calon 31.75% 19.36% 48.89%

404 ii. Keupayaan Calon Menjawab Item KBAT dalam SPM 2020. Penguasaan KBAT dilaporkan dengan merujuk kepada keupayaan calon menjawab soalan peperiksaan yang mengandungi konstruk KBAT. Tahap penguasaan minimum KBAT mengambil kira jawapan berkualiti tinggi, sederhana dan rendah. Rajah 3 menunjukkan tahap penguasaan minimum calon mengikut konstruk KBAT iaitu 89.63% bagi konstruk mengaplikasi, 86.81% bagi konstruk menganalisis, 90.50% bagi konstruk menilai dan 85.04% bagi konstruk mencipta. Rajah 3 Penguasaan Tahap Minimum KBAT Mengikut Konstruk KBAT iii. Kualiti Jawapan Calon bagi Konstruk Mengaplikasi Berdasarkan Rajah 4, analisis menunjukkan 22.38% calon memberi jawapan berkualiti tinggi dengan mendapat skor 80% ke atas daripada jumlah skor setiap item. Ini bermakna calon dapat mengaplikasi pengetahuan, kemahiran dan nilai berkaitan fakta, konsep, prinsip dan peraturan dengan tepat, terperinci serta mendalam dalam semua konteks. Seterusnya, 19.87% calon memberi jawapan berkualiti sederhana dengan mendapat 51% sehingga 79% daripada jumlah skor. Ini bermakna calon dapat mengaplikasi pengetahuan, kemahiran dan nilai berkaitan dengan fakta, konsep, prinsip dan peraturan dengan betul dalam sebahagian tugasan dan terhad kepada konteks tertentu. Sebanyak 47.37% calon memberi jawapan berkualiti rendah dengan mendapat 50% ke bawah daripada jumlah skor yang diperuntukkan. Ini menunjukkan calon dapat mengaplikasikan pengetahuan, kemahiran dan nilai dengan betul dalam konteks yang mudah sahaja. Sebanyak 10.38% calon mendapat skor 0.

405 Rajah 4 Kualiti Jawapan Calon bagi Konstruk Mengaplikasi iv. Kualiti Jawapan Calon bagi Konstruk Menganalisis Berdasarkan Rajah 5, analisis menunjukkan sebanyak 13.19% calon memberi jawapan berkualiti tinggi dengan mencapai skor 80% daripada jumlah skor setiap item. Ini bermaksud calon dapat menganalisis dan menginterpretasi maklumat yang diperoleh dengan betul serta memberi penerangan terperinci dan jelas berserta bukti yang tepat. Seterusnya, sebanyak 25.48% calon menampilkan jawapan berkualiti sederhana dengan perolehan 51% sehingga 79% daripada jumlah skor. Hal ini menunjukkan calon mampu menganalisis dan menginterpretasi maklumat yang diperoleh dengan betul serta memberi penerangan terperinci dalam sebahagian tugasan beserta bukti yang tepat. Sementara itu, sebanyak 48.10% calon memberi jawapan berkualiti rendah dengan mendapat 50% ke bawah daripada jumlah skor yang diperuntukkan. Hal ini menunjukkan calon dapat menganalisis dan menginterpretasi maklumat yang diperoleh dalam konteks yang terhad. Sebanyak 10.38% calon mendapat skor 0 bagi jawapan diberikan. Rajah 5 Kualiti Jawapan Calon bagi Konstruk Menganalisis 22.38% 19.87% 47.37% 13.19% 25.48% 48.10%

406 v. Kualiti Jawapan Calon bagi Konstruk Menilai Kualiti jawapan item KBAT 27.80% calon memberi jawapan berkualiti tinggi dengan mendapat skor 80% daripada jumlah skor setiap item, berdasarkan analisis yang ditunjukkan pada Rajah 6. Hal ini menunjukkan kemampuan calon dalam membuat pertimbangan menggunakan maklumat yang diberi untuk menyelesaikan masalah dan membuat kesimpulan dengan tepat dan bernas. Selain itu, sebanyak 24.25% calon memberi jawapan berkualiti sederhana dengan mendapat skor 51% hingga 79%. Ini bermaksud calon mampu membuat pertimbangan menggunakan maklumat yang diberi untuk menyelesaikan masalah dan membuat kesimpulan dalam sebahagian tugasan serta konteks yang terbatas. Sebanyak 38.45% calon memberi jawapan berkualiti rendah dengan mendapat skor 50% ke bawah daripada jumlah skor yang diperuntukkan. Ini menunjukkan calon mampu membuat pertimbangan menggunakan maklumat yang diberi untuk menyelesaikan masalah yang terhad. Sebanyak 9.50% calon mendapat skor 0 bagi jawapan diberikan. Rajah 6 Kualiti Jawapan Calon bagi Konstruk Menilai vi. Kualiti Jawapan Item KBAT bagi Konstruk Mencipta Bersandarkan analisis yang ditunjukkan pada Rajah 7, sebanyak 16.58% calon memberi jawapan berkualiti tinggi dengan mendapat skor 80% daripada jumlah skor setiap item. Ini bermakna calon mampu menghasilkan sesuatu yang baharu, kreatif dan menarik dengan mengemukakan pelbagai kaedah dan strategi dalam penyelesaian masalah. Seterusnya, sebanyak 31.65% calon memberi jawapan berkualiti sederhana dengan mendapat skor di antara 51%-79% daripada jumlah skor. Ini bermakna calon mampu menghasilkan sesuatu yang baharu dan menarik dengan mengemukakan kaedah dan strategi dalam penyelesaian masalah. Sebanyak 46.81% calon menampilkan jawapan berkualiti rendah dengan mendapat skor 50% ke bawah daripada jumlah skor yang diperuntukkan yang menunjukkan kemampuan calon dalam menghasilkan sesuatu yang baharu dalam penyelesaian masalah. Sebanyak 4.96% calon mendapat skor 0 bagi jawapan diberikan. 9.50% 27.80% 24.25% 38.45%

407 Rajah 7 Kualiti Jawapan Calon bagi Konstruk Mencipta 7.0 PERBINCANGAN DAN RUMUSAN Secara keseluruhannya, data pencapaian item KBAT bagi sembilan mata pelajaran dalam peperiksaan SPM 2020 menunjukkan 88.17% calon dapat memperlihatkan peningkatan daripada segi tahap penguasaan minimum dalam menjawab item-item bagi konstrukkonstruk yang dianalisis iaitu konstruk mengaplikasi, menganalisis, menilai dan mencipta. Selain itu, kualiti jawapan item KBAT calon bagi konstruk mencipta menunjukkan peratusan tertinggi. Analisis ini menunjukkan bahawa calon mampu menghasilkan sesuatu yang baharu, kreatif dan menarik dengan mengemukakan pelbagai kaedah dan strategi dalam penyelesaian masalah. Namun demikian, konstruk menganalisis telah menunjukkan peratusan yang rendah berbanding keempat-empat konstruk yang lain dengan 86.81% calon dapat menganalisis dan menginterpretasi maklumat yang diperoleh dengan betul. Calon juga dapat memberi penerangan terperinci dan jelas berserta bukti yang tepat. Oleh itu, hasil daripada kajian ini boleh dijadikan panduan asas semasa proses pembinaan untuk membina item KBAT. Ini bertujuan untuk meningkatkan pencapaian calon menjawab item KBAT dan menjamin kualiti item KBAT itu sendiri. Selain itu, banyak pihak terutama Jabatan Pendidikan Negeri, Pejabat Pendidikan Daerah dan sekolah dapat menggunakan maklumat ini untuk menerapkan elemen KBAT dalam PdP guru dan seterusnya, dalam pembinaan item serta pentaksiran di sekolah. Akhirnya, kemahiran berfikir aras tinggi sememangnya wajar diterapkan dalam kalangan murid-murid agar mereka dapat menggunakannya dalam pembelajaran dan seterusnya, dalam kehidupan pada masa hadapan. Keupayaan calon untuk berfikir secara kreatif dan kritis diharapkan dapat merangsang minda murid-murid dalam menghadapi cabaran pendidikan abad ke-21. 4.96% 16.58% 31.65% 46.81%

408 RUJUKAN Abdullah, N. H. H., & Darusalam, G. (2018). Kesediaan Guru Melaksanakan Kemahiran Berfikir Aras Tinggi dalam Pengajaran. Jurnal Kurikulum & Pengajaran Asia Pasifik, 6(3), 22–31. Adnan, M., Mohd Nawi, N., Lee Abdullah, M. F. N., Che Ahmad, C. N., & Arifin, N. S. (2018). Pembinaan Item Kemahiran Berfikir Aras Tinggi Matematik Tingkatan Satu untuk Topik Pecahan. Jurnal Pendidikan Sains & Matematik Malaysia, 8(1), 46–54. Awang Ali, S. A., Abdullah, A. H., Abdul Halim, N. D., & Ali, D. F. (2016). Tahap Pengetahuan dan Amalan Guru Matematik Sekolah Menengah terhadap Pelaksanaan Kemahiran Berfikir Aras Tinggi (KBAT). Malaysian Journal of Higher Order Thinking Skills in Education, 1, 42–75. Bahagian Pembangunan Kurikulum. (2014). Elemen KBAT dalam Kurikulum. Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia. Fathizaki, R., Anuar, A., & Norasmah, O. (2021). Kompetensi Guru dalam Penerapan Kemahiran Berfikir Aras Tinggi dalam Pengajaran Pendidikan Sejarah. Malaysian Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities (MJSSH), 6(1), 194–205. Irwan Fariza, S., Mohd Mahzan, A., & Abdul Razaq, A. (2019). The Relationship between Students ’ Involvement in 21st Century Classroom Learning Activities and Higher Order Thinking Skills. Jurnal Pendidikan Malaysia, 44(1), 59–64. Lembaga Peperiksaan. (2013). Elemen Kemahiran Berfikir Aras Tinggi (KBAT) dalam Instrumen Pentaksiran. Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia. Mohd Zhaffar, N., Hamzah, M. I., & Abdul Razak, K. (2017). Elemen Pemikiran Kritis dalam Konteks Kemahiran Berfikir Aras Tinggi. ASEAN Comparative Education Research JOurnal on Islam and Civilization (ACER-J), 1(2), 92–101. Nachiappan, S., Julia, I. P., Abdullah, N., Chandra, S., Suffian, S., & Sukri, N. A. (2019). Perlaksanaan Kemahiran Berfikir Aras Tinggi oleh Guru dalam Pengajaran dan Pembelajaran di Tadika. Jurnal Pendidikan Awal Kanak-Kanak Kebangsaan, 8, 24–32. Norul Haida, R., Yusof, A., Mohd Ra’in, S., & Raja Mohd hafezal, R. H. (2019). Kemahiran Berfikir Aras Tinggi (KBAT) dalam Karangan. Jurnal Dunia Pendidikan, 1(1), 27–34. Peng, C. F., & Nur Juliana, M. A. (2021). Pengetahuan , Sikap dan Kesediaan Pelajar Terhadap Kemahiran Berfikir Aras Tinggi dalam Kemahiran Menulis. PENDETA Journal of Malay Language, Education and Literature, 12(2), 29–43.

409 Peng, C. F., & Zul Hazmi, H. (2018). Kemahiran Berfikir Aras Tinggi dalam Pembelajaran dan Pemudahcaraan Bahasa Melayu melalui Teknik Penyoalan. Jurnal Pendidikan Bahasa Melayu - JPBM, 8(1), 1–12. Sarudin, A., Osman, Z., & Husna Faredza, M. R. (2020). Analisis Perlaksanaan Elemen Kemahiran Berfikir Aras Tinggi dalam Kalangan Guru Bahasa Melayu di Sekolah Menengah Orang Asli. Jurnal Pendidikan Bahasa Melayu - JPBM, 10(1), 48–63. Siaw Wei, A. T., & Hoon, N. M. (2020). Pelaksanaan Kemahiran Berfikir Aras Tinggi (KBAT) dalam Pembelajaran dan Pemudahcaraan Bahasa Cina di Sekolah Menengah. Muallim Journal of Social Science and Humanities, 4(4), 126–140. Siti Sarah, M. R., & Lilia, H. (2021). Keberkesanan Pemikiran Kritis dalam Meningkatkan Kemahiran dalam Penyelesaian Masalah KBAT. Jurnal Pendidikan Sains Dan Matematik Malaysia, 11(1), 60–76. Surif, J., Ibrahim, N. H., Abdullah, A. H., & Boon, Y. (2016). Kemahiran Berfikir Aras Tinggi dalam Pengajaran dan Pembelajaran. Penerbitan Fakulti Pendidikan, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia. Syed Khalis, S. I., Muhammad Nidzam, Y., Ahmad Sobri, S., & Saifudin Azam, S. A. (2019). Menilai Item Kemahiran Berfikir Aras Tinggi dalam Pengajaran dan Pembelajaran Guru Menggunakan Teknik Fuzzy Delphi. Jurnal Penyelidikan Dedikasi, 16, 16–26. Wan Ali Akbar, W. A., Nursafra, M. Z., & Ab Halim, T. (2020). Aplikasi Kemahiran Berfikir Aras Tinggi ( KBAT ) dalam Pendidikan Islam Mengikut Bidang. Sains Insani, 5(1), 14–21.

410

411 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SELF-EFFICACY AND COLLEGE STUDENTS’ PERFORMANCE IN ONLINE LEARNING TAY KING ENG Kolej Matrikulasi Pulau Pinang [email protected] TAH MEI SZE Kolej Matrikulasi Kejuruteraan Pahang SOON YIT LENG Kolej Matrikulasi Labuan ABSTRACT The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between matriculation students’ self-efficacy for online learning and their academic performance. Self-efficacy is important for the success of online learning since there is less supervision, face to face interaction and feedback compared to traditional settings. A total of 118 respondents participated in this study by answering a survey questionnaire on self-efficacy level. The results concluded that the level of students’ self-efficacy for online learning was high but the correlation between student’s self-efficacy for online learning and their academic performance is very weak, positive and insignificant (r = .088, p > .05). The implication of this study is that instructors should adopt instructional strategies which promote good interaction among students, instructors and content to increase students’ self-efficacy which eventually leads to better academic performance. Keywords: self-efficacy, online learning, academic performance, interaction, instructional design

412 1.0 INTRODUCTION The outbreak of coronavirus in 2019 (COVID-19) has caused an abrupt lockdown and closure of school to prevent the spreading of coronavirus among students. In order to ensure learning takes place in the era of pandemic, all teaching and learning activities were forced to shift from the traditional face-to-face classes to online classes in matriculation colleges starting October 2020. Online classes could be done either synchronously or asynchronously depending on the stability of the internet, availability of devices, house conditions and others. The sudden decision to shift from traditional classes to full online classes has caught many parties unprepared and it raises many problems. Instructors and students were not ready to adapt to the new teaching and learning environment since both had little prior experience in online learning. Lack of technical knowledge and support among the instructors and students would cause mental fatigue to engage in online activities (Nambiar, 2020). The learning process was influenced by external factors such as internet problems and learning tools accessibility, but these external factors are unavoidable and hard to be controlled by instructors. As instructors in matriculation colleges, the researchers are facing the same problems, but the emphasis has been placed in the overcoming of internal factors such as students’ self-efficacy which could be addressed through instructional strategies (Hammarlund et al., 20115; Shi, 2018). 2.0 PROBLEM STATEMENT Generally, learning in an online setup environment is considered less effective than the traditional physical classes since it lacks the human touch (instructors’ guidance and friends’ support) which is important in sustaining students’ motivation to continue and excel in online learning. One common challenge faced by instructors during online classes is the difficulty to monitor students’ attentiveness and progress through eye contact and facial expression (Alqurashi, 2019; Khalil, 2020) since students tend to turn off their camera in online sessions. The biggest challenge in online learning for students is the lack of self-motivation to complete the online course and self-discipline (Chung et al., 2020; Mallow & Rahman, 2021). Thus, students’ ability to learn independently is essential for the success in online learning. Research has shown that students who have a high self-efficacy or confidence to accomplish a task have good self-directed learning skills which lead to more successful learning outcomes (Bradley et al., 2017). On the contrary, students who have a low self-efficacy tend to have weak self- directed learning skills which leads to poor performance in academics since they lack self- control habits. Therefore, self-efficacy is one of the important aspects to consider when designing online lessons (Hammarlund et al., 2015). Since an online classroom is more challenging and demanding than a traditional classroom (less satisfaction, more workload and higher mental fatigue), self-efficacy would be an important aspect to measure as it could give a huge impact on students’ motivation to learn (Zimmerman & Kulikowich, 2016). Prior studies on self-efficacy for online learning revealed that self-efficacy would affect a student’s academic performance. Chen (2020) reported a positive correlation between internal self-efficacy and academic performance. However, Tus (2019) argued that self-

413 efficacy does not significantly affect the students’ academic performance. The role of selfefficacy in online learning environments is still in need of more investigations (Alqurashi, 2016). The measure of students’ self-efficacy level has mainly been carried out among the degree and postgraduate students in Malaysia but there is a lack of studies from matriculation colleges. Hence, this study serves to fill in this gap to study the level of self-efficacy among matriculation college students and the relationship between students’ selfefficacy and academic performance. It is hoped that the outcome of this study could help instructors plan instructional strategies and models which may increase self-efficacy and lead to higher academic performance. 3.0 RESEARCH AIM The purpose of this study was to determine the level of self-efficacy among the matriculation students. The results will then be used to study the relationship between students’ self-efficacy and their academic performance. 4.0 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES The objectives of this study are: i) to determine the level of students’ self-efficacy in online learning; and ii) to determine the relationship between students’ self-efficacy for online learning and students’ academic performance. 5.0 RESEARCH QUESTIONS This study seeks to address the following research questions: RQ1: What is the level of students’ self-efficacy in online learning? RQ2: Is there a relationship between students’ self-efficacy for online learning and students’ academic performance? 6.0 RESEARCH HYPOTHESIS This study aims to examine the relationship between students’ self-efficacy for online learning and their academic performance. The research hypotheses based on RQ2 which is: Ho: There is no significant relationship between self-efficacy for online learning and academic performance among the students. 7.0 LITERATURE REVIEW 7.1 Self-Efficacy Bandura (1986), in his social cognitive theory stated that self-efficacy is “people’s judgement of their capabilities to organize and execute a course of action required to achieve designated types of performance” (Bandura, 1986, p.391). Students who are

414 efficacious tend to believe that they are capable of accomplishing short-term goals. This is an important process in self-regulated learning where students initiate plans to complete a task or accomplish a goal (Zimmerman & Campillo, 2003). Individuals with high selfefficacy look at difficulties as challenges rather than threats. This group of students tend to be more intrinsically interested in the tasks they pursue, attempt challenging tasks more often, persist longer at them, and exert more effort. Research suggests that self-efficacy can boost student achievement, foster emotional health and well-being, and serve as a predictor of motivation and learning (Bradley et al., 2017). Self-efficacy is believed to be related to student behavioral, cognitive, motivational engagement and learning (Linnenbrink & Pintrich, 2003). The role of efficacy in behavioral engagement is that students who do not have confidence in themselves are less likely to exert effort and more likely to give up quickly. The literature shows that students with a strong sense of efficacy believe they can accomplish even difficult tasks (Tsai et al., 2020). Conversely, students who have doubts about their ability to accomplish difficult tasks see these tasks as threats. This can lead to task avoidance, passivity, lack of task engagement and believe that failure is inevitable (Bandura, 1997). In view of this, measurement of students’ self-efficacy may help the instructors provide an enhanced welldesigned learning experience because self- efficacy for online learning is the strongest and most significant predictor of perceived learning (Alqurashi, 2019). Perceived efficacy is one key aspect of motivation for students to complete an online course (Zimmerman & Kulikowich, 2016). Thus, it is important to determine the current level of students’ self-efficacy. 7.2 Relationship Between Self-Efficacy And Performance Factors that are correlated with academic performance include intrinsic motivation, selfregulated learning strategies and persistence (Yokoyama, 2019). It has been reported that students’ academic performance, self-efficacy, learning engagement and motivation were positively correlated (Dogan, 2015; Wu et al., 2020). The relationship between selfefficacy and performance has been a concern for decades, yet the relationship remains unclear, with mixed results reported in the literature where some reported that selfefficacy is significantly correlated with performance while some are not. There are a few researchers who reported that there is a significant relationship between students’ self-efficacy and academic performance (Dullas, 2018; Fosse et al., 2015; Mesurado et al., 2016; Noorollahi, 2021; Tiyuri et al., 2018). Prior studies have confirmed that self-efficacy has a positive effect on academic involvement and hence improves academic performance (Dullas, 2018; Fosse et al., 2015; Mesurado et al., 2016). Students who believe in their self-efficacy are willing to actively take part in their learning and more motivated to learn and this leads to better learning outcomes (Dogan, 2015). Noorollahi (2021) found that students who have lower self-efficacy are more likely to avoid trying new experiences, which accordingly demotivated them to learn new knowledge. Selfefficacy is the significant predictor for students’ achievement in matriculation since online learning is a new learning experience for matriculation students.

415 Nonetheless, there are a few researchers who reported that there is no significant relationship between students’ self-efficacy and academic performance (AguileraHermida, 2020; Tus, 2019; Yazon, 2015). Tus (2019) reported that although students who have high self- efficacy tend to be more intrinsically motivated to learn new knowledge, his finding failed to show a significant effect of self-efficacy on academic performance. Some authors argue that there may be influence of other factors which act as the barriers to engage students in online study (Oomen-Early & Murphy, 2009; Roddy et al., 2017). For example, technical difficulties, perceived isolation, challenges of balancing study and family commitments and lack of motivation. Similarly, Alqurashi (2016) emphasises the importance of considering the effect of interaction and collaboration skills with instructors or classmates which may also give impact on students’ academic achievements other than technological barriers. 8.0 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 8.1 Research Design In this study, non-experimental research design was applied. Descriptive survey research method was used to measure the level of students’ self-efficacy in online learning. The questionnaire survey method was conducted quantitatively to collect data from matriculation students. 8.2 Sample of Study The respondents in this study were 118 respondents from two of the matriculation colleges in Malaysia who attended online learning for the subject of Chemistry. Purposive sampling was used to select the respondents who had experienced online learning for at least two months. 8.3 Research Instruments Self-Efficacy Questionnaire for Online Learning (SeQoL) constructed by Tsai et al. (2020) was adapted in this study. Permission to use this instruments had been granted from the authors through email. The instruments consists of four factors to measure student’s selfefficacy for online learning which include self-efficacy to complete an online course, self- efficacy to handle tools in a Course Management System (CMS), self-efficacy to interact with instructors in an online course and self-efficacy to interact with classmates for academic purposes. Each item of this questionnaire comes with a four-point Likert scale instead of a five-point Likert scale to avoid the effect of central tendency (Chung et al., 2020). The SeQoL instruments was pilot tested using a sample of 32 volunteer students from matriculation college. Table 1 shows the pilot test results in which Cronbach’s Alpha value for this questionnaire lies between 0.754 and 0.892 and the overall alpha value for the instrument is 0.950. This proved that the questionnaire is reliable and suitable to be used to conduct the real study (Pallant, 2010).

416 Table 1 Cronbach’s Alpha for the Instrument of Study Factors of self-efficacy Number of items Cronbach’s alpha Complete an online course 7 .892 Handle tools in a CMS 3 .758 Interact with instructors in an online course 5 .754 Interact with classmates for academic purposes 6 .875 Whole instrument 21 .950 8.4 Data Collection Procedure The respondents were given the questionnaire to measure their level of self-efficacy after experiencing two months of online learning. The survey link designed in Google Form was distributed to 121 students at the two matriculation colleges stated before through WhatsApp and data was collected within a week. A total of 118 responses were received and a response rate of 97.5% was reached. The students’ academic performance was collected using the end-of-semester examinations results. 8.5 Data Analysis The data were analysed using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) software version 24. The first research question was answered by using descriptive statistics analysis (frequency, mean, percentage and standard deviations) which report the mean scores of a student’s self-efficacy according to different factors. Table 2 shows the interpretation level of student’s self-efficacy that was developed by Tus (2019) and will be used to measure the self-efficacy level of the respondents in this present study. Table 2 Interpretation Level of Self-efficacy (Tus, 2019) Score Mean Level of self-efficacy 1.00-1.49 Low 1.50-2.49 average 2.50-3.49 High 3.50-4.00 Very High The second research question to examine the relationship between student’s self- efficacy for online learning and student’s academic performance was answered by using a Pearson correlation test as the data was normally distributed. The skewness (-.780) and kurtosis (-.070) values of this present study are within the normal distribution range which is -3 to +3 (Byrne, 2012).

417 9.0 FINDINGS The results to the research questions of the study were presented as follow: 9.1 Descriptive Analysis of Data RQ1: What is The Level of Students’ Self-Efficacy in Online Learning? Table 3 illustrates the percentage, mean score and standard deviation of each item in the self-efficacy to complete an online course. Results show that the mean score ranged from 2.47 to 2.99, indicating that most of the respondents described themselves as having average to high self-efficacy. These results confirm that respondents were confident with their ability to complete an online course. However, the lowest mean score is observed in item 7, the self- efficacy to understand complex concepts (m=2.47, s.d=.688). Table 3 Mean and Standard Deviation for Self-efficacy to Complete an Online Course No. Item Not true at all (%) Hardly true (%) Moderately true (%) Exactly true (%) Mean SD 2 I am willing to face challenges. 5.1 28.8 52.5 13.6 2.75 .753 4 I create a plan to complete the given assignments. 3.4 24.6 54.2 17.8 2.86 .739 7 I could understand complex concepts. 5.9 45.8 43.2 5.1 2.47 .688 8 I am willing to adapt my learning styles to meet course expectations 3.4 26.3 53.4 16.9 2.84 .739 14 I could keep up with the progress of the course 4.2 28.0 60.2 7.6 2.71 .668 15 I check my assignments according to the criteria provided by my teacher. 3.4 14.4 61.9 20.3 2.99 .698 19 I am confident that I could complete an online course with a good grade. 5.1 34.7 51.7 8.5 2.64 .712

418 Table 4 illustrates the percentage, mean score and standard deviation of each item in the self-efficacy to handle tools in a CMS. The mean scores ranged from 2.51 to 2.79 which is in the high self-efficacy level. Respondents are perceived to have high confidence in handling tools used for online learning. Table 4 Mean and Standard Deviation for Self-efficacy to Handle Tools in a CMS No. Item Not true at all (%) Hardly true (%) Moderately true (%) Exactly true (%) Mean SD 9 I could send email to others with or without attached files. 5.1 27.1 51.7 16.1 2.79 .772 11 I am confident to reply to others’ messages in a discussion board. 5.9 29.7 51.7 12.7 2.71 .764 13 I am confident to post a new message in a discussion board. 8.5 39.0 45.8 6.8 2.51 .748 Table 5 illustrates the percentage, mean score and standard deviation of each item in the self-efficacy to interact with instructors in an online course. The mean scores ranged from 2.34 to 3.02 which is in the average to high self-efficacy level. The mean score on item 12, the self-efficacy to start discussion with my teacher, is the lowest among all the items measured (m=2.34, s.d= .682). Table 5 Mean and Standard Deviation for Self-efficacy to Interact with Instructors in an Online Course No. Item Not true at all (%) Hardly true (%) Moderately true (%) Exactly true (%) Mean SD 1 I am confident to ask questions to my teacher clearly. 4.2 35.6 51.7 8.5 2.64 .698 3 I seek help from my teacher when needed. 4.2 22.0 61.0 12.7 2.82 .700

419 10 I would inform my teacher quickly when unexpected situations occur. 3.4 18.6 50.8 27.1 3.02 .773 12 I start the discussions with my teacher. 9.3 50.0 38.1 2.5 2.34 .682 16 I voice out my opinions to my teacher respectfully. 1.7 22.0 54.2 22.0 2.97 .715 Table 6 illustrates the percentage, mean score and standard deviation of each item in the self-efficacy to interact with classmates for academic purposes. The mean scores ranged from 2.77 to 3.22 which is in the high self-efficacy level. The highest mean score is recorded in item 18, the self-efficacy to seek help from their friends when needed (m=3.22, s.d=.694). Table 6 Mean and Standard Deviation for Self-efficacy to Interact with Classmates for Academic Purposes No. Item Not true at all (%) Hardly true (%) Moderately true (%) Exactly true (%) Mean SD 5 I actively participate in online discussions. 5.1 27.1 53.4 14.4 2.77 .756 6 I communicate effectively with my classmates. 4.2 20.3 59.3 16.1 2.87 .723 17 I respond to other students in a timely manner. 2.5 19.5 63.6 14.4 2.90 .659 18 I request help from others when needed. 0.8 12.7 50.0 36.4 3.22 .694 20 I voice out my opinions to other students respectfully. 3.4 11.0 61.9 23.7 3.06 .695

420 21 I provide help to other students when needed. 2.5 13.6 55.1 28.8 3.10 .721 Table 7 summarises all the mean scores, standard deviations and level of student’s self- efficacy in each factor. The results revealed that the mean scores of students’ selfefficacy for online learning ranged from 2.67 to 2.99 and the overall mean score is 2.81. Respondents rated themselves possessing high self-efficacy in the online learning for all the measured factors. Out of the 4 factors of self-efficacy, the highest mean score obtained was the self-efficacy to interact with classmates for academic purpose (m=2.99, s.d=.572). Nonetheless, the lowest mean score obtained was the self-efficacy to handle tools in a CMS (m=2.57, s.d=.653). Table 7 Mean, Standard Deviation and Level of Self-efficacy for each Factor of Self-efficacy Self-efficacy Number of items Mean SD Level of Self-efficacy Complete an online course 7 2.75 .549 High Handle tools in a Course Management System 3 2.67 .653 High Interact with instructors in an online course 5 2.76 .528 High Interact with classmates for academic purposes 6 2.99 .572 High Overall Mean Score 2.81 .515 High As a conclusion, the majority of the respondents (74.6%) have a high level of self- efficacy in online learning. Only 2.5% of students showed low self-efficacy in online learning (Table 8). Table 8 Frequency and Percentage of Students at Different Level of Self-efficacy for Online Learning Student’s self-efficacy Frequency Percentage low self-efficacy (1.00-1.49) 3 2.5 average self-efficacy (1.50-2.49) 19 16.1 High self-efficacy (2.50-3.49) 88 74.6 Very high self-efficacy (3.50-4.00) 8 6.8 Total 118 100.0

421 9.2 Pearson Correlation Test RQ2: Is There a Relationship between the Level of Online Self-Efficacy and a Student’s Academic Performance? Table 9 compares the mean scores of students’ academic performance with different levels of self-efficacy. It is observed that students with low and average self-efficacy have lower academic performance (mean<3.50) whereas students with high and very high selfefficacy have higher performance (mean≥3.50). Table 9 Mean and Standard Deviation for the Academic Performance with Different Levels of Self- efficacy Level of Self- efficacy N Mean SD Low 3 3.3333 .88444 average 19 3.4205 .54263 High 88 3.5380 .49892 Very high 8 3.5000 .39921 Total 118 3.5113 .50596 Table 10 shows the results of the Pearson correlation analysis to find out the relationship between student’s self-efficacy and their academic performance at .05 level of significance. According to Chua (2013) interpretation, the results of the analysis show a very weak, positive correlation between student’s self-efficacy for online learning and their academic performance (r = .088) and no significant correlation was found between the two variables (p > .05). Hence, the researchers fail to reject the null hypothesis. Table 10 Relationship between Student’s Self-efficacy and Student’s Academic Performance Self-efficacy Academic performance Pearson Correlation .088 Sig. (2-tailed) .341 N 118 10.0 DISCUSSION 10.1 Students’ Self-efficacy for Online Learning The results of this study show that self-efficacy mean scores of the respondents are ranging from 2.67 to 2.99 and the overall mean score is 2.81 (Table 7), interpreted as high self- efficacy. There were 74.6% of the respondents who claimed that they were confident to perform tasks related to online learning and only 2.5% of respondents showed low selfefficacy in online learning (Table 8).

422 However, three lowest levels of self-efficacy are observed in the self-efficacy to start the discussion with instructors, to understand complex concepts and to post a new message in a discussion board with a mean score of 2.34, 2.47 and 2.51 respectively. This agrees with the prior work of Chung et. al (2020) and Nambiar (2020) who reported that students have problems in clarifying doubts and understanding difficult content. This finding also agrees with the study of Çubukçu (2008) that students who are highly self-efficacious are also reluctant to speak in the class. The respondents are facing problems in understanding complex concepts in Chemistry via online learning because Chemistry is a subject that contains abstract concepts which are complex and difficult to apprehend. The lack of conceptual understanding hence causes the respondents to have low confidence in posting new messages in the discussion board and make the first move to approach their instructors for clarification of doubts. This would be worsened if the students could not leave behind the love of traditional class which enables eye contact and immediate responses from instructors (Alqurashi, 2019; Khalil, 2020; Shidiq et al., 2021). Students having a low confidence level to seek help in public are not identifiable in an online setting since there is limited interaction in online settings. Moreover, instructors could not gauge students’ progress and understanding in the lesson through their facial expressions and body language because the students tend to turn off cameras during synchronous sessions. Nonetheless, instructors could identify students with low efficacy by conducting a survey employed in this study. The implication of this finding is that it is important for instructors to identify and encourage students with low efficacy. Instructors could improve students’ learning in chemistry by giving personal feedback and guidance to increase student’s self-efficacy (Alquarashi, 2019). Furthermore, the instructors could employ specific strategies such as providing more formative assessments for continuous improvement (Yokohama, 2019). For example, instructors might use online assessment tools such as Quizizz or Kahoot to conduct student-paced formative assessments in a fun and engaging way. The positive side is that the majority of the respondents were keen to seek and provide help among themselves without the presence of instructors. This is indicated by the high mean scores in the self-efficacy to voice out opinions to other students, to provide help to other students and to request help from others with a mean score of 3.06, 3.10 and 3.22 respectively. The high efficacy in the interaction between classmates agrees with a few studies (Alqurashi, 2019; Lasfeto & Ulfa, 2020; Nambiar, 2020) which also concluded that quality and quantity interaction time between classmates are positively related with learning outcome. Lasfeto & Ulfa (2020) claimed that interactive student activities enable students to learn to be more responsible and disciplined. The implication of this study is that instructors might consider modelling certain strategies such as providing more online collaborative activities to enhance students’ participation and increase the skill and knowledge of Chemistry (Yokohama, 2019). For example, instructors could use breakout rooms to divide students into smaller groups during video calls to carry out group discussion which is more engaging. An extraordinary finding obtained in this study is that the factor of handling tools in the CMS has the lowest mean score (Table 7) even though the current students are mostly regarded as technology-savvy. The CMS in this study refers to Google Classroom (GC)

423 which is new for both students as well as instructors. It is evident that the experience in handling CMS and technology-savvy are not equivalent to each other (Peechapol et al., 2018). Furthermore, there is a limitation in the questionnaire since the three items in this study focus mainly on email and discussion boards which are not comprehensive enough to examine students’ self-efficacy in handling tools in the CMS. The implication of this study is that instructors would modify the questionnaire and include the self-efficacy in these four areas, (1) assessing the course content, (2) tests and grades, (3) asynchronous communication and (4) synchronous communication as suggested by Alquarshi (2016) who categorised computer, internet and handling CMS under the factor of technology self-efficacy. Another implication of this study is that instructors might provide support to students who need assistance in handling online tools since it was revealed that increasing login time and experience can improve self-efficacy in handling tools (Peechapol et al., 2018). 10.2 Relationship between Students’ Self-Efficacy for Online Learning and Students’ Academic Performance The present study reveals that there is a very weak, positive correlation between student’s self-efficacy for online learning and their academic performance. However, the relationship between students’ self-efficacy and their academic performance is not significant (r = .088, p > .05). This result agrees with the findings of other studies which reported that there is no significant relationship between students’ self-efficacy and their academic performance (Aguilera-Hermida, 2020; Tiyuri et al., 2018; Tus, 2019; Yazon, 2015). Nonetheless, this finding disagrees with the prior work done by Dullas (2018), Fosse et al., (2015), Lasfeto and Ulfa (2020) and Mesurado et al., (2016). Although the self-efficacy of the respondents is reported to be high in this study, the self-efficacy shown is not significantly related to their academic performance. This indicates that a student who is highly confident of his ability to complete a task in online learning may not translate into a good academic performance. A possible explanation for this result may be the influence of other factors which act as the barriers to engage students in online study (Oomen-Early & Murphy, 2009). Some of the barriers reported are technical difficulties, perceived isolation, challenges of balancing study and family commitments and lack of motivation (Nambiar, 2020; Roddy et al., 2017). The failure to identify and address these barriers would post a risk to the dissatisfaction, disengagement and underperforming of students. For example, the distraction at home, poor quality of interaction and feedback and poor education quality may have a negative impact on students’ perceptions and attitude towards study (Serhan, 2020). Students with a negative attitude will cause them to be less motivated to learn and further impact their academic performance (Aguilera-Hermida, 2020). Technical problems, especially slow internet connectivity is one of the biggest barriers which is supported by the findings of Chung et al., (2020) where college and university students in Malaysia ranked unstable internet connectivity as the top one and two challenges in their online learning respectively. Concurrently, the students’ feedback gathered by researchers in this study at the end of the semester also reveals that the greatest barrier for students to do online learning is technical problems (poor internet signal and

424 slow connectivity) which accounts for 33.3% of the students. It is hence a crucial factor to address even though it is an external factor which is always considered beyond the control of instructors. The implication of this study is that instructors should adopt instructional strategies which need low internet accessibility such as adopting the flipped classroom approach and optimising the social media application such as Telegram. Instructors might implement more asynchronous activities which rely on less internet accessibility by giving students pre-recorded videos uploaded to YouTube together with notes and exercises to acquire the main concepts and perform practices. A change in the variety of online instructional strategies is necessary to improve students’ academic performance because Chemistry is a subject containing abstract concepts, symbolic representations, and mathematics calculations (Wu et al., 2000). Furthermore, it is important to note that even though students may have high online learning efficacy, they may not be managing their time effectively to succeed (Lauricella & Kay, 2013). Study of Ahmad et al. (2020) concluded that effective time management behaviour is a vital element for self-regulation as well as a strong predictor of academic success. Students need to spend sufficient time to foster appropriate strategies needed for successful academic outcomes in the online environment such as attending lectures, completing assignments and understanding the key content. The implication of this study is that instructors could send students reminders and updates throughout the semester using several free text message mobile applications. Goh et al. (2012) indicates that students who received text messages showed higher levels of academic performance at the end of the term. Another possible reason for the insignificant relationship between students’ self-efficacy and their academic performance in this study is that self-efficacy level is not static over time. Zusho et al., (2003) who measured self-efficacy three times throughout the introductory university Chemistry course, have revealed that self-efficacy would decrease with time for the low performing students and increase with time for the high performing students. It is important to bear in mind that students’ motivation and self-efficacy may decrease further if the quality of education decreases (Aguilera-Hermida, 2020). The implication of this study is that there is a limitation to measure students’ self-efficacy level one time throughout the course and this may not reflect the true relationship with their academic performance. It is hence recommended that students’ self-efficacy level should be measured a few times throughout an online course in the future for the relationship between self-efficacy and academic performance.

425 11.0 CONCLUSION The level of online learning of the respondents in this study is high and the relationship between students’ self-efficacy and their academic performance is very weak, positive but insignificant. The findings of this study support prior research where there is no significant relationship between self-efficacy and academic performance. Even though self-efficacy and academic performance are not significantly related to each other, developing students’ self- efficacy in learning ought not be ignored because the effect of self-efficacy on academic performance may not be seen in a short period of time (Tus, 2019). Students’ self-efficacy may guide them to perform better on the task given because persistence and motivation will increase for those with higher self-efficacy. This study is substantial since instructors could identify low efficacious students by conducting a simple survey. These are the students who need help the most yet, seek help the least and have a high risk of failing the course. The implication of this study is that instructors should adopt instructional strategies which encourage good interactions between students, instructors and content to increase students’ self-efficacy and improve learning satisfaction which finally leads to better academic performance (Lawrie, 2021; Nandi et al., 2015). As online learning relies strongly on learner-content interaction, a teacher’s role is important in providing a good educational quality. Hence, it is suggested to study teachers’ self-efficacy in online teaching and the relationship between teachers’ self-efficacy and students’ academic performance in the future.

426 REFERENCES Ahmad Uzir, N. A., Gašević, D., Matcha, W., Jovanović, J., & Pardo, A. (2020). Analytics of time management strategies in a flipped classroom. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 36(1), 70-88. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12392 Aguilera-Hermida, A. P. (2020). College students’ use and acceptance of emergency online learning due to COVID-19. International Journal of Educational Research Open, 1, 100011. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJEDRO.2020.100011 Alqurashi, E. (2016). Self-efficacy in online learning environments: A literature review. Contemporary Issues in Education Research (CIER), 9(1), 45–52. https://doi. org/10.19030/cier.v9i1.9549 Alqurashi, E. (2019). Predicting student satisfaction and perceived learning within online learning environments. Distance Education, 40(1), 133-148. https://doi.org/10.1080 /01587919.2018.1553562 Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action. A Social Cognitive Theory. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York. W. H. Freeman and Company. Bradley, R. L., Browne, B. L., & Kelley, H. M. (2017). Examining the influence of selfefficacy and self-regulation in online learning. College Student Journal, 51(4), 518- 530. Byrne, B. M. (2012). Structural Equation Modeling with Mplus: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. New York, NY: Routledge. https://doi. org/10.4324/9780203807644 Chen, Y. (2020). Correlation between self-efficacy and English performance. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 15(8), 223–234. https://doi. org/10.3991/IJET.V15I08.13697 Chua, Y. P. (2013). Mastering research statistics. Selangor: McGraw-Hill Education (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd. Chung, E., Noor, N. M., & Mathew, V. N. (2020). Are you ready? An assessment of online learning readiness among university students. International Journal of Academic Research in Progressive Education and Development, 9(1), 301-317. http://dx.doi. org/10.6007/IJARPED/V9-1/7128 Chung, E., Subramaniam, G., & Dass, L. C. (2020). Online learning readiness among university students in Malaysia amidst COVID-19. Asian Journal of University Education, 16(2), 46-58. https://doi.org/10.24191/ajue.v16i2.10294

427 Çubukçu, F. (2008). A study on the correlation between self-efficacy and foreign language learning anxiety. Online Submission, 4(1), 148-158. Retrieved from https://files.eric. ed.gov/fulltext/ED502016.pdf Dogan, U. (2015). Student engagement, academic self-efficacy, and academic motivation as predictors of academic performance. Anthropologist, 20(3), 553–561. https://doi. org/10.1080/09720073.2015.11891759 Dullas, A. R. (2018). The development of academic self-efficacy scale for Filipino junior high school students. In Frontiersin Education, 3, 19. https://doi.org/10.3389/ feduc.2018.00019 Fosse, T. H., Buch, R., Säfvenbom, R., & Martinussen, M. (2015). The impact of personality and self-efficacy on academic and military performance: The mediating role of self- efficacy. Journal of Military Studies,6(1) 47-65. https://doi.org/10.1515/ jms-2016- 0197 Goh, T. T., Seet, B. C., & Chen, N. S. (2012). The impact of persuasive SMS on students’ self‐ regulated learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(4), 624-640. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2011.01236.x Hammarlund, C. S., Nilsson, M. H., & Gummesson, C. (2015). External and internal factors influencing self-directed online learning of physiotherapy undergraduate students in Sweden: a qualitative study. Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions J Educ Eval Health Prof, 12, 33. https://doi.org/10.3352/ jeehp.2015.12.33 Khalil, R., Mansour, A. E., Fadda, W. A., Almisnid, K., Aldamegh, M., Al-Nafeesah, A., Alkhalifah, A. & Al-Wutayd, O. (2020). The sudden transition to synchronized online learning during the COVID-19 pandemic in Saudi Arabia: a qualitative study exploring medical students’ perspectives. BMC medical education, 20(1), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-020-02208-z Lasfeto, D. B. & Ulfa, S. (2020). The relationship between self-directed learning and students’social interaction in online learning environment. Journal of e-learning and knowledge society, 16(2), 34-41. https://doi.org/10.20368/1971-8829/1135078 Lauricella, S., & Kay, R. (2013). Exploring the use of text and instant messaging in higher education classrooms. Research in Learning Technology, 21. https://doi.org/10.3402/ rlt.v21i0.19061 Lawrie, G. (2021). Chemistry education research and practice in diverse online learning environments: resilience, complexity and opportunity! Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 22(1), 7-11. https://doi: 10.1039/d0rp90013c Linnenbrink, E. A., & Pintrich, P. R. (2003). The role of self-efficacy beliefs in student engagement and learning in the classroom. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 19(2), 119- 137. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573560308223

428 Mallow, M. S., & Rahman, S. S. S. A. (2021). Online education in Malaysia: The good, the bad, the ugly and the way forward. Proceedings of INTCESS, 2021(8th). Retrieved from https://www.ocerints.org/intcess21_e-publication/papers/7.pdf Mesurado, B., Cristina Richaud, M., & José Mateo, N. (2016). Engagement, flow, selfefficacy, and Eustress of University Students: a cross-national comparison between the Philippines and Argentina. The Journal of psychology, 150(3), 281-299. https:// doi.org 10.1080/00223980.2015.1024595. Nambiar, D. (2020). The impact of online learning during COVID-19: students’ and teachers’ perspective. The International Journal of Indian Psychology, 8(2), 783- 793. Retrieved from https://ijip.in/pdf-viewer/?id=23304 Nandi, D., Hamilton, M., & Harland, J. (2015). What factors impact student–Content interaction in fully online courses. International Journal of Modern Education and Computer Science, 7(7), 28-35. https://doi.org/10.5815/ijmecs.2015.07.04 Noorollahi, N. (2021). On the relationship between Iranian English language teaching students’ self-efficacy, self-esteem, and their academic achievement. Language Teaching Research Quarterly, 21, 84–96. https://doi.org/10.32038/ltrq.2021.21.06 Oomen-Early, J., & Murphy, L. (2009). Self-actualization and e-learning: A qualitative investigation of university faculty’s perceived barriers to effective online instruction. International Journal on E-Learning, 8(2), 223-240. Retrieved from https://www. learntechlib.org/primary/p/26143/ Pallant, J. (2010). SPSS Survival Manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS for windows. (4th Ed.). Sydney: Allen & Unwin. Peechapol, C., Na-Songkhla, J., Sujiva, S., & Luangsodsai, A. (2018). An Exploration of Factors Influencing Self-Efficacy in Online Learning: A Systematic Review. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 13(9), 64-86. https:// doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v13i09.8351 Roddy, C., Amiet, D. L., Chung, J., Holt, C., Shaw, L., McKenzie, S., Garivaldis F., Lodge, J. M. & Mundy, M. E. (2017). Applying best practice online learning, teaching, and support to intensive online environments: an integrative review. Frontiers in Education,2, 59. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2017.00059 Serhan, D. (2020). Transitioning from face-to-face to remote learning: Students’ attitudes and perceptions of using Zoom during COVID-19 pandemic. International Journal of Technology in Education and Science, 4(4), 335–342. https://doi.org/10.46328/ ijtes.v4i4.148

429 Shi, H. (2018). Self-efficacy beliefs and effective instructional strategies: US University English learners’ perspective. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 30(3), 477-496. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ EJ1199328.pdf Shidiq, A. S., Permanasari, A., & Hendayana, S. (2021). Chemistry teacher responses to learning in the COVID-19 outbreak: Challenges and opportunities to create innovative lab-work activities. In Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1806(1). https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1806/1/012195 Tiyuri, A., Saberi, B., Miri, M., Shahrestanaki, E., Bayat, B. B., & Salehiniya, H. (2018). Research self-efficacy and its relationship with academic performance in postgraduate students of Tehran University of Medical Sciences in 2016. Journal of education and health promotion, 7. https://doi.org/10.4103/jehp.jehp_43_17 Tsai, C. L., Cho, M. H., Marra, R., & Shen, D. (2020). The Self-Efficacy Questionnaire for Online Learning (SeQoL). Distance Education, 41(4), 472–489. https://doi.org/1 0.1080/01587919.2020.1821604 Tus, J. (2019). Self-Efficacy and its influence on the academic performance of the senior high school students. Journal of Global Research in Education and Social Science, 13(6), 213-218. Retrieved from https://www.ikprress.org/index.php/JOGRESS/ article/view/4854 Wu, H., Li, S., Zheng, J., & Guo, J. (2020). Medical students’ motivation and academic performance: The mediating roles of self-efficacy and learning engagement. Medical Education Online, 25(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/10872981.2020.1742964 Wu, H. K., Krajcik, J. S., & Soloway, E. (2000). Using technology to support the development of conceptual understanding of chemical representations. In Fourth International Conference of the Learning Sciences (pp. 121-128). Yazon, A. D. (2015). Self-esteem, self-efficacy and academic performance of the College of Teacher Education students at the Laguna State Polytechnic University, Los Ba ños campus, AY 2013-2014 Global Summit on Education (pp. 437-453). Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Yokoyama, S. (2019). Academic self-efficacy and academic performance in online learning: A mini review. Frontiers in psychology, 9, 2794. https://doi.org/10.3389/ fpsyg.2018.02794 Zimmerman, B., & Campillo, M. (2003). Motivating self-regulated problem solvers. In J. Davidson & R. Sternberg (Eds.), The Psychology of Problem Solving (pp. 233-262). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/ CBO9780511615771.009

430 Zimmerman, W. A., & Kulikowich, J. M. (2016). Online learning self-efficacy in students with and without online learning experience. American Journal of Distance Education, 30(3), 180–191. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923647.2016.1193801 Zusho, A., Pintrich, P. R., & Coppola, B. (2003). Skill and will: The role of motivation and cognition in the learning of college chemistry. International journal of science education, 25(9), 1081-1094. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069032000052207

431 Atur Cara PERSIDANGAN PENYELIDIKAN PENDIDIKAN KEBANGSAAN KALI KE XVI TAHUN 2022 SELASA, 14 JUN 2022 10:05-10:25 Ucapan Alu-aluan Penganjur En. Zainal bin Abas Pengarah Bahagian Pengurusan Sekolah Harian b.p. Pengarah Bahagian Perancangan dan Penyelidikan Dasar Pendidikan YBhg. Dato’ Sulaiman bin Wak Ahli Lembaga Pemegang Amanah YGTHO 10:25-10:35 Ucapan Perasmian YBhg. Datuk Hajah Nor Zamani binti Abdol Hamid Ketua Pengarah Pendidikan Malaysia, KPM 10:35-10:45 Ucap Utama YBhg. Datuk Dr. Amin bin Senin Mantan Ketua Pengarah Pendidikan Malaysia Pembentangan Sesi Selari Saluran 1 Kajian Tindakan Sekolah Rendah Saluran 2 Kajian Tindakan Sekolah Menengah 11:00-11:30 Pembentangan 1: Keberkesanan Penggunaan Modul Emosofik (Emosi, Sosial, Fizikal dan Kognitif) Kepada Murid Prasekolah Untuk Kesediaan Masuk Ke Sekolah Secara Bersemuka Oleh: Pn. Zarina binti Eshak SK Sri Suria 1, Kelantan Pembentangan 1: Meningkatkan Tahap Pencapaian Murid dalam Subjek Sains Semasa Pengajaran dan Pembelajaran di Rumah Oleh: Pn. Nurul Syazwani binti Ismail, SM Sains Kepala Batas, P. Pinang 11:30-12:00 Pembentangan 2: Meningkatkan Minat dan Kemahiran Mengelas Kumpulan Haiwan Vertebrata Murid Tahun 4 Oleh: En. Zainudin bin Zainal Abidin SK Bandar Tenggara 1, Johor Pembentangan 2: Meningkatkan Kemahiran Mentafsir dan Melakar Graf Gerakan Linear Murid 4 Berlian Menggunakan LiMoG Indicator Oleh: En. Mohd Azif bin Shukor, SMK Paya Rumput, Melaka 14:40-15:10 Pembentangan 3: Reimagining English Language Experiences Through Project-Based Learning Oleh: Pn. Lim Ai Teng, SJK (C) Yuk Choi, Sabah Pembentangan 3: Penglibatan Aktif Murid Tingkatan 2 Ibnu Sina Semasa Pembelajaran dalam Talian Oleh: Pn. Norhafizah binti Yusoff, SM Tahfiz Al Quran (JAIM), Melaka 15:10-15:40 Pembentangan 4: Meningkatkan Kemahiran Menyebut Bunyi Huruf Hijaiyah Berbaris Fathah Murid Tahun 2 Semasa PdPR Oleh: Pn. Rozita binti Abdullah, SK Paya Terendam, Kedah Pembentangan 4: Teknologi GTAB-INK: Meningkatkan Motivasi dan Tahap Pembelajaran Pelajar Mata Pelajaran Kimia Tingkatan 6 Secara dalam Talian Oleh: Pn. Yip Lau Kheng, SMK St. Anthony, Sarawak

432 15:40-16:10 Pembentangan 5: Membantu Penguasaan Elemen Kewarganegaraan dan Nilai Sivik Menggunakan Kad Mekar dalam Mata Pelajaran Sejarah Tahun 5 Oleh: En. Mohd Asyraf bin Abd Hamid SK Sungai Bedaun, W.P. Labuan Pembentangan 5: Meningkatkan Kemahiran Menentukan Terbitan Pertama Sesuatu Persamaan dengan Menggunakan Kod Pembezaan Bagi Matematik Tambahan Tingkatan 5 Semasa PdPR Oleh: En. Puvaneswaran a/l Viknees Baran, SMK Baru Bintulu, Sarawak RABU, 15 JUN 2022 Pembentangan Sesi Selari Masa Saluran 1 Kajian Tindakan Sekolah Rendah Saluran 2 Kajian Tindakan Sekolah Menengah 10:10-10:40 Pembentangan 6: KIT KaKes 3.0 Membantu Meningkatkan Kemahiran Melaksanakan Kajian Kes Sejarah dan Pencapaian Murid Tahun 4 Semasa Pandemik COVID-19 Oleh: Pn. Norhatini binti Abd Hamid SK Gelong, Kedah Pembentangan 6: Mengatasi Kelemahan Pembelajaran Murid Dalam Topik Mekanisme Pernafasan Semasa Sesi PdPR Oleh: En. Hariri bin Mustapha SMK Convent Bukit Nanas, W.P. K. Lumpur 10:40-11:10 Pembentangan 7: Peningkatan Kemahiran 4M Dengan Menggunakan Genius Smart Tools dalam Kalangan Murid Prasekolah SK Kuang Oleh: Pn. Noraisah binti Sagap, SK Kuang, Selangor Pembentangan 7: Kemahiran Mewarna dalam Mata Pelajaran Pendidikan Seni Visual (PSV) Semasa Pengajaran dan Pembelajaran Di Rumah Oleh: Pn. Wan Nadia Hariani binti Wan Ismail, SMK Kinarut, Sabah 11:10-11:40 Pembentangan 8: Kemahiran Memahami Konsep Asas Operasi Tambah dan Tolak Murid Prasekolah Oleh: Pn. Julianty binti Idris SK Rumbia, Melaka Pembentangan 8: Kool Kit 4.0 Meningkatkan Motivasi dan Pencapaian Subjek Sejarah dalam Kalangan Murid Tingkatan 5 Oleh: Pn. Noraini binti Bajoori SMK Dulang, Kedah Pembentangan Kajian Konvensional & Dasar 14:40-15:10 Kajian Konvensional 1 Kemahiran Berfikir Aras Tinggi (KBAT): Analisis Pencapaian Calon SPM 2020 Oleh: Dr. Faridah binti Juraime, Lembaga Peperiksaan 15:10-15:40 Kajian Konvensional 2 Relationship Between Self-Efficacy and College Students’ Performance In Online Learning Oleh: Pn. Tay King Eng, Kolej Matrikulasi Pulau Pinang 15:40-16:10 Kajian Konvensional 3 Pembudayaan Kajian Tindakan dalam Kalangan Guru Oleh: Pn. Zaliza binti Md Yasin, BPPDP 16:10-16:40 Kajian Dasar 1 Pentaksiran Bilik Darjah: Isu, Cabaran dan Hala Tuju Oleh: Dr. Wan Nor Fadzilah binti Wan Husin, BPK

433 KHAMIS, 16 JUN 2022 11:10-11:30 Rumusan & Ucapan Penutupan: YBhg. Dato’ Haji Pkharuddin bin Hj. Ghazali Timbalan Ketua Pengarah Pendidikan Malaysia Sektor Dasar dan Kurikulum, KPM Jawatankuasa Persidangan Penasihat En. Zainal bin Abas Pengarah Bahagian Pengurusan Sekolah Harian b.p. Pengarah Bahagian Perancangan dan Penyelidikan Dasar Pendidikan Dr. Nor Saidatul Rajeah binti Zamzam Amin Timbalan Pengarah (Kluster Penyelidikan dan Penilaian), BPPDP Ketua Sekretariat Dr. Ura a/p Pin @ Chum En. M. Selvarajah a/l Manikam Setiausaha Cik Idayati binti Harun @ Abd Rahman (K) Pn. Zaliza binti Md Yasin Bendahari Pn. Reywathi a/p Arumal (K) Pn. Sharifah Zaihani binti Syed Badruddin Event and Floor Manager • En. M Selvarajah a/l Manikam (K) • En. Te Tie Seng JK Promosi • Dr. Dewani binti Goloi (K) • Dr. Morni Hanim Binti Salleh JK Jemputan • Dr. Hani Meryleina binti Ahmad Mustafa (K) • Pn. Zaliza binti Md Yasin • Cik Idayati binti Harun @ Abd Rahman • Pn. Maskhaiza Shima binti Abdul Khalid • Pn. Sharifah Zaihani binti Syed Badruddin • Pn. Norhayati binti Othman JK Pendaftaran dan Kehadiran • En. Te Tie Seng (K) • En. M Selvarajah a/l Manikam • En. Farouk Afirul bin Sudarto • En. Faizal bin Mat Idris JK Teks Ucapan/Key Note/Kata Alu-Aluan • Cik Mastura binti Abdul Razak (K) • Dr. Enah binti Ali • Dr. Mohd Mohni bin Iskandar • Pn. Norasiah binti Bahar Mazidin JK Percetakan (Banner, Buku Program, Buku Prosiding, Sijil) • Pn. Suzana binti Ahmad (K) • En. M Selvarajah a/l Manikam • En. Te Tie Seng • Dr. Mohd Mohni bin Iskandar • Pn. Norhashimah binti Ismail • En. Farouk Afirul bin Sudarto • Pn. Maskhaiza Shima binti Abdul Khalid • Pn. Sharifah Zaihani binti Syed Badruddin JK Teknikal , Rakaman dan Penyiaran • En. M Selvarajah a/l Manikam • En. Dr. Suras a/l Kanagasabai • En. Addnan bin Abd Hamid • Pn. Norhayati binti Khamidin • En. Te Tie Seng • En. Farouk Afirul bin Sudarto • En. Faizal bin Mat Idris • Dr. Mohd Mohni bin Iskandar • Cik Idayati binti Harun @ Abd Rahman • Pn. Nur Rashidah Khairunnisa Ranjeeta binti Abdullah • Ts. Norazura binti Mohd Nor • En. Muhamad Irwan bin Sharani • En. Amiruladle bin Razali • En. Kamal Yazid Abdullah bin Zainal Abidin • En. Hermizi bin Razali • En. Mohd Azian bin Mohd Sofian • Pn. Julieyana binti Jaris • Mohd Rushdi bin Omar @ Abdullah • Nazri bin Ishak JK Cenderamata & Hadiah • Dr. Enah binti Ali (K) • En. M Selvarajah a/l Manikam • Pn. Reywathi a/p Arumal

434 Penghargaan Bahagian Perancangan dan Penyelidikan Dasar Pendidikan, Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia ingin mengucapkan sekalung penghargaan dan ucapan terima kasih kepada: Yayasan Guru Tun Hussein Onn (YGTHO) Bahagian Sumber dan Teknologi Pendidikan Bahagian Pengurusan Maklumat Bahagian Pengurusan Sekolah Harian Institut Pendidikan Guru Malaysia Unit Komunikasi Korporat Jabatan Pendidikan Negeri Para Penyelaras Negeri Jurulatih Utama pada Peringkat Negeri dan PPD Para Peserta Guru-Guru serta semua yang terlibat secara langsung dan tidak langsung dalam menjayakan Persidangan Penyelidikan Pendidikan Kebangsaan Kali XVI Tahun 2022 • Cik Idayati binti Harun @ Abd Rahman • Pn. Norhafizah binti Yahaya • Pn. Maskhaiza Shima binti Abdul Khalid • Pn. Sharifah Zaihani binti Syed Badruddin • Pn. Norhayati binti Othman • En. Farouk Afirul bin Sudarto JK Jamuan • Dr. Zainin binti Bidin (K) • Cik Mastura binti Abdul Razak • Pn. Sharifah Zaihani binti Syed Badruddin • Pn. Norhayati binti Othman • Pn. Nora Ernie binti Ismail • Pn. Maskhaiza Shima binti Abdul Khalid • Pn. Norhafizah binti Yahaya Ketua Jurulatih Utama Kajian Tindakan Kebangsaan • Dr. Dewani binti Goloi Panel Penilaian Kertas Persidangan • Dr. Dr. Ura Pin @ Chum (K) • Dr. Dewani binti Goloi • Dr. Shamsudin bin Mohamad • Dr. Zainin binti Bidin • Pn. Suzana binti Ahmad • En. M Selvarajah a/l Manikam • Pn. Nasithah binti Abd Hamid • Dr. Hani Meryleina binti Ahmad Mustafa • Dr. Al-Azharri Siddiq bin Kamunri • Dr. Norazlilah binti Md. Nordin • Dr. KhairulHasni binti Abdul Kadir @ Mat Isa • Dr. Enah binti Ali • Dr. Morni Hanim binti Salleh • Pn. Reywathi a/p Arumal • Pn. Mastura binti Abdul Razak • Pn. Zaliza binti Md Yasin • Cik Nurhafizah binti Abdul Musid • En. Te Tie Seng • Profesor Dr. Nordin Abd Razak (USM) • Dr. Mohd Nazri bin Abdul Rahman (UM) Pengacara Majlis, Doa, Moderator dan Pencatat • En. Zulkefli bin Hamat • Ustaz Kamarulzaman bin Ismail • Dr. Nor Saidatul Rajeah binti Zamzam Amin • Dr. Ura a/p Pin @ Chum • En. M Selvarajah a/l Manikam • Dr. Dewani binti Goloi • Pn. Suzana binti Ahmad • Dr. Hani Meryleina binti Ahmad Mustafa • Dr. Morni Hanim binti Salleh • Dr. Zainin binti Bidin • Cik Mastura binti Abdul Razak • Dr. Mohd Mohni bin Iskandar • En. Te Tie Seng • Cik Idayati binti Harun @ Abd Rahman • Cik Herliana binti Yasin • Pn. Zaliza binti Md Yasin

435 BAHAGIAN PERANCANGAN DAN PENYELIDIKAN DASAR PENDIDIKAN Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia Aras SB-4, Blok E8, Presint 1 Pusat Pentadbiran Kerajaan Persekutuan 62604 Putrajaya