The Development of Problem-Posing

Multimedia Module and it’s

Effectiveness to Enhance Students’
. Wahid
Performance in Biology Teaching

PhD
Research Background
 Research Background

(Source: Academy of Science Malaysia, 2015)

 Research Background
Students’ Enrolment for Science Subjects in Malaysia
140
120
Students Enrolment (k)

100 Declining percentage

80
21%
60
40 18 %
20
0 18 %
2015 2016 2017
Biology 96 78 76
Physics 117 97 95
Chemistry 119 99 97

(Source: Malaysian Examination Syndicates, MOE, 2018)

 Research Background

Issues in learning Issues in teaching

Biology Biology

Students’ enrolment in Biology decline Large curriculum

Least favourite subject Time constraint
Misperception Biology as memorising subject
 Problem Statement

Lack of thinking skills

1
2 Abstract and dynamic in nature

3 Static illustration

4
Passive

5
Misconception
6
7 Teaching module is not user friendly
Unstable internet connection
 Proposed Solution
Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Problem-Posing (Paolo Freire, 1970);
Learning (Mayer & Moreno, 2002) 21st Century Pedagogy (MOE,2012)

Animation Critical thinking

Video Creativity
PROPOSE-
M
Graphic Collaboration

Communication
Text/narration
 Research Objectives
Research Objectives Research Questions
1
To develop a PROPOSE-M module applying What are the components needed
a problem-posing instructional strategy to develop PROPOSE-M module
(PPIS) integrated in a multimedia-based for teaching the concepts of ADDIE
presentation osmosis and diffusion? Model

2 To compare the effectiveness of

Are there any significant
PROPOSE-M to the traditional teaching Quasi-
differences in the mean scores
method (TRAD) with regards to low order experiment
between the PROPOSE-M and
thinking skills (LOTS) and high order two groups
the TRAD groups?
thinking skills (HOTS). design

3
To explore the conceptual change on To what extent PROPOSE-M Clinical
students in analysing the concept of could enhance student’s interview
Biology after undergoing PROPOSE-M conceptual change compared to
and TRAD. TRAD?
 Hypotheses
Hypothesis Analysis
H1 There is a significant difference in the mean score of the pre-test Independent t-test
between PROPOSE-M and TRAD group.

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

H3 There is a significant difference in the mean score of the Independent t-test

retention-test between PROPOSE-M and TRAD group.

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

H5 There is a significant difference in the mean score of the pre-test Paired t-test
and post-test for TRAD group.
 Hypotheses
Hypothesis Analysis
H6 There is a significant difference in the mean score of the pre-test LOTS One way
questions and the pre-test HOTS questions between PROPOSE-M and TRAD MANOVA
group.

H7 There is a significant difference in the mean score of the post-test LOTS One way
questions and the post-test HOTS questions between PROPOSE-M and TRAD MANOVA
group.

H8 There is a significant difference in the mean score of the retention-test LOTS One way
questions and the HOTS questions between PROPOSE-M and TRAD group. MANOVA

H9 There is a significant difference in the mean score of pre-test, post-test and MANOVA
retention-test for LOTS and HOTS questions for PROPOSE-M group. repeated
H10 There is a significant difference in the mean score of pre-test, post-test and MANOVA
retention test for LOTS and HOTS questions for TRAD group. repeated
 Operational Definition
1 4
PROPOSE-M HOTS
Module that applies problem-posing Questions in pre-test, post-test and
instructional strategy embedded in a retention-test encompassing analysing,
package of multimedia evaluating and creating skills

2 5
TRAD Conceptual Change
Focused on rote learning, dominated by Reconstruction of the osmosis and
teacher-instruction use PowerPoint diffusion concepts in PROPOSE-M and
presentation TRAD group

3 6
LOTS
Questions in pre-test, post-test and Students’ Performance
retention-test encompassing Represented by students’ scores in pre-
remembering, understanding and test, post-test and retention-test
applying skills.
 Literature Review

1. TSTS Model 1. MOE (2012)

2. Scientific and thinking skills 2. Fensham & Bellochi (2013)
Biology 3. LOTS vs. HOTS 3. Kojima et al. (2013)
Curriculum 4. Rote-learning 4. Singer & Voica (2013)

1. Fundamental concepts 1. Artun & Costu (2013)

2. Apply in advanced topics 2. Odom & Kelly (2001); Oztas (2014)
Osmosis and 3. Concepts remain partial 3. Hasni et al. (2016)
diffusion 4. Abstract & dynamic 4. Kramer & Myers, (2013); Oztas (2014)
5. Jargon words 5. Oliver et al. (2017)
 Literature Review

1. Create new knowledge 1. Rosli et al. (2012)

2. Create own questions 2. Leung (2013)
Problem 3. Conceptual change 3. Posner et al. (1982)
posing 4. Implemented in 4. Beal & Cohen (2012); Akay & Boz (2010);
mathematics education Land (2017)

1. Promote understanding 1. Harrison (2012)

2. Increase learning experiences 2. Mayer (1999)
3. Visualised biological processes 3. Makransky et al(2017); Aksoy (2012)
Multimedia 4. Cognitive load and extraneous 13
4. Clark & Mayer (2008)
materials
 Theoretical Framework

Selecting Organizing
Verbal mental
Narration Words
model

Prior
Integrating
knowledge

Visual mental
Animation Images
model
Selecting Organizing

Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning

(Source: Mayer and Moreno, 2002)
 Theoretical Framework

Problem-posing 4C
Elements

Creativity
Collaboration
Communication
Critical Thinking

Problem-posing theory and 21st Century Pedagogy (Paolo Freire,

1970; MOE, 2012)
 Conceptual Framework
Selecting Organizing
Verbal mental
Narration Words
model

Problem-posing
4C elements
Students’ Performance
Creativity
Collaboration Prior
Communication knowledge

Integrating Critical Thinking

Conceptual
HOTS LOTS
change

Visual mental
Animation Images
model
Selecting Organizing
 Research Methodology

Design & Development Research (DDR Type 1 & 2)

RESEARCH • ADDIE model
DESIGN • Quasi-experimental design
• Clinical interview

Two equivalent groups from two different schools

Students Form 4 taking Biology subject
Students in groups were self-selected SAMPLE
Groups were assigned through simple random sampling
N=61
 Research Procedure
1 3 5
To analyse the needs Summative evaluation:
PROPOSE-M was
and main features for • Test score
developed based on
newly developed • Open-ended
module storyboard.
questionnaire
• Experts’ interview. • Expert validation.
• Clinical interview
• SLR.

A Analysis D Design D Development I Implementation E Evaluation

Main features for PROPOSE-M Pilot Study:

was design in storyboard. • Reliability
PROPOSE-M consist of: Test the effectiveness:
• Multimedia • Quasi experiment pre-post
• Booklet two groups.
Formative evaluation:
2 4 • Classroom observation
 Findings

Research Question 1:
What are the components needed to develop PROPOSE-M for
teaching the concepts of osmosis and diffusion among Form 4
Biology students?
A nalysis
1st Component : Need Analysis

1.1 : Based on experts’ opinion, to what extent developing PROPOSE-M for

teaching osmosis and diffusion concepts is necessary?

THEME THEME
01 Important concepts 03 Teaching strategy

THEME Problems in teaching and THEME

02 04 Improvements
learning Biology
…continue

2nd Component : Activities & Strategies

1.2: How does the previous studies have implemented problem-posing instructional
strategy in their studies?

4
Lecturing Pose a problem
C

e Situation with
missing data
Strategies Group discussion l Activities
e
m Findings answers
e
Create own n
questions t Presentation
…continue

D esign
3rd Component : Main features Design

Physical?
Content?
Two types:
Chapter Form 4:
Multimedia- Flash Drive
The Movement of substances
Booklet- Hard copy hand-out
Interactively
Bilingual Assessment?
Past years SPM questions: 10
objective and 1 structure questions

Activities? Implementation?
Propose-M Instructional Strategy
Problem-posing 4C elements Model
…continue

D evelopment
1.3: To what extent the validity & reliability of the module among raters achieved?
4th Component : Validity and Reliability
Content Validity & Reliability Inter-rater Agreement

Content validity: Pre-test:

92.91% Kappa= 0.86
Language:
92.57% Post-test:
Kappa= 0.84
Suitability of
session and Retention-test:
activities: 91.67% Kappa= 0.64
**Reliability:
α= 0.89
…continue

I mplementation
5th Component : Implementation Activities

Activities Week
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Teacher’s Training
Pre-test
Intervention
Post-test
Retention-test
Clinical Interview

START PROJECT IN PROGRESS COMPLETE SCHOOL EVENT/SCHOOL HOLIDAY

…continue

Research Question 2:
Are there any significant difference in the mean scores
between the PROPOSE-M and the TRAD group?
…continue

E Valuation: Quasi-experiment

2.1: Is there any significant difference in the mean score of pre-post-retention tests
between the PROPOSE-M and the TRAD group?
Mean Score for Pre-test, Post-test and Retention-
test (PROPOSE-M vs. TRAD)
80
70
60
Score (%)

50 H2 (p < .05)
40 H3 (p < .05)
30 H1 (p > .05)
20
10
0
PRE-TEST POST-TEST RET-TEST
PROPOSE-M 37 73 69
TRAD 42 62 50
…continue

2.2: Is there any significant difference in the mean score of pre-test, post-test and retention-test for
LOTS and HOTS questions between the PROPOSE-M and TRAD group?

Mean Score for LOTS Questions Mean Score for HOTS Questions
90 H7 (p < .05) 80
80 70 H7 (p < .05)
70
60
60
Score (%)

Score (%)
50 50
40 H8 (p < .05) 40
H8 (p < .05)
30 H6 (p > .05) 30 H6 (p > .05)
20 20
10 10
0 0
PRE- POST- RET- PRE- POST- RET-
TEST TEST TEST TEST TEST TEST
PROPOSE-M 43 80 70 PROPOSE-M 32 59 67
TRAD 47 71 57 TRAD 35 45 39
…continue

Research Question 3:

To what extent PROPOSE-M could enhance student’s

conceptual change compared to TRAD?
…continue

E valuation: Clinical Interview

PROPOSE-M group experienced a better conceptual change compared to TRAD

group regarding diffusion, osmosis, hypertonic and permeability of cell wall concepts.

Example of students’ answers in post-test questions:

PROPOSE-M GROUP TRAD Group

 Research Implications

Theoretical Practical

Contribution to knowledge in terms of:

Provide alternative tool to teach Biology
Extension of combination DDR Type 1 • PROPOSE-M (Multimedia)
and Type 2 • PROPOSE-M (Booklet)
Sub-studies administered in ADDIE
PROPOSE-M Model as a guideline for
Quasi-experimental: two groups to perform problem-posing in classroom
from two different schools
Integration of CTML and PPIS in Provide an insight for curriculum
Biology education developers in developing multimedia
module
 Recommendation for further research

1 Elementary level

Motivation
among students
2

3 True experiment

Other Biology topics 4

or other subjects
E-learning tool for
5 Biology classroom
 Conclusion

PROPOSE-M was developed using ADDIE model through the

01 integration of PPIS and CTML.

Students who exposed to PROPOSE-M were outperformed who

02 exposed to TRAD based on the test score with significant difference

Students who exposed to PROPOSE-M experienced better

03 conceptual change compared to those who exposed to TRAD
 Publications (1st author)
• STEM Integration in classroom practices among biology teachers in Mara
Junior Science College (MJSC). International Journal of Academic Research in
Business and Social Sciences, 7(4); 1030–1041 (2017).
• A systematic literature review on the problem-posing strategies for Biology
Problem-Posing Multimedia Module design. International Journal of Academic
Research in Business and Social Sciences, 8(12); 1020–1032 (2018)
• Developing critical thinking skills in secondary school student: The potential for
strategic management through problem-posing instructional strategy.
Academy of Strategic Management Journal (2018)
 Awards
Gold Medal
Problem-Posing Multimedia Module (PROPOSE-M) in Pertandingan Inovasi dan
Rekacipta (i-Reka) Peringkat Kebangsaan (2018). 21st November 2018. Ayer Keroh
Country Resort, Melaka.

Silver Medal
Problem-Posing Multimedia Module (PROPOSE-M) in Pertandingan K-NOVASI
(2019). 23rd – 24th January 2019. Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Bangi, Selangor.
 Achievements and IPs
Best Presenter
International Conference on Islamic Research in Management, Education, Social
Science & Technology (2019). 22nd February 2019. Tanjung Malim, Perak.

Copyright
1. PROPOSE-M Module (LY2018005851)
2. PROPOSE-M Booklet (LY2018005852)
3. PROPOSE-M Instructional Strategy Model (LY2018005650)
4. Conceptual Framework of PROPOSE-M (LY2018005849)
 THANK YOU

I gratefully acknowledge the funding received towards my PhD from

Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM) through UPM Grant GP-
IPS/2018/9636800 that has partially funded my research.
Standby slides

38
 Mean Score for PROPOSE-M and TRAD
(Pre-test vs. Post-test
80

70
H4 (p < .05)
60
H5 (p < .05)
50
Score (%)

40

30

20

10

0
Pre-test Post-test
PROPOSE-M 37 73
TRAD 42 62
 Mean Score for Pre-test, Post-test and Retention-test (LOTS and
HOTS) for PROPOSE-M
90
80
70
60
H9 (p < .05)
Score (%)

50
40
30
20
10
0
Pre-test Post-test Ret-test
LOTS 43 80 71
HOTS 32 66 77
 Mean Score for Pre-test, Post-test and Retention-test
(LOTS and HOTS) for TRAD
80
H10 (p < .05)
70
60
50
Score (%)

40
30
20
10
0
Pre-test Post-test Ret-test
LOTS 47 71 56
HOTS 35 52 39
 Teachers: Modelling, Prompting, Coaching

Teachers Students Students Students present

introduce a create own discuss to find questions &
topic questions solutions answers

Students: Critical thinking, Communication, Collaboration, Creativity

PROPOSE-M Instructional Strategy Model