Improving Students' Critical Thinking Skills in Mathematics Learning by Using Interactive Multimedia
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.62945/deeplearning.v1i4.266Keywords:
Critical thinkink skills, Mathematics learning, Interactive multimediaAbstract
This study aims to improve the critical thinking skills of elementary school students in mathematics learning by using interactive multimedia. This study is a classroom action research with the Kemmis & Mc Taggart model with four steps in each cycle, namely planning, action, observation and reflection. The subjects of this study were fifth-grade students of MIN 44 Aceh Besar. The data of this study were collected using observation and test techniques. Observation was used to obtain data on teacher and student learning activities, while tests were used to measure students' critical thinking skills in mathematics learning. The collected data were then analyzed using descriptive statistical techniques. The results of the study indicate that interactive multimedia can improve students' critical thinking skills in mathematics learning in elementary schools. This is evident from the results of the analysis of the research data which showed that the percentage of student completeness experienced a significant increase in each cycle with details of pre-cycle 52.19%, then increased in cycle 1 to 76.74% and in cycle 2 to 89.13%. The average value achieved also increased with details of pre-cycle 76.19, cycle 1 obtained 85.33 and cycle 2 obtained 91.47. Furthermore, the results of the standard deviation test also showed that the standard deviation value decreased in each cycle, indicating that students' critical thinking skills were becoming more evenly distributed. Based on these results, interactive multimedia can be used as an alternative learning medium to address students' low critical thinking skills in elementary school mathematics.
Downloads
References
Ainsworth, S. (2006). DeFT: A conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 16(3), 183–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2006.03.001
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. National Academy Press.
Burns, A. (2010). Doing action research in English language teaching: A guide for practitioners. Routledge.
Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2016). E-learning and the science of instruction: Proven guidelines for consumers and designers of multimedia learning (4th ed.). Wiley.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2018). Research methods in education (8th ed.). Routledge.
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2017). Teaching for social justice: Resources, relationships, and anti-racist practice. Teachers College Press.
Ennis, R. H. (2015). Critical thinking: A streamlined conception. In M. Davies & R. Barnett (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of critical thinking in higher education (pp. 31–47). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137378057_2
Facione, P. A. (2011). Critical thinking: What it is and why it counts. Insight Assessment.
Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2019). How to design and evaluate research in education (10th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.
Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59–109. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001059
Halpern, D. F. (2014). Thought and knowledge: An introduction to critical thinking (5th ed.). Psychology Press.
Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. Routledge.
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487
Hiebert, J., & Grouws, D. A. (2007). The effects of classroom mathematics teaching on students’ learning. In F. K. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 371–404). Information Age Publishing.
Hillmayr, D., Ziernwald, L., Reinhold, F., Hofer, S. I., & Reiss, K. M. (2020). The potential of digital tools to enhance mathematics and science learning in secondary schools: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 30, 100314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2020.100314
Jonassen, D. H. (1999). Designing constructivist learning environments. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory (Vol. 2, pp. 215–239). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (1988). The action research planner. Deakin University Press.
Lithner, J. (2008). A research framework for creative and imitative reasoning. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 67(3), 255–276. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-007-9104-2
Mayer, R. E. (2005). Cognitive theory of multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 31–48). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511816819.004
Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia learning (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511811678
McNiff, J. (2013). Action research: Principles and practice (3rd ed.). Routledge.
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054.
Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (2007). Interactive multimodal learning environments. Educational Psychology Review, 19(3), 309–326. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-007-9047-2
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
OECD. (2019). PISA 2018 results (Volume I): What students know and can do. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/5f07c754-en
Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2015). Framework for 21st century learning. P21.
Piaget, J. (1970). Science of education and the psychology of the child. Orion Press.
Pintrich, P. R. (2004). A conceptual framework for assessing motivation and self-regulated learning in college students. Educational Psychology Review, 16(4), 385–407. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-004-0006-x
Polya, G. (1973). How to solve it: A new aspect of mathematical method (2nd ed.). Princeton University Press.
Redecker, C. (2017). European framework for the digital competence of educators: DigCompEdu. Publications Office of the European Union.
Schunk, D. H. (2012). Learning theories: An educational perspective (6th ed.). Pearson.
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X015002004
Stacey, K. (2011). The PISA view of mathematical literacy in Indonesia. Journal on Mathematics Education, 2(2), 95–126.
Sung, Y. T., Chang, K. E., & Liu, T. C. (2016). The effects of integrating mobile devices with teaching and learning on students’ learning performance: A meta-analysis. Computers & Education, 94, 252–275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.11.008
Sweller, J. (2011). Cognitive load theory. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 55, 37–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-387691-1.00002-8
Trilling, B., & Fadel, C. (2009). 21st century skills: Learning for life in our times. Jossey-Bass.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory Into Practice, 41(2), 64–70. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4102_2
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
