Development of Mobile Learning Applications to Improve High  School Students' Independent Learning and Computational  Thinking in Mathematics

Sulfan Sulfan; Sri Andayani

doi:10.62951/ijsie.v2i1.155

Authors

Sulfan Sulfan Yogyakarta State University
Sri Andayani Yogyakarta State University

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.62951/ijsie.v2i1.155

Keywords:

Development, Mobile learning, Computational Thinking, Learning Independence

Abstract

The purpose of this study is (1) to describe the characteristics of a good mobile learning application to improve computational thinking and learning independence of high school students. (2) to produce a mobile learning application that is oriented towards computational thinking skills and student learning independence with good quality. The quality of the development results is determined based on Nieveen's criteria, namely valid, practical, and effective. This study is a research and development (R&D) that uses the Borg & Gall development model with 8 development steps, namely preliminary study, planning, initial product development, small group trials, main product revision, limited scale trials, operational product revisions and large-scale trials. The subjects in this study were 36 students from one class at SMA Negeri 1 Gamping, Sleman Regency. The instrument used to measure the validity of the mobile learning application is the expert validation sheet. The instrument to measure the practicality of the mobile learning application is the student response questionnaire. The instrument to measure the effectiveness of the application is the computational thinking test and the student learning independence questionnaire. Validity and practicality data analysis was conducted by converting quantitative data into qualitative form in the form of four standard scale values, while effectiveness data analysis based on test and questionnaire results was conducted using paired sample t-test. The results of the study showed that (1) Mobile learning applications have the characteristics of being easy to apply, flexible to time, lightweight and easy to carry anywhere and also implementing each computational thinking indicator in each stage of the material. (2) The results of expert validation showed that the developed mobile learning application met the valid criteria as seen by the Aiken's validity test score for media experts of 0.83 and 0.68 for material experts. The practicality of the mobile learning application is included in the very good category as seen from the average results with an average percentage of student responses of 87.17%. The effectiveness of the computational thinking test obtained a t-value of 47.22 greater than t (35,0.05) with a score of 1.69, the effectiveness of the learning independence test based on the t test obtained a t-value of 4.85 greater than t (35,0.05) with a score of 1.69. Based on the results obtained, it can be concluded that the developed mobile learning application meets the criteria of validity, practicality and effectiveness.

References

Alperi, M. (2019). Peran bahan ajar digital Sigil dalam mempersiapkan kemandirian belajar peserta didik. Jurnal TEKNODIK, 23(2).

Borba, M. C., Askar, P., Engelbrecht, J., Gadanidis, G., Llinares, S., & Sánchez, M. (2016). Blended learning, e-learning, and mobile learning in mathematics education. ZDM – Mathematics Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-016-0798-4

Cahdriyana, R. A., & Richardo, R. (2020). Berpikir komputasi dalam pembelajaran matematika. LITERASI (Jurnal Ilmu Pendidikan), 11(1), 50. https://doi.org/10.21927/literasi.2020.11(1).50-56

Daulay, N. (2021). Motivasi dan kemandirian belajar pada mahasiswa baru. Al-Hikmah: Jurnal Agama dan Ilmu Pengetahuan, 18(1).

Erman, S. (2003). Strategi pembelajaran matematika kontemporer. Bandung: UPI JICA.

Fajriyah, L., Nugraha, Y., Akbar, P., & Bernard, M. (2019). Pengaruh kemandirian belajar siswa SMP terhadap kemampuan penalaran matematis. Journal On Education, 1(2), 288–296.

Gall, M., Gall, J. P., & Borg, W. R. (2003). Educational research: An introduction. Longman.

Grover, S., & Pea, R. (2013). Computational thinking in K-12: A review of the state of the field. AERA, 20(20), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X12463051

Hamzah, A., & Muhlisyarini. (2014). Matematika. Rajagrafindo.

Hooshyar, D. (2022). Effects of technology-enhanced learning approaches on learners with different prior learning attitudes and knowledge in computational thinking. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 30(1), 64–76.

Laksana, A. P., & Hadijah, H. S. (2019). Kemandirian belajar sebagai determinan hasil belajar siswa. Jurnal Pendidikan Manajemen Perkantoran, 4(1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.17509/jpm.v4i1.14949

Nurdyansyah, N. (2017). Sumber daya dalam teknologi pendidikan. Eprints UMSIDA, 1–22. http://eprints.umsida.ac.id/1625/1/Sumber%20Daya%20dalam%20Teknologi%20Pendidikan.pdf

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2016). Country note – Results from PISA 2015: Indonesia. OECD.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2019). PISA 2018 results: Combined executive summaries (Volume I, II & III). https://doi.org/10.1787/g222d18af-en

Richey, R. C., & Klein, J. D. (2007). Design and development research: Methods, strategies, and issues. Routledge.

Subekti, H. (2010). Pengembangan perangkat pembelajaran sains SMP berorientasi pendidikan berkarakter dengan model kooperatif pada materi sensitivitas indera peraba. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Teacher Education, 1–11.

Winataputra, U. S. (2008). Teori belajar dan pembelajaran. Universitas Terbuka.

Wing, J. M. (2006). Pemikiran komputasi. Komunikasi ACM, 3, 33–35.