International Journal of

ADVANCED AND APPLIED SCIENCES

EISSN: 2313-3724, Print ISSN: 2313-626X

Frequency: 12
line decor
  
line decor

 Volume 10, Issue 12 (December 2023), Pages: 7-18

----------------------------------------------

 Original Research Paper

Hybrid learning impact with augmented reality to improve higher order thinking skills of students

 Author(s): 

 Heni Pujiastuti 1, *, Rudi Haryadi 2

 Affiliation(s):

 1Department of Mathematics Education, Faculty of Training Teachers and Education, Universitas Sultan Ageng Tirtayasa, Serang, Indonesia
 2Department of Physics Education, Faculty of Training Teachers and Education, Universitas Sultan Ageng Tirtayasa, Serang, Indonesia

 Full text

  Full Text - PDF

 * Corresponding Author. 

  Corresponding author's ORCID profile: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2968-4990

 Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

 https://doi.org/10.21833/ijaas.2023.12.002

 Abstract

The purpose of this study was to determine the effectiveness of using hybrid learning with augmented reality to improve the high-level thinking skills of junior high school students in the area of geometry. In addition, the effects of hybrid learning with augmented reality on students' motivation to study geometry are also examined. This research technique uses a sequential mixed methods approach, combining quantitative and qualitative methods in sequence. Quantitative approaches were used in the first phase to collect quantifiable data, and qualitative methods were used in the second phase to explore the results of the first phase. A two-group pretest-posttest design is the quantitative research method used. In order to establish an experimental class and a control class, the research sample was selected using the cluster random sampling method. In addition, while the control class uses hybrid learning without augmented reality, the experimental class takes advantage of it. Interviews and observation sheets are used in the qualitative design dimensions. The quantitative part of the data shows that students who receive hybrid learning with augmented reality have higher order thinking skills (HOTS) in terms of ideas in geometry than students who receive hybrid learning without augmented reality. The HOTS N-Gain scores from hybrid learning with augmented reality are 0.62, while the HOTS N-Gain scores from hybrid learning without augmented reality are 0.43, both of which support this conclusion. In addition, according to the findings in the qualitative dimension, students are more motivated and engaged in learning when using augmented reality applications than when they are not. These qualitative findings suggest that augmented reality software can be successfully used as a teaching tool for geometry topics.

 © 2023 The Authors. Published by IASE.

 This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

 Keywords

 Augmented reality, Geometry, Hybrid learning, Higher order thinking skills

 Article history

 Received 24 July 2023, Received in revised form 8 November 2023, Accepted 9 November 2023

 Acknowledgment 

We thank the Institute for Research and Community Service, Sultan Ageng Tirtayasa University (LPPM Untirta), for providing research grants under the Professorship Acceleration Program (PPGB) scheme.

 Compliance with ethical standards

 Conflict of interest: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

 Citation:

 Pujiastuti H and Haryadi R (2023). Hybrid learning impact with augmented reality to improve higher order thinking skills of students. International Journal of Advanced and Applied Sciences, 10(12): 7-18

 Permanent Link to this page

 Figures

 Fig. 1 Fig. 2 Fig. 3 Fig. 4 Fig. 5 Fig. 6 

 Tables

 Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 Table 4 Table 5 Table 6 

----------------------------------------------   

 References (74)

  1. Abdullah AH and Zakaria E (2013). The effects of Van Hiele's phases of learning geometry on students’ degree of acquisition of Van Hiele levels. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 102: 251-266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.10.740   [Google Scholar]
  2. Al Mamun MA, Lawrie G, and Wright T (2020). Instructional design of scaffolded online learning modules for self-directed and inquiry-based learning environments. Computers and Education, 144: 103695. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103695   [Google Scholar]
  3. Alqahtani MM and Powell AB (2017). Mediational activities in a dynamic geometry environment and teachers’ specialized content knowledge. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 48: 77-94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2017.08.004   [Google Scholar]
  4. Arrosagaray M, González-Peiteado M, Pino-Juste M, and Rodríguez-López B (2019). A comparative study of Spanish adult students’ attitudes to ICT in classroom, blended and distance language learning modes. Computers and Education, 134: 31-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.01.016   [Google Scholar]
  5. Basogain X, Olabe MÁ, Olabe JC, and Rico MJ (2018). Computational thinking in pre-university blended learning classrooms. Computers in Human Behavior, 80: 412-419. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.04.058   [Google Scholar]
  6. Baylor AL and Ritchie D (2002). What factors facilitate teacher skill, teacher morale, and perceived student learning in technology-using classrooms? Computers and Education, 39(4): 395-414. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-1315(02)00075-1   [Google Scholar]
  7. Ben-Dor N and Heyd-Metzuyanim E (2021). Standing on each other’s shoulders: A case of coalescence between geometric discourses in peer interaction. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 64: 100900. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2021.100900   [Google Scholar]
  8. Birgili B and Demir Ö (2022). An explanatory sequential mixed-method research on the full-scale implementation of flipped learning in the first years of the world's first fully flipped university: Departmental differences. Computers and Education, 176: 104352. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104352   [Google Scholar]
  9. Boelens R, Voet M, and De Wever B (2018). The design of blended learning in response to student diversity in higher education: Instructors’ views and use of differentiated instruction in blended learning. Computers and Education, 120: 197-212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.02.009   [Google Scholar]
  10. Bosica J, Pyper JS, and MacGregor S (2021). Incorporating problem-based learning in a secondary school mathematics preservice teacher education course. Teaching and Teacher Education, 102: 103335. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2021.103335   [Google Scholar]
  11. Brečka P, Valentová M, Lančarič D (2022). The implementation of critical thinking development strategies into technology education: The evidence from Slovakia. Teaching and Teacher Education, 109: 103555. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2021.103555   [Google Scholar]
  12. Bujak KR, Radu I, Catrambone R, MacIntyre B, Zheng R, and Golubski G (2013). A psychological perspective on augmented reality in the mathematics classroom. Computers and Education, 68: 536-544. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.02.017   [Google Scholar]
  13. Bygstad B, Øvrelid E, Ludvigsen S, and Dæhlen M (2022). From dual digitalization to digital learning space: Exploring the digital transformation of higher education. Computers and Education, 182: 104463. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2022.104463   [Google Scholar]
  14. Chang-Kredl S and Colannino D (2017). Constructing the image of the teacher on Reddit: Best and worst teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 64: 43-51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.01.019   [Google Scholar]
  15. Chen Q, Hao W, and He J (2022). A weight initialization based on the linear product structure for neural networks. Applied Mathematics and Computation, 415: 126722. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amc.2021.126722   [Google Scholar]
  16. Cheng Z, Wang H, Zhu X, West RE, Zhang Z, and Xu Q (2023). Open badges support goal setting and self-efficacy but not self-regulation in a hybrid learning environment. Computers and Education, 197: 104744. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2023.104744   [Google Scholar]
  17. Creswell JW and Creswell JD (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, USA.   [Google Scholar]
  18. El Sayed NA, Zayed HH, and Sharawy MI (2010). ARSC: Augmented reality student card. In the 2010 International Computer Engineering Conference, IEEE, Cairo, Egypt: 113-120. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICENCO.2010.5720437   [Google Scholar]
  19. Gall MD, Borg WR, and Gall JP (1996). Educational research: An introduction. 7th Edition, Allyn and Bacon, Boston, USA.   [Google Scholar]
  20. Genlott AA and Grönlund Å (2016). Closing the gaps–Improving literacy and mathematics by ICT-enhanced collaboration. Computers and Education, 99: 68-80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.04.004   [Google Scholar]
  21. Gounden C, Irvine JM, and Wood RJ (2015). Promoting food security through improved analytics. Procedia Engineering, 107: 335-336. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2015.06.089   [Google Scholar]
  22. Guo X and Jin Y (2023). Novel algorithm for flexible multibody systems with hybrid uncertainties. Applied Mathematical Modelling, 113: 573-595. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apm.2022.09.029   [Google Scholar]
  23. Hake RR (1998). Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics, 66(1): 64-74. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.18809   [Google Scholar]
  24. Hartnett M, Brown C, Forbes D, Gedera D, and Datt A (2023). Enhanced or diminished attitudes: University students’ agency. Computers and Education, 198: 104773. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2023.104773   [Google Scholar]
  25. Haryadi R and Pujiastuti H (2020). PhET simulation software-based learning to improve science process skills. In Journal of Physics: Conference Series, IOP Publishing, Bandung, Indonesia, 1521(2): 022017. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1521/2/022017   [Google Scholar]
  26. Haryadi R and Pujiastuti H (2022). Fun physics learning using augmented reality. In AIP Conference Proceedings, AIP Publishing, Bandung, Indonesia, 2468: 020016. https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0102799   [Google Scholar]
  27. Howe ER and Xu S (2013). Transcultural teacher development within the dialectic of the global and local: Bridging gaps between East and West. Teaching and Teacher Education, 36: 33-43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2013.06.010   [Google Scholar]
  28. Huang YM, Silitonga LM, and Wu TT (2022). Applying a business simulation game in a flipped classroom to enhance engagement, learning achievement, and higher-order thinking skills. Computers and Education, 183: 104494. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2022.104494   [Google Scholar]
  29. Ibáñez MB and Delgado-Kloos C (2018). Augmented reality for STEM learning: A systematic review. Computers and Education, 123: 109-123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.05.002   [Google Scholar]
  30. Jansen T and Möller J (2022). Teacher judgments in school exams: Influences of students' lower-order-thinking skills on the assessment of students’ higher-order-thinking skills. Teaching and Teacher Education, 111: 103616. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2021.103616   [Google Scholar]
  31. Joo-Nagata J, Abad FM, Giner JG B, and García-Peñalvo FJ (2017). Augmented reality and pedestrian navigation through its implementation in m-learning and e-learning: Evaluation of an educational program in Chile. Computers and Education, 111: 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.04.003   [Google Scholar]
  32. Jossan KS, Gauthier A, and Jenkinson J (2021). Cultural implications in the acceptability of game-based learning. Computers and Education, 174: 104305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104305   [Google Scholar]
  33. Jyothi S, McAvinia C, and Keating J (2012). A visualisation tool to aid exploration of students’ interactions in asynchronous online communication. Computers and Education, 58(1): 30-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.08.026   [Google Scholar]
  34. Kao GYM, Chiang CH, and Sun CT (2017). Customizing scaffolds for game-based learning in physics: Impacts on knowledge acquisition and game design creativity. Computers and Education, 113: 294-312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.05.022   [Google Scholar]
  35. Klašnja-Milićević A, Vesin B, and Ivanović M (2018). Social tagging strategy for enhancing e-learning experience. Computers and Education, 118: 166-181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.12.002   [Google Scholar]
  36. Klein PS, Nir-Gal O, Darom E (2000). The use of computers in kindergarten, with or without adult mediation; effects on children's cognitive performance and behavior. Computers in Human Behavior, 16(6): 591-608. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0747-5632(00)00027-3   [Google Scholar]
  37. Ko YY and Rose MK (2022). Considering proofs: Pre-service secondary mathematics teachers' criteria for self-constructed and student-generated arguments. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 68: 100999. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2022.100999   [Google Scholar]
  38. Komatsu K, Jones K, Ikeda T, and Narazaki A (2017). Proof validation and modification in secondary school geometry. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 47: 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2017.05.002   [Google Scholar]
  39. Kulikovskikh IM, Prokhorov SA, and Suchkova SA (2017). Promoting collaborative learning through regulation of guessing in clickers. Computers in Human Behavior, 75: 81-91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.05.001   [Google Scholar]
  40. Kusumawati AJ (2020). Redesigning face-to-face into online learning for speaking competence during COVID-19: ESP for higher education in Indonesia. International Journal of Language Education, 4(2): 276-288. https://doi.org/10.26858/ijole.v4i2.14745   [Google Scholar]
  41. Lee IJ, Chen CH, and Chang KP (2016). Augmented reality technology combined with three-dimensional holography to train the mental rotation ability of older adults. Computers in Human Behavior, 65: 488-500. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.09.014   [Google Scholar]
  42. Lee J and Choi H (2017). What affects learner's higher-order thinking in technology-enhanced learning environments? The effects of learner factors. Computers and Education, 115: 143-152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.06.015   [Google Scholar]
  43. Letchumanan M, Husain SKS, Chau KT, and Ayub AFM (2020). Investigating the use of ICT tools by academicians to promote higher-order thinking skills among university students. In AIP Conference Proceedings, AIP Publishing, Bangi, Malaysia, 2266: 020002. https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0019887   [Google Scholar]
  44. Mallawaarachchi SR, Tieppo A, Hooley M, and Horwood S (2023). Persuasive design-related motivators, ability factors and prompts in early childhood apps: A content analysis. Computers in Human Behavior, 139: 107492. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2022.107492   [Google Scholar]
  45. Mardhatillah M, Kasmini L, Fatmawati F, Rambe T, and Yasrizal Y (2020). The influence of information technology and communication technology (ICT)-based learning media on student learning outcomes in mathematics learning in elementary school. Advances in Mathematics: Scientific Journal, 9(12): 10569-10576. https://doi.org/10.37418/amsj.9.12.42   [Google Scholar]
  46. McLean G and Wilson A (2019). Shopping in the digital world: Examining customer engagement through augmented reality mobile applications. Computers in Human Behavior, 101: 210-224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.07.002   [Google Scholar]
  47. Mumford S and Dikilitaş K (2020). Pre-service language teachers reflection development through online interaction in a hybrid learning course. Computers and Education, 144: 103706. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103706   [Google Scholar]
  48. Murad DF, Hassan R, Heryadi Y, and Wijanarko BD (2020). The impact of the covid-19 pandemic in Indonesia (face to face versus online learning). In the 2020 3rd International Conference on Vocational Education and Electrical Engineering, IEEE, Surabaya, Indonesia: 1-4. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICVEE50212.2020.9243202   [Google Scholar] PMCid:PMC7319809
  49. Naidoo J and Singh-Pillay A (2020). Teachers' perceptions of using the blended learning approach for STEM-related subjects within the fourth industrial revolution. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 19(4): 583-593. https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/20.19.583   [Google Scholar]
  50. Olsson T, Lagerstam E, Kärkkäinen T, and Väänänen-Vainio-Mattila K (2013). Expected user experience of mobile augmented reality services: a user study in the context of shopping centres. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 17: 287-304. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-011-0494-x   [Google Scholar]
  51. Oyman M, Bal D, and Ozer S (2022). Extending the technology acceptance model to explain how perceived augmented reality affects consumers' perceptions. Computers in Human Behavior, 128: 107127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.107127   [Google Scholar]
  52. Pedaste M, Mäeots M, Siiman LA, De Jong T, Van Riesen SA, Kamp ET, and Tsourlidaki E (2015). Phases of inquiry-based learning: Definitions and the inquiry cycle. Educational Research Review, 14: 47-61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2015.02.003   [Google Scholar]
  53. Pujiastuti H and Haryadi R (2020). The use of augmented reality blended learning for improving understanding of food security. Jurnal Pendidikan IPA Indonesia, 9(1): 59-69. https://doi.org/10.15294/jpii.v9i1.21742   [Google Scholar]
  54. Pujiastuti H and Haryadi R (2022). Development of augmented reality with the ADDIE model in mathematics learning. In AIP Conference Proceedings, AIP Publishing, Bandung, Indonesia: 2468: 070008. https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0102802   [Google Scholar]
  55. Pujiastuti H and Haryadi R (2023). Enhancing mathematical literacy ability through guided inquiry learning with augmented reality. Journal of Education and e-Learning Research, 10(1): 43-50. https://doi.org/10.20448/jeelr.v10i1.4338   [Google Scholar]
  56. Pujiastuti H, Suvati DA, Haryadi R, and Marethi I (2020a). Development of mathmodule based on local wisdom and 21stcentury skills: Linear equation system. In Journal of Physics: Conference Series, IOP Publishing, BostonKota Palembang, Indonesia, 1480: 012052. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1480/1/012052   [Google Scholar]
  57. Pujiastuti H, Utami RR, and Haryadi R (2020b). The development of interactive mathematics learning media based on local wisdom and 21st century skills: Social arithmetic concept. In Journal of Physics: Conference Series, IOP Publishing, Bandung, Indonesia, 1521: 032019. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1521/3/032019   [Google Scholar]
  58. Rademaker F, de Boer A, Kupers E, and Minnaert A (2021). It also takes teachers to tango: Using social validity assessment to refine an intervention design. International Journal of Educational Research, 107: 101749. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2021.101749   [Google Scholar]
  59. Saadé RG, Morin D, and Thomas JD (2012). Critical thinking in e-learning environments. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(5): 1608-1617. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.03.025   [Google Scholar]
  60. Scott CE, McTigue EM, Miller DM, and Washburn EK (2018). The what, when, and how of preservice teachers and literacy across the disciplines: A systematic literature review of nearly 50 years of research. Teaching and Teacher Education, 73: 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2018.03.010   [Google Scholar]
  61. Soler R, Soler JR, and Araya I (2017). Diagnosis of educational needs for the implementation of blended courses based on the blended learning model: The case of the social sciences faculty of the National University of Costa Rica. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 237: 1316-1322. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2017.02.216   [Google Scholar]
  62. Strasser K, Barra G, and Mendive S (2021). The role of video analysis and deliberate rehearsal in the development of language stimulation skills in pre-service preschool teacher preparation: An experimental study. Teaching and Teacher Education, 106: 103459. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2021.103459   [Google Scholar]
  63. Tsai MJ, Huang LJ, Hou HT, Hsu CY, and Chiou GL (2016). Visual behavior, flow and achievement in game-based learning. Computers and Education, 98: 115-129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.03.011   [Google Scholar]
  64. Tsybulsky D and Muchnik-Rozanov Y (2019). The development of student-teachers' professional identity while team-teaching science classes using a project-based learning approach: A multi-level analysis. Teaching and Teacher Education, 79: 48-59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2018.12.006   [Google Scholar]
  65. Ung LL, Labadin J, and Mohamad FS (2022). Computational thinking for teachers: Development of a localised e-learning system. Computers and Education, 177: 104379. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104379   [Google Scholar]
  66. Wang J, Guo H, Li Z, Song A, and Niu X (2023). Quantile deep learning model and multi-objective opposition elite marine predator optimization algorithm for wind speed prediction. Applied Mathematical Modelling, 115: 56-79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apm.2022.10.052   [Google Scholar]
  67. Xu Z, Liu J, Lu W, Xu B, Zhao X, Li B, and Huang J (2021). Detecting facial manipulated videos based on set convolutional neural networks. Journal of Visual Communication and Image Representation, 77: 103119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvcir.2021.103119   [Google Scholar]
  68. Yang FCO, Lai HM, and Wang YW (2023). Effect of augmented reality-based virtual educational robotics on programming students’ enjoyment of learning, computational thinking skills, and academic achievement. Computers and Education, 195: 104721. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2022.104721   [Google Scholar]
  69. Yang FY and Wang HY (2023). Tracking visual attention during learning of complex science concepts with augmented 3D visualizations. Computers and Education, 193: 104659. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2022.104659   [Google Scholar]
  70. Yang YTC (2015). Virtual CEOs: A blended approach to digital gaming for enhancing higher order thinking and academic achievement among vocational high school students. Computers and Education, 81: 281-295. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.10.004   [Google Scholar]
  71. Yao X (2020). Unpacking learner’s growth in geometric understanding when solving problems in a dynamic geometry environment: Coordinating two frames. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 60: 100803. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2020.100803   [Google Scholar]
  72. Yip J, Wong SH, Yick KL, Chan K, and Wong KH (2019). Improving quality of teaching and learning in classes by using augmented reality video. Computers and Education, 128: 88-101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.09.014   [Google Scholar]
  73. Zhang F and Shi Y (2020). Geometry on the statistical manifold induced by the degradation model with soft failure data. Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics, 363: 211-222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cam.2019.06.003   [Google Scholar]
  74. Zydney JM, Warner Z, and Angelone L (2020). Learning through experience: Using design based research to redesign protocols for blended synchronous learning environments. Computers and Education, 143: 103678. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103678   [Google Scholar]