International Journal of

ADVANCED AND APPLIED SCIENCES

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

Frequency: 12
line decor
  
line decor

 Volume 7, Issue 11 (November 2020), Pages: 102-109

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

 Original Research Paper

 Title: Validity of figural creativity model development based on robotic learning concept

 Author(s): Billy Hendrik 1, 2, *, Nazlena Mohamad Ali 1, Norshita Mat Nayan 1

 Affiliation(s):

 1Institute of Industrial Revolution 4.0, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Bangi, Malaysia
 2Universitas Putra Indonesia, Padang, Indonesia

  Full Text - PDF          XML

 * Corresponding Author. 

  Corresponding author's ORCID profile: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3561-3056

 Digital Object Identifier: 

 https://doi.org/10.21833/ijaas.2020.11.011

 Abstract:

The teaching and learning process is not only related to student learning outcomes but must also be able to stimulate student skills such as creativity skills, problem-solving skills, collaboration skills, communication skills, etc. Creativity skill is one of the skills students need to have in facing the era of the industrial revolution 4.0, so applying the right learning model is very important in achieving the expected learning goals. The purpose of this study is to test the validity of the learning model based on the concept of robotics technology, where the learning model is designed to stimulate students' figural creativity skills. At present, there are several learning models that have been validated and are able to improve the ability to think creatively. However, in this study, the validity testing of this robotics-based learning model was carried out even further, to the building blocks of figural creativity skill. The validity aspects of the figural creativity model based on robot learning were investigated on the four elements of figural creativity, namely: Fluency, flexibility, originality, elaboration, and validity, and were assessed by two psychologists and two education experts. The results showed that the concept of robotic learning was able to fulfill the valid criteria. Based on the validator's evaluation, the cleavage model fulfilled the content validity with an Aiken’s V value>0.92. Learning process by applying figural creativity development models based on robotic learning concepts can improve students' figural creativity skills in all the building blocks of figural creativity. 

 © 2020 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: Figural creativity, Robotic, Learning, Validity, Model

 Article History: Received 2 April 2020, Received in revised form 3 July 2020, Accepted 7 July 2020

 Acknowledgment:

No Acknowledgment.

 Compliance with ethical standards

 Conflict of interest: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

 Citation:

 Hendrik B, Ali NM, and Nayan NM (2020). Validity of figural creativity model development based on robotic learning concept. International Journal of Advanced and Applied Sciences, 7(11): 102-109

 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 Table 7 Table 8 Table 9 Table 10 

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

 References (24)

  1. Afari E and Khine MS (2017). Robotics as an educational tool: Impact of lego mindstorms. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 7(6): 437-442. https://doi.org/10.18178/ijiet.2017.7.6.908   [Google Scholar]
  2. Aiken LR (1985). Three coefficients for analysing reliability and validity of rating. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 45: 131–142. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164485451012   [Google Scholar]
  3. Arianatasari A and Hakim L (2018). Penerapan desain model plomp pada pengembangan buku teks berbasis guided inquiry. Jurnal Pendidikan Akuntansi, 6(1): 36-40.   [Google Scholar]
  4. Astutik S, Nur M, and Susantini E (2016). Validity of collaborative creativity (CC) models. In The 3rd International Conference on Research, Implementation and Education of Mathematics and Science, Yogyakarta, Indonesia: 73-78.   [Google Scholar]
  5. Ayob A, Hussain A, Mustaffa MM, and Majid RA (2012). Assessment of creativity in electrical engineering. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 60: 463-467. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.09.407   [Google Scholar]
  6. Eliza R, Fauzan A, Lufri L, and Yerizon Y (2019). The validity of realistic problem based learning model development of mathematics learning in vocational high school (SMK). Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, 178: 12–18. https://doi.org/10.2991/icoie-18.2019.4   [Google Scholar]
  7. Gunawan G, Harjono A, Sahidu H, and Nisrina N (2018). Improving students’ creativity using cooperative learning with virtual media on static fluida concept. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1006(1): 012016. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1006/1/012016   [Google Scholar]
  8. Hendrik B, Ali NM, and Nayan NM (2020). Robotic technology for figural creativity enhancement: Case study on elementary school. International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications, 11: 536–543. https://doi.org/10.14569/IJACSA.2020.0110166   [Google Scholar]
  9. Hendrik B, Ali NM, Sulaiman R, and Et A (2019). Relationship between intellectual intelligence, figural creativity, and innovation. Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, 229: 545–555.   [Google Scholar]
  10. Hendrik B, Ali NM, Sulaiman R, Masril M, and Fikri HT (2018). The effect of curriculum on the level of figural creativity among elementary school students. Journal of Built Environment, Technology and Engineering, 4: 200–205.   [Google Scholar]
  11. Hendryadi H (2017). Validitas isi: Tahap awal pengembangan kuesioner. Jurnal Riset Manajemen dan Bisnis (JRMB) Fakultas Ekonomi UNIAT, 2(2): 169-178. https://doi.org/10.36226/jrmb.v2i2.47   [Google Scholar]
  12. Jagust T, Cvetkovic-Lay J, Krzic AS, and Sersic D (2018). Using robotics to foster creativity in early gifted education. In: Lepuschitz W, Merdan M, Koppensteiner G, Balogh R, and Obdržálek D (Eds.), Robotics in education: 126-131. Volume 630, Springer, Cham, Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-62875-2_11   [Google Scholar]
  13. Khoiriyah AJ and Husamah H (2018). Problem-based learning: Creative thinking skills, problem-solving skills, and learning outcome of seventh grade students. Jurnal Pendidikan Biologi Indonesia, 4(2): 151-160. https://doi.org/10.22219/jpbi.v4i2.5804   [Google Scholar]
  14. Kirana T (2020). Development of OCIPSE learning model to increase students’ scientific creativity in natural science learning. International Journal of Recent Educational Research, 1(1): 1-18. https://doi.org/10.46245/ijorer.v1i1.10   [Google Scholar]
  15. Komis V, Romero M, and Misirli A (2017). A scenario-based approach for designing educational robotics activities for co-creative problem solving. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, 560: 158-169. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-55553-9_12   [Google Scholar]
  16. Masril M, Hendrik B, Fikri HT, Priambodo B, Naf’an E, Handriani I, and Nseaf AK (2019). The effect of lego mindstorms as an innovative educational tool to develop students’ creativity skills for a creative society. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1339(1): 012082. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1339/1/012082   [Google Scholar]
  17. Pandiangan P, Sanjaya M, Gusti I, and Jatmiko B (2017). The validity and effectiveness of physics independent learning model to improve physics problem solving and self-directed learning skills of students in open and distance education systems. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 16(5): 651-665.   [Google Scholar]
  18. Plomp T and Nieveen NM (2010). An introduction to educational design research. In the Seminar Conducted at the East China Normal University, Stichting Leerplan Ontwikkeling (SLO), Shanghai, China.   [Google Scholar]
  19. Rababah LM, Mohamed AH, Jdaitaw MT, and Melhem NZB (2013). The level of creativity in English writing among Jordanian secondary school students. Arts and Design Studies, 10: 25-29.   [Google Scholar]
  20. Radovic-Markovic M (2012). Creative education and new learning as means of encouraging creativity, original thinking and entrepreneurship. The Book of Proceedings Humanities and the Contemporary World, Montenegrin Academy of Sciences and Arts, Podgorica, Montenegro, Balkans.   [Google Scholar]
  21. Suastika K (2017). Mathematics learning model of open problem solving to develop students’ creativity. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 12(3): 569-577.   [Google Scholar]
  22. Sulaiman F (2013). The effectiveness of PBL online on physics students’ creativity and critical thinking: A case study at Universiti Malaysia Sabah. International Journal of Education and Research, 1(3): 1-18.   [Google Scholar]
  23. Yamtinah S, Saputro S, and Utami B (2016). Content validity and scoring of two tier as measuring instrument of science process skills for knowledge aspects in chemistry learning. In the International Conference on Teacher Training and Education, Surakarta, Indonesia, 1: 911-916.   [Google Scholar]
  24. Yusuf RMS, Karwanto K, and Riyanto Y (2018). The implementation of school-based management in extracurricular robotics execution at elementary school. Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, 212: 76–81. https://doi.org/10.2991/icei-18.2018.17   [Google Scholar]