International Journal of

ADVANCED AND APPLIED SCIENCES

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

Frequency: 12
line decor
  
line decor

 Volume 10, Issue 8 (August 2023), Pages: 19-31

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

 Original Research Paper

Developing the MathSci 21st app: Enhancing higher-order thinking skills assessment in mathematics and science education within an Islamic context

 Author(s): 

 Zulfiani Zulfiani 1, *, Iwan Permana Suwarna 2, Abdul Muin 3, Tita Mulyati 4, R. Ahmad Zaky El Islami 5

 Affiliation(s):

 1Department of Biology Education, Universitas Islam Negeri Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta, South Tangerang, Indonesia
 2Department of Physics Education, Universitas Islam Negeri Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta, South Tangerang, Indonesia
 3Department of Mathematics Education, Universitas Islam Negeri Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta, South Tangerang, Indonesia
 4Department of Primary School Teacher Education, Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia, Bandung, Indonesia
 5Department of Science Education, Universitas Sultan Ageng Tirtayasa, Serang, Indonesia

  Full Text - PDF          XML

 * Corresponding Author. 

  Corresponding author's ORCID profile: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9369-1418

 Digital Object Identifier: 

 https://doi.org/10.21833/ijaas.2023.08.003

 Abstract:

The innovation of digital assessment holds profound potential for enhancing educational quality. To measure higher-order thinking skills, intrinsic to effective problem-solving in science and mathematics education, and to cultivate digital literacy, a specialized platform is imperative. This study delineates the developmental trajectory of the MathSci 21st app, designed to assess mathematics and science proficiency within the Islamic context. Emphasizing the pivotal role of higher-level thinking skills in the contemporary landscape, the research method unfolds across distinct phases: Akker (preliminary research), prototype stage (prototyping), summative evaluation, and systematic reflection and documentation. This article confines its focus to preliminary research and prototype stages. The validation of the application prototype engaged a panel of ten experts, while a controlled trial encompassed 32 high school students and one educator. Utilizing observation sheets, questionnaires, and tests as research tools, comprehensive data analysis was executed employing both quantitative and qualitative methods. Research outcomes affirm the feasibility of the Prototype MathSci 21st app, an Android-based competency assessment tool characterized by its integrated and contextual dimensions. Android-based applications not only heighten efficiency and efficacy but also exhibit environmental conscientiousness by reducing paper usage. Additionally, their user familiarity augments acceptability. Significantly, the MathSci 21st app expedites assessment, empowering educators to provide prompt feedback and expedite future learning analysis. This study pioneers a digital assessment paradigm tailored to intricate higher-order thinking skills, thereby addressing critical educational imperatives in mathematics and science within the Islamic milieu.

 © 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: Digital assessment, Higher-order thinking skills, MathSci 21st app, Islamic context, Competency assessment

 Article History: Received 5 February 2023, Received in revised form 12 June 2023, Accepted 20 June 2023

 Acknowledgment 

The research team would like to express their gratitude for the support of PUSLITPEN LP2M UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta for the applied research grant for higher education collaboration No. UN 01/KPA/228/2022.

 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:

 Zulfiani Z, Suwarna IP, Muin A, Mulyati T, and El Islami RAZ (2023). Developing the MathSci 21st app: Enhancing higher-order thinking skills assessment in mathematics and science education within an Islamic context. International Journal of Advanced and Applied Sciences, 10(8): 19-31

 Permanent Link to this page

 Figures

 Fig. 1 Fig. 2 Fig. 3 Fig. 4 Fig. 5 

 Tables

 Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 Table 4 Table 5 Table 6 Table 7 Table 8 Table 9 Table 10 Table 11 Table 12 Table 13 

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

 References (42)

  1. Afriyanti M, Suyatna A, and Viyanti (2021). Design of e-modules to stimulate HOTS on static fluid materials with the STEM approach. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1788: 012032. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1788/1/012032   [Google Scholar]
  2. Aiken LR (1985). Three coefficients for analyzing the reliability and validity of ratings. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 45(1): 131-142. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164485451012   [Google Scholar]
  3. Al Aliyawinata TT, Utari E, and Mahrawi M (2021). The effect of discovery learning on students’ higher-order thinking skills. International Journal of Biology Education Towards Sustainable Development, 1(1): 1-9. https://doi.org/10.53889/ijbetsd.v1i1.47   [Google Scholar]
  4. Anderson LW, Krathwohl DR, Airasian PW, Cruikshank KA, Mayer RE, Pintrich PR, Raths J, and Wittrock MC (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. Longman, New York, USA.   [Google Scholar]
  5. Andriyatno I, Zulfiani Z, and Mardiati Y (2023). Higher order thinking skills: Student profile using two-tier multiple choice instrument. International Journal of STEM Education for Sustainability, 3(1): 111-124. https://doi.org/10.53889/ijses.v3i1.79   [Google Scholar]
  6. Astuti Y, Asmar A, Musdi E, and Yerizon (2023). Development of mathematics e-module using scientific approach integrated Islamic values for integrated Islamic junior high school. AIP Conference Proceedings, 2698(1): 060003. https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0122559   [Google Scholar]
  7. Balaji K, Selvam M, Rajeswari R (2022). Impact of artificial intelligence (AI), Internet of Things (IoT) and STEM social enterprise learning based applications in the teaching and learning process of engineering education. In: Kumar A, Senatore S, and Gunjan VK (Eds.), ICDSMLA 2020: Lecture notes in electrical engineering: 1217–1226. Volume 783, Springer, Singapore, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-3690-5_116   [Google Scholar]
  8. Barak M (2017). Science teacher education in the twenty-first century: A pedagogical framework for technology-integrated social constructivism. Research in Science Education, 47: 283-303. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-015-9501-y   [Google Scholar]
  9. Beniermann A, Mecklenburg L, and zu Belzen AU (2021). Reasoning on controversial science issues in science education and science communication. Education Sciences, 11(9): 522. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11090522   [Google Scholar]
  10. Birenbaum M, DeLuca C, Earl L, Heritage M, Klenowski V, Looney A, and Wyatt-Smith C (2015). International trends in the implementation of assessment for learning: Implications for policy and practice. Policy Futures in Education, 13(1): 117-140. https://doi.org/10.1177/1478210314566733   [Google Scholar]
  11. Budiarti IS and Tanta T (2021). Analysis on students’ scientific literacy of Newton’s law and motion system in living things. Jurnal Pendidikan Sains Indonesia [Indonesian Journal of Science Education], 9(1): 36-51. https://doi.org/10.24815/jpsi.v9i1.18470   [Google Scholar]
  12. Caena F and Redecker C (2019). Aligning teacher competence frameworks to 21st century challenges: The case for the European Digital Competence Framework for Educators (DIGCOMPEDU). European Journal of Education, 54(3): 356-369. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12345   [Google Scholar]
  13. Clark I (2011). Formative assessment: Policy, perspectives and practice. Florida Journal of Educational Administration and Policy, 4(2): 158-180.   [Google Scholar]
  14. Dalby D and Swan M (2019). Using digital technology to enhance formative assessment in mathematics classrooms. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(2): 832-845. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12606   [Google Scholar]
  15. Darling-Aduana J (2020). High school student experiences and learning in online courses: Implications for educational equity and the future of learning. Ph.D. Dissertation, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, USA.   [Google Scholar]
  16. Fensham PJ and Bellocchi A (2013). Higher order thinking in chemistry curriculum and its assessment. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 10: 250-264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2013.06.003   [Google Scholar]
  17. Fullan M and Langworthy M (2014). A rich seam: How new pedagogies find deep learning. Technical Report, Pearson, London, UK.   [Google Scholar]
  18. Harlen W (2013). Assessment and inquiry-based science education: Issues in policy and practice. InterAcademy Partnership (IAP), Trieste, Italy.   [Google Scholar]
  19. Haryadi R and Pujiastuti H (2022). Enhancing pre-service physics teachers' higher-order thinking skills through STEM-PJBL model. International Journal of STEM Education for Sustainability, 2(2): 156-171. https://doi.org/10.53889/ijses.v2i2.38   [Google Scholar]
  20. Heale R and Twycross A (2015). Validity and reliability in quantitative studies. Evidence-Based Nursing, 18(3): 66-67. https://doi.org/10.1136/eb-2015-102129   [Google Scholar] PMid:25979629
  21. Huda M, Maseleno A, Atmotiyoso P, Siregar M, Ahmad R, Jasmi K, and Muhamad N (2018). Big data emerging technology: Insights into innovative environment for online learning resources. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 13(1): 23-36. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v13i01.6990   [Google Scholar]
  22. Johar R and Ahmad A (2018). The quality of learning materials through mathematics reaslitic to improve students’ mathematical communication ability in the elementary school. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1088(1): 012077. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1088/1/012077   [Google Scholar]
  23. Jufrida J, Basuki FR, Kurniawan W, Pangestu MD, and Fitaloka O (2019). Scientific literacy and science learning achievement at junior high school. International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education, 8(4): 630-636. https://doi.org/10.11591/ijere.v8i4.20312   [Google Scholar]
  24. Krüger D, Hartmann S, Nordmeier V, and Upmeier zu Belzen A (2020). Measuring scientific reasoning competencies: Multiple aspects of validity. In: Zlatkin-Troitschanskaia O, Pant HA, Toepper M, and Lautenbach C (Eds.), Student learning in German higher education: Innovative measurement approaches and research results: 261–280. Springer VS, Wiesbaden, Germany. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-27886-1_13   [Google Scholar]
  25. Kurniawati L, Miftah R, Kadir K, and Muin A (2021). Student mathematical literacy skill of madrasah in Indonesia with Islamic context. TARBIYA: Journal of Education in Muslim Society, 8(1): 108-118. https://doi.org/10.15408/tjems.v8i1.3184   [Google Scholar]
  26. Lawshe CH (1975). A quantitative approach to content validity. Personnel Psychology, 28(4): 563-575. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1975.tb01393.x   [Google Scholar]
  27. Le B, Lawrie GA, and Wang JT (2022). Student self-perception on digital literacy in STEM blended learning environments. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 31(3): 303-321. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-022-09956-1   [Google Scholar] PMid:35132301 PMCid:PMC8809496
  28. Leenknecht M, Wijnia L, Köhlen M, Fryer L, Rikers R, and Loyens S (2021). Formative assessment as practice: The role of students’ motivation. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 46(2): 236-255. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2020.1765228   [Google Scholar]
  29. Nieveen N (2007). Educational design research. In: Van den Akker J, Gravemeijer K, and McKenney S (Eds.), Educational design research. Volume 2, Routledge, London, UK.   [Google Scholar]
  30. Nihayati N, Khoiriyah S, Nurmitasari N, and Kayyis R (2022). Mathematics teaching materials of set integrated with Islamic values. International Journal of Trends in Mathematics Education Research, 5(2): 174-179. https://doi.org/10.33122/ijtmer.v5i2.152   [Google Scholar]
  31. NRC (2012). Education for life and work: Developing transferable knowledge and skills in the 21st century. National Research Council, National Academies Press, Washington, USA.   [Google Scholar]
  32. OECD (2015). PISA 2015: Draft science framework. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Luxembourg, Luxembourg.   [Google Scholar]
  33. Osborne J (2013). The 21st century challenge for science education: Assessing scientific reasoning. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 10: 265-279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2013.07.006   [Google Scholar]
  34. Pujiastuti H and Haryadi R (2023). Higher-order thinking skills profile of Islamic boarding school students on geometry through the STEM–based video approach. International Journal of STEM Education for Sustainability, 3(1): 156-174. https://doi.org/10.53889/ijses.v3i1.135   [Google Scholar]
  35. Putri RII and Aisyah N (2020). Learning integers with realistic mathematics education approach based on Islamic values. Journal on Mathematics Education, 11(3): 363-384. https://doi.org/10.22342/jme.11.3.11721.363-384   [Google Scholar]
  36. Rahmah N, Lestari A, Musa LAD, and Sugilar H (2019). Quizizz online digital system assessment tools. In the IEEE 5th International Conference on Wireless and Telematics, IEEE, Yogyakarta, Indonesia: 1-4. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICWT47785.2019.8978212   [Google Scholar]
  37. Spector JM, Ifenthaler D, Sampson D, Yang JL, Mukama E, Warusavitarana A, and Gibson DC (2016). Technology enhanced formative assessment for 21st century learning. Journal of Educational Technology and Society, 19(3): 58-71.   [Google Scholar]
  38. Sullivan P, McBrayer JS, Miller S, and Fallon K (2021). An examination of the use of computer-based formative assessments. Computers and Education, 173: 104274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104274   [Google Scholar]
  39. Weurlander M, Söderberg M, Scheja M, Hult H, and Wernerson A (2012). Exploring formative assessment as a tool for learning: Students’ experiences of different methods of formative assessment. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 37(6): 747-760. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2011.572153   [Google Scholar]
  40. Wisniewski B, Zierer K, and Hattie J (2020). The power of feedback revisited: A meta-analysis of educational feedback research. Frontiers in Psychology, 10: 3087. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.03087   [Google Scholar] PMid:32038429 PMCid:PMC6987456
  41. Zhang Y, Geng P, Sivaparthipan CB, and Muthu BA (2021). Big data and artificial intelligence based early risk warning system of fire hazard for smart cities. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments, 45: 100986. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seta.2020.100986   [Google Scholar]
  42. Zulfiani Z, Suwarna IP, and Muin A (2021). Framework and prototype development of MathSci instruments for measuring 21st century skills in Islamic context. TARBIYA: Journal of Education in Muslim Society, 8(1): 96-107. https://doi.org/10.15408/tjems.v8i1.22120   [Google Scholar]