THE EFFECT OF MOBILE HOMEWORK ON STUDENTS’ LEARNING OUTCOMES, HOMEWORK QUALITY, AND PERCEPTION TOWARD
MOBILE LEARNING FOR DIGESTIVE AND RESPIRATORY SYSTEM TOPICS AT SMA NEGERI IN MEDAN
A THESIS
Submitted to the Biology Education Study Program in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement for Degree of
Magister Pendidikan
By:
DINA KHARIDA
Student Registration Number: 8136173006
BIOLOGY EDUCATION POSTGRADUATE PROGRAM STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN
ABSTRACT
Dina Kharida: The Effect Of Mobile Homework On Students’ Learning Outcomes, Homework Quality, and Perception Toward Mobile Learning For Digestive and Respiratory System Topics at SMA Negeri in Medan. Thesis. Post-graduate Program UNIMED. 2015.
The aims of this study were to investigate the effect of Mobile Homework on students’ (1) learning outcomes, (2) ability in answering questions based on Bloom’s taxonomy of cognitive domain, (3) homework scores, (4) homework quality, and to analyze (5) the correlation between leaning outcomes and average homework score, (6) the correlation between leaning outcomes and average homework quality score, (7) students’ perception on mobile learning, (8) student’ rate of homework submission, and (9) the rate of homework submission among male and female students. Three classes of students from three different public senior high schools in Medan, North Sumatera Province, Indonesia, were clustery selected and assigned with mobile homework, while other three classes of students were given with paper-based homework. Students’ learning outcomes were measured with multiple choice tests and essay test, while rating scales was used to assess students’ homework quality. Data of perception on the mobile homework were derived from questionnaire filled by the students. The data were analyzed with Quade Non-parametric ANCOVA, Mann Whitney-U test, Spearman rank correlation, and Chi-Square using SPSS and MYSTAT v.13.1 software packages. Results showed that Mobile Homework had significantly effected student’ (1) learning outcomes (F = 56.38 ; P = 0.00), (2) ability in answering C3 (Application) and C4 (Analysis-Synthesis) questions (U = 3, 130.00; P = 0.00), (3) ability in answering C5 (Evaluation) and C6 (Creation) questions (U = 3.643,00; P = 0.00), (4) homework scores (U = 1,090.00; P = 0.00), (5) homework quality (U = 3, 194.00; P = 0.00), of the experimental class compare with those who were given with paper-based homework, while (6) there was a moderate, positive correlation between homework scores and learning outcomes (rs = 0.47; P = 0.00), (7) there was a moderate, positive correlation between good homework quality and better learning outcomes (rs = 0.49; P = 0.00), (8) experimental class have equal rate of homework completion compare with those who were given with paper-based homework, in which the difference of the rate of homework submission were not significantly different, χ2 (2) = 5.23; p = 0.07, and (9) the frequency and total percentage of both experimental and control group with regards to their gender, showed that male student in general have lower complete mobile homework submission compared with female students. Students at experimental class are in general show a positive perception towards mobile learning. Thus, mobile homework with its mobile learning feature has a number of advantages over traditional paper based homework
ABSTRAK
Dina Kharida: Pengaruh Mobile Homework Terhadap Hasil Belajar Siswa, Kualitas Tugas, dan Persepsi Terhadap Mobile Learning, Pada Topic Sistem Pencernaan dan Pernapasan di SMA Negeri Medan. Tesis. Program Pascasarjana UNIMED. 2015.
Tujuan penelitian ini adalah untuk memahami pengaruh Mobile Homework terhadap (1) hasil belajar, (2) kemampuan menjawab pertanyaan berdasarkan Taxonomi Ranah Kognitif Bloom, (3) skor tugas rumah, (4) kualitas tugas rumah siswa, dan untuk menganalisis (5) korelasi antara hasil belaljar dan skor tugas mingguan, (6) korelasi antara hasil belajar dan kualitas tugas rumah, (7) persepsi siswa atas mobile learning, (8) rata pengumpulan tugas rumah dan, (9) rata-rata penyelesaian tugas rumah antara siswa pria dan wanita dan (10) persepsi siswa terhadap Mobile Learning. Enam kelas dari tiga SMA Negeri di Kota Medan, Provinsi Sumatera Utara, Indonesia dipilih secara bertingkat dan ditugasi dengan mobile homework, sedangkan tiga kelas lainnya diberikan tugas rumah tertulis. Hasil belajar siswa diukur dengan menggukan tes pilihan berganda dan tes uraian, sedangkan skala pengukuran digunakan untuk menilai kualitas tugas rumah siswa. Data persepsi siswa terhadap Mobile Learning berasal dari Kuesioner yang diisi oleh siswa kelas eksperiment. Data dianalisis menggunakan Quade Non-parametric ANCOVA, Mann Whitney-U test, Spearman rank correlation, and Chi-Square dengan bantuan Software SPSS v.19 and MYSTAT v.13.1. Hasil menunjukkan bahwa Mobile Homework secara signifikan berpengaruh terhadap (1) hasil belajar (F = 56.38; P= 0.00), (2) kemampuan menjawab pertanyaan berdasarkan Ranah Kognitif C3 dan C4 (U = 3, 130.00; P = 0.00), (3) kemampuan menjawab pertanyaan berdasarkan Ranah Kognitif C5 dan C6 (U = 3, 643.00; P = 0.00), (4) skor tugas mingguan (U = 1, 090.00; P = 0.00), (5) kualitas tugas rumah (U = 3, 194.00; P = 0.00) siswa pada kelas eksperimen dibandingkan dengan siswa yang diberikan tugas rumah tertulis (6) terdapat korelasi positif sedang antara hasil belajar dan skor tugas rumah (rs= 0.47; P = 0.00), dan (7) terdapat korelasi positif sedang antara hasil bekajar dan kualitas tugas rumah (rs= 0.49; P = 0.00), (8)siswa yang ditugaskan dengan Mobile Homework memiliki rata-rata pengumpulan tugas yang sama ketika dibandingkan dengan siswa yang diberikan tugas rumah tertulis dimana perbedaan antara rataan pengumpulan tugas tidak berbeda signifikan, χ2 (2) = 5.23; p = 0.07, dan (9) berdasarkan persentase dan frekuensi total, baik kelas eksperimen dan kelas control, menunjukkan bahwa siswa pria secara umum memiliki rataan pengumpulan tugas rumah yang lebih rendah dibandingkan siswa perempuan. Siswa pada kelas eksperimen secara umum menunjukkan persepsi yang positif terhadap Mobile Learning, sehingga Mobile Homework dengan kelebihan Mobile Learningnya dapat dikatakan memiliki sejumlah kelebihan dibandingkan tugas rumah tertulis.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
All praise and glory to Almighty Allah (Subhanahu Wa Taalaa) who
gave the writer courage and patience to carry out this work. Peace and blessing of
Allah be upon last Prophet Muhammad (Peace Be upon Him).
A major research project like this is never the work of anyone alone, but
the support of many people, in which the contribution of them, in different ways,
had made this possible. The writer hardly knows where to start expressing her
gratitude, but several people deserve her sincere thanks.
The writer would like to express her unrestrained appreciation to her
thesis supervisors, Syarifuddin, M.Sc, Ph.D., and Prof. Dr. Herbert Sipahutar
M.S., M.Sc., for their constant help and guidance. Both supervisor had been
helping out and supporting the writer throughout the course of this work and on
several other occasions. Thanks are also due to the thesis committee members
Prof. Dr. Busmin Gurning, M.Pd., Dr. Hasruddin, M.Pd., and Dr. Fauziyah
Harahap, M.Si., for their attention, cooperation, comments and constructive
criticism.
The writer is also acknowledging her colleagues and friends, especially
the member of Pascasarjana Pendidikan Biologi A 2013, whom the writer had a
pleasant, enjoyable and fruitful company. Thanks are due to all the faculty and
staff of Biology Education Study program, to the head of the study program, Dr.
Hasruddin and Dr. Fauziyah Harahap for their stimulating support and the
assistance in completing the administrative procedures.
Special thanks would also be extended to the headmaster and the headmistress of SMAN 1 Medan, SMAN 2 Medan, and SMAN 4 Medan, who have gave permission for conducting this study and to the Biology teachers for
their great help in collecting the data. Big appreciation is also addressed to all the
students at three public schools who had responded, reacted, and gave time for the
Finally, the writer extends her acknowledgement and heartfelt love to her
parents, brothers and sister, who have been with her all the time to spur her spirits.
June, 2015 The Writer
Dina Kharida
TABLE OF CONTENT
Page
Approval Sheet ... i
Abstract ... iii
Acknowledgement ... v
Table of Content ... vii
List of Figures ... x
List of Tables... xii
List of Diagrams ... xiii
List of Appendices ... xiv
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background of study ... 1
1.2 Problem Identification ... 7
1.3 Research Scope ... 8
1.4 Research Question ... 9
1.5 Objectives ... 9
1.6 Significance ... 10
CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 Theoritical Framework ... 11
2.1.1. Biology Learning ... 11
2.1.1.1 The 21st Century Biology Learning... 13
2.1.1.2 Scientific Learning in 2013 Curriculum ... 15
2.1.2 Learning Outcomes ... 16
2.1.3 Students Perception ... 19
2.1.4 Homework ... 21
2.1.5.1 Fundamental Role in Learning ... 22
2.1.5.2 Homework Policies ... 23
2.1.5.3 Homework Quality ... 24
2.1.5 Mobile Learning ... 25
2.1.5.1 Current Students Use of Mobile Technology... 26
2.1.5.2 Social Networking Sites as Learning Environments ... 27
2.1.5.3 Mobile Technology in Educational Context ... 28
2.1.5.4 Influences of Mobile Technology on Students ‘Attitude, Behavior, And Achievement ... 29
2.1.6 Mobile Homework ... 31
2.2 Conceptual Framework ... 32
2.3 Operational Definition ... 37
3.2 Population and Sample ... 39
3.3 Research Method and Design... 39
3.4 Development of Mobile Digital Homework ... 40
3.5 Research Instruments ... 42
3.6 Criteria of Success... 48
3.7 Scoring Procedures... 49
3.8 Research Procedures ... 51
3.9 Data analysis ... 54
3.10 Hypotheses ... 55
CHAPTER IV RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 4.1 Results ... 58
4.1.1 Students’ Pre-capability ... 58
4.1.2 Students’ Learning Outcome ... 4.1.3 Students’ Ability in Answering Question Based on Category of Bloom Taxonomy ... 59
4.1.3.1. Students Ability in answering C1 and C2 Question Category ... 60
4.1.3.2. Students ability in answering C3 and C4 Question Category ... 60
4.1.3.3. Students ability in answering C5 and C6 Question Category ... 63
4.1.4 Students’ Weekly Homework Average Scores... 66
4.1.5 Students Homework Quality... 66
4.1.6 Correlation Between Weekly Homework Average Score and Learning Outcomes ... 70
4.1.7 Correlation Between Homework Quality Average Score and Learning Outcomes ... 72
4.1.8 Students’ Perception on Mobile Learning ... 74
4.1.9 Homework Submission Rate among Treatments. ... 78
4.1.10 The Rate of Submission among Male and Female Students. ... 79
4.2 Discussion ... 80
4.2.1 The Effect of Mobile Homework on Students Learning Outcomes ... 80
4.2.2. The Effect of Mobile learning on Students’ Ability in Answering Question Based on Category of Bloom Taxonomy ... 85
4.2.3 The Effect of Mobile Homework on Students’ Average Homework Score ... 88
4.2.4 The Effect of Mobile Homework on Students’ Homework Quality ... 89
4.2.5 The Correlation between students’ homework scores and Learning Outcomes ... 91
4.2.6 The correlation between students’ homework quality and Learning Outcomes ... 92
4.2.7 The effect of mobile homework on student’ perception towards Mobile learning ... 94
4.2.8 Homework Submission Rate among Treatment ...96
4.2.9 Homework Completion Rate among Male and Female Students ...97
CHAPTER V CONCLUSION AND RECOMENDATION
5.1 Conclusion ... 100 5.2 Recommendation... 100
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1 Experimental Design... 40
Table 3.2 Summary of Research Instrument Test Analysis. ... 48
Table 3.3 Criteria of Learning Gain. ... 50
Table 3.4 Quality Criteria of Completed Homework... 50
Table 3.5Criteria of Students’ Questionnaire of Perception and Attitude Toward Mobile Learning... 51
Table 4.1 Descriptive Statistics of Overall Participant on three different Public Schools. ... 71
Table 4.2 Descriptive Statistics of Students Response on Mobile Homework. ... 74
Table 4.3 Descriptive Statistics of Students Perception on Mobile Learning.. 75
Table 4.4 Mean of Students’ Perception on Mobile Learning Effectiveness. . 76
Table 4.5 Categorization of Students’ response on Mobil learning Effectiveness... 77
LIST OF FIGURES
Page Figure 4.1 The effect of types of homework assignments on students’
learning outcomes in SMAN 1, SMAN 2, and SMAN Medan, Academic Year 2014-2015 (F= 56,38; P= 0.00 ... 61 Figure 4.2 Comparison of the results of students’ posttest score between
control (assigned with paper based homework) and treatment group (given with mobile homework/ MH). ... 61 Figure 4.3 The Ability in answering C1 (Knowledge) and C2
(comprehension) questions between students’ who were assigned with ‘mobile homework’ and those who were given with ‘paper based’ homework (U = 5,060.00; P = 0.55)... 62 Figure 4.4 Comparison of the results of students ‘Ability in answering C1
(Knowledge) and C2 (comprehension) questions between ... 62 Figure 4.5 The effect of types of homework assignments on students’
ability in answering C3 (Application) and C4 Analysis-Synthesis) between students’ who were assigned with ‘mobile homework’ and those who were given with ‘paper based’ homework (U = 3, 130.00; P = 0.00) 64
Figure 4.6 Comparison of the results of students ‘ability in answering C3 (Application) and C4 (Analysis-Synthesis) between control (assigned with paper based homework) and treatment group (given with mobile homework/ MH) ... 64 Figure 4.7 The effect of types of homework assignments on students’
ability in answering C5 (Evaluation) and C6 (Creation) betweenstudents’ who were assigned with ‘mobile homework’ and those who were given with ‘paper based’ homework U = 3, 643.00; P = 0.00) ... 65 Figure 4.8 Comparison of the results of on students’ ability in answering
C5 (Evaluation) and C6 (Creation) between control (assigned with paper based homework) and treatment group (given with mobile homework/ MH)... 65 Figure 4.9 The effect of types of assignments on students’ weekly
homework average score in SMAN 1, SMAN 2, and SMAN 4 Medan, Academic Year 2014-2015 (U = 3, 194.00; P = 0.00) ... 68 Figure 4.10 Comparison of the results of students’ weekly homework
average scores between control (assigned with paper based homework) and treatment group (given with mobile homework/ MH)... 68 Figure 4.11 The effect of types of assignments on students’ homework
quality average scores in SMAN 1, SMAN 2, and SMAN 4 Medan, Academic Year 2014-2015 (U = 1, 090.00; P = 0.00) ... 69 Figure 4.12 Comparison of the results of students’ homework quality
Figure 4.13 The Average scale of students’ homework quality analyzed form 7 aspects of students’ homework quality assessments, (HQ1: Assignment completeness; HQ2: Students work neatness and organization; HQ3: Understanding of Topics; HQ4:Answer Accuracy ;HQ5:Academic Integrity; HQ6:Time for Submission; HQ7: Format of submitted work) ... 70 Figure 4.14 The correlation between learning outcomes (X) and weekly
homework average score (Y) in SMAN 1, SMAN 2, and SMAN 4 Medan, Academic Year 2014-2015 (rs= 0.47; P < 0.00)... 73 Figure 4.15 The correlation between learning outcomes (X) and average
homework quality sores (Y) in SMAN 1, SMAN 2, and SMAN 4 Medan, Academic Year 2014-2015 (rs= 0.49; P < 0.00)... 73 Figure 4.16 The rate of homework submission between classes. Students
iii
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix 1 Digestive and Respiratory System Topics... 114
Appendix 2 Pre-test and Post-Test... 131
Appendix 3 Student Homework... 146
Appendix 4 Essay test Rubric Scoring... 166
Appendix 5 Questionnaires ... 175
Appendix 6 Homework Quality Rating Scale ... 181
Appendix 7 Homework Terms of Submission... 183
Appendix 8 Swim Lanes of Online Work Submission ... 188
Appendix 9 Item Analysis of Multiple Choice ... 190
Appendix 10 Item Analysis of Essay Test ... 195
Appendix 11 Item Analysis of Homework Questionnaire... 196
Appendix 12 Item Analysis of Smartphone Usage Questionnaire... 197
Appendix 13 Item Analysis of Mobile Learning Questionnaire ... 198
Appendix 14 Students’ Homework Questionnaire... 200
Appendix 15 Students’ Smartphone Usage Questionnaire ... 202
Appendix 16Students’Mobile Learning Questionnaire ... 204
Appendix 17 Data Transformation... 205
1
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of Study
Homework according to Cooper (1989:7) is any task assigned by
schoolteachers that meant to be carried out during non-school hours. It is
considered an important part of learning process since the involvement of students
and teachers in homework assignments is viewed one of the most effective ways
in affecting students’ academic achievement (Zimmerman and Kitsantas,
2005:398). Cooper (2006:49) summarized that in US, homework in primary and
secondary school is positively related to students’ academic achievement, with
stronger effect on secondary level.
Students’ academic achievement rises significantly when they assigned
regularly with homework (Paulu, 1996:5) as homework completion accustomed
them to practice in course that put a great emphasis on ability to solve problem
(Bonham, et al, 2003:1050, Larson, 2011:5), help them gain a deeper
understanding of important concepts (Bornemeier, 2006:2) and integrate it (Paulu,
1996:10), apply their knowledge to novel situations (Darling-Hammond and Kim,
2003:190), and develop the skills needed to solve real-world problems they may
encounter in future work place (Bornemeier, 2006:4, Tao, 2008:1). By assigning
students with homework, it is expected that they could keeping up with the pace
of classroom instruction (Bao and Stonbraker, 2008:878).
In like manner, students did acquaint with homework roles and importance
in their academic life and better school achievement. A homework related
questionnaire distributed on the preliminary study revealed that among 201 public
senior high school students in Medan, 2.11% perceive homework completion
teach them self-discipline, 6.84 % think it increases their level of school
engagement, it helps them prepare important academic work independence which
is required in college life later (4.74%), accustomed them with a good study habit
(17.89%), help checks for understanding (25.56%), reinforce what they have
learned (19.47%), and helps them in advance learning (23.16%), with 0.53% of
2
respondents feels that doing homework is important in preparing themselves for
better performance on next meetings (See Appendix 14).
Correspondingly, the concept of homework provides both an avenue for
achieving the three teaching focus outlined in Curriculum 2013; (1) competence,
(2) process, and (3) attitudes (Kemdikbud, 2013:6) and strengthening the idea of
learning by doing (Adebayo, 2010:84), the basic principal of constructivism.
Moreover, by individual homework activities, students could sharpening
skills of information retrieval, planning, analysis, and time management, and
achieving successful independent learning (BBS, 2013:2). The data revealed that
57.91% students do homework independently (see Appendix 14). Likewise, when
homework is seen as device to help independent learning, it gives students the
opportunity to practice beyond the classroom, beyond the tasks covered in class,
helps them work towards improving important skills and also will help young
people be more confident (Manchester Health Academy: 2014:2).
Though argued to help gained independence in learning, assistance is
needed to ensure homework quality; otherwise it’s just a series of copying others
work, losing its meaningful purposes in learning. Result of observation showed
that student did quite well on paper-based homework even though teacher did
aware that good quality homework had never been constantly assessed and be the
focus on understanding student’s homework completion. Above all, teacher did
not have any data explaining the trend of homework completion and students
perception, when gender was used as variable to evaluate. Evaluating students'
pattern of homework submission and completion along with homework
perception using gender basis, toward certain type of learning, is important for
successful development of homework in higher education.
Although deemed important for regularly practiced, homework assignment
should also not be considered easy task. When homework assignments are less
meaningful students may have less effort in completing it (Bao and Stonbraker,
2008:878), thus, decreasing its quality This less meaningful practice is quite
3
assignments and put their thorough understanding of student’ needs and readiness.
Also, the homework completion integral and vital aspect of the students’ total
educational experience and its effectiveness may be limited for example when
learning resources are not utilized (Adebayo, 2010:85).
The claimed related to homework completion was made by students in
which as many as 47.89% of them argued that problem in understanding
instruction turned them from enjoying homework assignments, while 10.53%
thought they have inaccessible extra learning sources, the latter is possibly
because they only notice learning sources are said so when teacher clearly
mention needed supplies and access to reference materials that students could
employ in doing homework. Unmotivated feeling (1.05%), busy extracurricular
activities (1.58%), and the absence of homework timetables (34.74%) were also
among reasons students went through hardship in finishing it.
The previous claimed turn students self confidence in doing homework, as
the number of students considering it should be better and easily done at school
had shown to exceed (57.14%) those who still believe that because homework
help learning outside classroom, it should be indeed finished at home (21.17%). A
much as 34.74% of respondent said that they need tutor help in solving problem
questioned with no one stated they have access to teacher’s guidance when
finishing homework. As much as 47.89% Students express the presence and
assistance of teacher is still important for them to cope with problem during the
completion (See Appendix 14). The presence of teacher when doing homework on
the other hand could be an obstacle since teacher is unable to present physically
anytime to assist learning without the help of proper non face-to-face
communication device. By the presence of social technological resources,
students’ dreadful experience and feeling ofisolation when completing homework
can be minimize when technological resources, that are now available to change
it, are adapted.
Professor Walker of the University of Sydney suggests homework
completion should be more of a social experience, pointing the role of
4
cultural in nature, a type of homework is needed to be set differently, as a teacher,
he says, may look into the fact that students need some assistance with their
homework, rather than just the idea of sitting and isolating them at home
(Carbonell, 2012:1). Thus, Professor Horsley from Central Queensland suggest to
carried out a new approach, in a more sophisticated way, to develop a more
structured and organized homework, as stated by University (Carbonell, 2012:1).
Students’ experience in doing homework for example can be improved
sophisticatedly by utilizing textbooks and teaching using electronic resources
(Adebayo, 2010:85). Just like Computers and web services have changed the way
young people learn, mobile phones are set to do the same, providing all tools
necessary to boost learning. Mobile learning referred to learning and teaching
practices which is done with or via different mobile devices (Tuomi and
Multisilta, 2011:165). Its assistance in learning is not new since it is considered to
be one of the 21stcentury skills children should adapt early in schools stages.
Mobile phone technologies have embraced young people with a rapid
growth. Mobile phone ownership in Indonesia grew considerably from just over
130 million in 2011 to well over 170 million in 2013 and the number is projected
to grow to more than 195 million by 2017 (Statista, 2014:1). Statista (2014:1) also
mentioned that there are at least 30 million Indonesian teenagers accessing
internet on regular basis, which account for almost half of the total users in
Indonesia.
Furthermore, a study funded by UNICEF and implemented by Indonesia
Ministry of Communications, measuring online activity and the use of digital
media among children and adolescents ages 10-19 (400 respondents), showed that
more than half of respondents (52 %) access the Internet via mobile phones, less
than a quarter (21 %) using smartphones and 4 % use tablets for internet access
(Statista, 2014:1). This study, carried out across the country and representing both
urban and rural areas, also showed that the number of respondent, accounting for
5
indicates that young users in big city are more acquaint with internet and possibly
nearly 30% of them accessing it from their smartphone (Statista, 2014:1).
Mobile phones that offer more general computing capabilities and variety
of services, such as text messaging, MMS, email, Internet access, short-range
wireless communications, tons of applications, gaming, and photography, are
referred to as smartphones (Nusca, 2009:1).
The preliminary study revealed that students mostly utilizes smartphone
with operating system by Android based smartphone developer (54%), Blackberry
(20%), and Apple Inc.(20.5%), with most of them already owned it since more
than two years ago (80%) which means that in general they were exposed to
mobile phone prior to the adoption of m-learning. When asked what services and
functions they frequently use, among the functions of smartphone,
communications/social media functions have the highest counts (32.19%) (See
Appendix 15). This is in accordance to Young and Heim study (2008:52), in
which students mostly saw their phones as mainly for social means or normally
only using the camera to take pictures of parents or friends when socializing.
In formal education, however, mobile devices, especially mobile phones,
are criticized by teachers in view of the problems they bring, distraction from
school works, and use of only for entertainment purposes of it (Robledo, 2012:2).
This raises set of issues to do with ownership, use, and societal perceptions of
device usage. The same attitudes are expressed by students in this study; sending
message with smartphone application is done more frequently in communication
compare with other activities, using Blackberry Messenger (BBM) and LINE
were among dominantly operate messaging application (See Appendix 15).
In the view of problem of smartphone ownership in school education, a
cultural anthropologist studying new media use, particularly among young people
in Japan and the US, Mizuko Ito, said that adults tend to see mobile device as a
learning distractors because they aren’t participating in formalizing the process.
They’re not participating in shaping the kind of influence these devices could
6
Singapore’s Ministry of Education, who encouraging schools to prepare
Singaporean students in developing 21st century skills, e.g., self-directed learning
and collaborative learning (Saavendra and Opfer, 2012:5), by using tools that are
needed to truly teach 21st century skills, the smartphone mobile device.
Likewise, the self-directed learning support by mobile technologies in
mobile learning is in accordance to independent learning stimulate by homework,
as technology now enables students to complete homework assignments or
independently study with ease eat home, using various internet learning source
(Manchester Health Academy: 2014:3). Thus, utilizing smartphone in finishing
homework can offer opportunities to provide sophisticated learning resources to
improve students’ experience in doing homework.
A teacher problem in direct assistance with homework can also no longer
be a barrier when technological resources is utilized, which also promote a more
collaborative learning skills that need to be prepared for 21th century life and
work. Through socializing application in smartphone, a teacher can expect
reinforcing skill and understanding with a more access in monitoring students’
devoting their time to particular demands (Manchester Health Academy: 2014:3).
Look deeply also into the problem of biology learning, teachers need to develop
homework to help coping with enrichment problems and curricula overload
(Cimer, 2012: 67) while at the same time enhancing students’ afterschool
activities and independence.
Learning with mobile devices is still a new research area and more work is
needed to understand the benefits and effects of using technology to support
learning (Mwanza, 2007). Although mobile phones, in general, as the instructional
tools in Indonesia are yet to be developed, projects in mobile learning could be
highlighted and examined through a study to explore its application in teaching
7
1.2 Problem Identification
Based on the elaboration of the background of the study, the problems are
identified as follows:
a. Traditional paper based homework tend to be an individualized activity, in
which students often express frustration when finishing it.
b. Students are unable to receive immediate assistance or feedback on a difficult
problem or exercise.
c. Students’ frustration and inability to receive immediate assistance or feedback
on a difficult problem turned them from enjoying homework assignments.
d. Homework assignments is usually not explicitly informed to students as
learning tools, rather it is viewed merely as an assessment instrument, making
homework less meaningful.
e. Teachers are rarely develop homework to help coping with matters related
enrichment problems and curricula overload while at the same time enhancing
students’ activities andindependence outside the classroom.
f. There was no particular data explaining the trend of homework completion and
students’ perception, when gender was taken into consideration, even though
evaluating students' homework submission and perception using gender basis
could be one important aspect for successful development of homework in
higher education.
g. A custom cognitive based homework question were rarely discussed outside
classroom and homework usually meant only to be finished with less attention
in process of knowledge gain and retention during the homework completion.
h. Students are not encouraged to finish homework with higher quality.
i. The integral and vital aspect of the students’ total educational experience and
effectiveness when doing homework may be limited when learning resources
are not utilized, and a more sophisticated, structured, and organized homework
is not planned.
j. Mobile phone technology serves to a more efficient and effective learning, in
cost-8
wise devise, and were more in concert with the emergence of mobile
technologies as a dominant technology in this century, even though the
utilization in aiding learning was still limited.
k. Though smartphones allow users to do various things they have been more
usually seen as disruptive, rather than useful, in school education.
l. Teacher believed that students usually use their smartphone only for
entertainment purposes
m. Students often saw their phones as mainly for online social uses.
n. Mobilephone is believed to distract students’ schoolwork
1.3 Research Scope
The scopes of this study were limited to the effect of mobile homework
limitedon students’homework learning outcome. The effect of assigning students
with mobile homework (homework was received, possibly finished, discussed,
and submitted digitally via mobile social messaging application on smartphone,
which serves to improved experience in finishing homework) was also be
examined trough the analysis of homework quality. This study was also being
attempted to analyze correlation limited to the relation between homework
average scores and learning outcome along with the relation between homework
qualities and learning outcomes. Because the power of mobile learning was also
being introduced here, the analysis limited to students’ attitude toward mobile
learning was being performed. The rate of homework submission between genders
was also being examined to understand its pattern on the experimental and control
groups. Other details were mentioned as follows:
a. Research was done at SMA Negeri 1, SMA Negeri 2, and SMA Negeri 4
Medan.
b. Research was conducted for Grade Eleven (XI) Science Program at SMA
Negeri 1 Medan, SMA Negeri 2 Medan, and SMA Negeri 4 Medan Academic
9
1.4 Research Questions
This study was attempted to answer nine research questions as follows:
a. Do assigning students with mobile homework significantly affect their learning
outcome?
b. Do assigning students’ with mobile homework significantly affect their ability
in answering questions based on Bloom’s taxonomyof cognitive domain?
c. Do students homework score significantly affect by assigning them with
mobile homework?
d. Do students homework quality significantly affect by assigning them with
mobile homework?
e. Do students’ weekly average homework score correlate with leaning
outcomes?
f. Do students’ homework quality correlate with leaning outcomes?
g. How are students’perceptions toward mobile learning?
h. Do students assigned with mobile homework have higher rate of homework
submission than those who were given with paper-based homework?
i. How is the rate of homework submission differing among male and female
students?
1.5 Objectives of The Study
The objectives of the research were to:
a) examine the effect of assigning students with mobile digital homework on
learning achievement.
b) examine the effect of assigning students with mobile digital homework on
students’ ability in answering questions based on category of Bloom’s
taxonomy cognitive domain
c) examine the effect of assigning students with mobile homework on students’
homework score
d) examine the effect of assigning students with mobile digital homework on
10
e) examine the correlation between students’ homework score and leaning
achievement
f) examine the correlation between students’ homework quality and leaning
achievement
g) analyze student perception toward mobile learning.
h) analyze the rate of homework submission between the treatments.
i) analyze the rate of homework submission among male and female students.
1.6 Significance of The Study
The research findings were important for researcher, to provide significant
information about students’ experience when homework was received, possibly
finished, and submitted digitally via mobile social messaging application in
smartphone. For teachers, this study was important to: (1) to provide information
about the utilization of learning resources and new approach that need to be
carried out to improve homework assignment, (2) to provide information about a
better understanding in how social application on smartphone help students
improve their homework experience and better achievement, (3) to provide new
information about mobile learning and its possible powerful impact to help
students learning, (4) to provide some feedback for teachers and educators in term
of enlarging knowledge and improvement on homework assignment and student’s
achievement in Biological topics. The study was also important to for students to
help students with a more effective way of learning with the aid of technological
100
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION AND RECOMENDATION
Based on the objectives, results, and discussion previously described to analyze
the effect of mobile homework on students’ learning outcomes, homework
quality, and attitudes toward mobile, the conclusions are drawn as follows:
a. Mobile homework significantly affect grade eleven mathematics and science
programstudents’ learning outcomes for Digestive and Respiratory System
Topics in SMA N 1, SMA N 2, and SMA N 4 Medan, Academic Year
2014/2015.
b. Mobile homework significantly affect grade eleven mathematics and science
program students’ ability in answering C3 (Application) and C4
(Analysis-Synthesis).
c. Mobile homework significantly affect grade eleven mathematics and science
program students’ ability in answering C5 (Evaluation) and C6 (Creation).
d. Mobile homework significantly affect grade eleven mathematics and science
program students’ weekly homework average scores for Digestive and
Respiratory System Topics in SMA N 1, SMA N 2, and SMA N 4 Medan,
Academic Year 2014/2015.
e. Mobile homework significantly affect grade eleven mathematics and
science program students’ homework quality average scores for Digestive
and Respiratory System Topics in SMA N 1, SMA N 2, and SMA N 4
Medan, Academic Year 2014/2015.
f. There was a moderate, positive correlation between homework scores and
learning outcomes.
g. There was a moderate, positive correlation between good homework quality
and better learning outcomes.
h. In general, students of the experimental group have positive perception
towards mobile learning in which they also showed to have quite an
101
understanding regarding mobile learning weakness when mobile device
were used to aid learning
i. Students who were assigned with mobile homework have equal rate of
homework completion compare with those who were given with
paper-based homework, in which the difference among the rate of homework
submission were not significantly different
j. The frequency and total percentage of both experimental and control group
with regards to their gender, showed that male student in general have lower
complete mobile homework submission compared to female students.
5.2 Recommendation
In line with conclusion drawn, it is suggested that Biology teacher to
apply mobile homework in the attempts of improving students’ homework
experiences. Teacher should actively assign students to engage in learning
activities by aiding learning with technological sources. Evaluating students’
homework completion and submission could be one source of information for
developing understanding on Biological topics achievement. The result of this
research can be a consideration for Biology teacher to develop an outside
classroom activity which is in line to the improvement of students’ learning. The
result of this study can be used as reference on digestive and respiratory system
topic being taught in Grade Eleven. Further study is also suggested to be carried
regarding the implementation of mobile learning with larger number of participant
and new technological approach that could support students’ better learning
101
REFERENCES
Adebayo. 2010. Is Electronic-Based Homework System An Effective Tool For Teaching And Learning The Fundamentals of Accounting? SBAJ, 10:84 –103.
Afolabi and Akinbobola. 2009. Constructivist Problem Based Learning Technique And Academic Achievement of Physics Student With Low Ability Level In Nigerian Secondary Schools. Eurasian Journal of Physics and Chemistry Education, 1:45-51.
Aghigh and Bondagi. 2011. Learning Methods and Concepts Used In Mobile Learning and How to Improve Them Using New Approaches. The Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on E-Learning University of British Columbia Okanagan, Kelowna British Columbia Canada.
Ajaja. 2013. Which May Do We Go In the Teaching of Biology? Concept Mapping, Cooperative Learning or Learning Cycle. International. Journal of Education Science and Technology,4:18-29.
Aksoy, Tevfik, and Charles R. Link. 2000. A Panel Analysis of Student Mathematics Achievement in the US in the 1990s: does increasing the amount of time in learning activities affect math achievement? Economics of Education Review, 19: 261-277.
Alan. 2015.Homework and Study Expectation.The Puke High School Newsletter, New Zealand: Waikato, Accessed in June 2015 form: http://www.tphs.school.nz/userfiles/file/News/Newsletters/Issue% 202%20-%20March%202015%20V2.pdf.
Ally. 2009. Mobile Learning: Transforming the Delivery of Education and Training. Canada: Au Press, Athabasca University, and Education, 44: 53–68.
Attewell. 2004.Mobile Technologies And Learning A Technology Update And M-Learning Project Summary Technology Enhanced M-Learning Research Centre.London: Learning and Skills Development Agency
Aubusson and Watson. 2003. Packaging Constructivist Science Teaching In Curriculum Resource. Asia Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching,7:1-25
102
Barr. 2013. Have Video Games Influenced or Inspired Academic Direction Or Vocational Choices. University Glasgow
Becker, H. J., and Epstein, J. L. 1982. Parent involvement: A survey of teacher practices.Elementary School Journal, 83:85-102.
Becker, H. J., and Epstein, J. L. 1982. Parent involvement: A survey of teacher
practices.Elementary School Journal, 83:85–102.
Ben-Ari. 2001. Constructivism in Computer Science Education. Journal of Computers In Mathematics And Science Teaching,20: 45-73.
Bennett J.2003.Teaching And Learning Science. London: Continuum
Bertsos, 2005, Differentiating Biology Homework to Enhance Academic Achievement. Master's Theses and Doctoral Dissertations. Paper 126. http://commons.emich.edu/theses/12
Biggs, J. 2003.Teaching for quality learning at university: What the student does(2nd ed.). Buckingham: Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press.
Bishop Barington School. 2012. Homework Policy. Bishop Barrington School Woodhouse Lane Bishop Auckland County Durham LA: Bishop Barrington School Publication
Bloom. 1956. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals. In B. S. Bloom. Susan Fauer Company, Inc.
Bonham. 2003. Comparison of Student Performance Using Web and Paper-Based Homework In College-Level Physics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,40:1050–1071
Bornemeier. 2006. Greater Understanding through Improved Homework Justification. A Report on An Action Research Project Submitted In Partial Fulfillment of The Requirements For Participation In The Math In The Middle Institute. University of Nebraska-Lincoln
Bouhnik and Marcus. 2006. Interaction in distance-learning courses.Journal of
the American Society for Information Science and Technology,57: 299-305.
Bradley and Holley. 2011. How Students In Higher Education Use Their Mobile Phones For Learning. Proceedings of Mobile Learning Conference2009, 1 December, London
Canada College. 2009. A Guide to Developing Measurable Students’ Learning
103
Canadian Council on Learning .2009.A systematic review of literature examining the impact of homework on academic achievement.Toronto, CA: Author. Retrieved in May 27, 2015 from
http://www.ccl- cca.ca/pdfs/SystematicReviews/SystematicReview_HomeworkApril27-2009.pdf
Carbonell.2012. Study Suggests Homework Of Little Value To Younger Students.
Accessed In August, 2014 From:
Http://Www.Abc.Net.Au/Am/Content/2012/S3617243.Htm
Cartwright. 2009. Student Learning Outcomes Assessment Handbook. Maryland: Montgomery College Montgomery County, Maryland
Cathy. 2009. Rethinking Homework. Best Practices That Support Diverse Needs. Alexandria, Va: Ascd Press.
Charlesworth, The Ascent of Smartphone.Engineering & Technology, 4: 32–33.
Chen, and Stevenson. 1989. Homework: A cross-cultural examination.Child
Development, 60:551–56
Chu and Mann.2009. Student Attitudes toward Online Homework In Accounting Courses.Borough of Manhattan Community College
Collins, 2014. Skills for the 21st Century: teaching higher-order thinking ISQ Briefings, a publication ofIndependent Schools Queensland.This article originally appeared in the April 2014 edition
Cool and Keith. 1991. Testing a model of school learning: Direct and indirect
effects on academic achievement.Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 16:28–44
Cooper and Valentine. 2001. Using research to answer practical questions about homework.Educational Psychologists,36: 143-153.
Cooper. 2006. Does homework improve academic achievement? A synthesis of research,Review of Educational Research76: 1-62.
Cooper, J. E., Horn, S. E., & Strahan, D. B. 2005. If they would only do their homework: Promoting self- regulation in high school English classrooms. The High School Journal, 88: 10-25.
104
Department of Education Queensland. 2004. Homework Literature Review Summary of Key Research Findings. The State of Queensland (Department of Education and The Arts)
Dermirchi. 2006. University Students' Perceptions of Web-Based Vs. Paper-Based Homework In A General Physics Course. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 3: 29-34
Dimitrov and Rumrill. 2003.Speaking of Research: Pretest-Posttest Designs and Measurement of Change. Ios Press, Work 20:159–165
Dixon. 2007. Homework fFor The 21st Century. Queensland Parliamentary Library Research Publications and Resources Section
Dogra. 2010. Constructivist Classroom Activities for Biology Learning. Delhi: Army Institute of Education, Ring Road, Kandhar Lines, Delhi Cantt. Delhi
E-Marketer. 2014.Smartphone Users Worldwide Will Total 1.75 Billion In 2014 – Accessed Form:Http://Www.Emarketer.Com/Article/Smartphone-Users-
Worldwide-Will-Total-175-Billion-2014/1010536#Sthash.F1cnhwcw.Dpuf
Epstein, J. L., and Van Voorhis, F. L. 2000. More than minutes:Teachers’ roles in
designing homework.Educational Psychologist, 36:181–193
Eren and Henderson. 2007 The Impact of Homework on Student Achievement. Working Paper.
Fahad. 2009. Students' Attitudes and Perceptions Towards The Effectiveness of Mobile Learning In King Saud University. Saudi Arabia. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology,8:10
Funda, S.A. 2009. Teacher Beliefs and Practice In Science Education. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning And Teaching, 10:12.
Garrison D. R. 2000. Theoretical challenges for distance education in the 21st century: A shift from structural to transactional issues. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Leaming. Cited May 20, 2015, Accessed fromhttp://www.irrodl.org/content/v 1.1 /randy.html
Gkatzidou And Pearson.2011. A Community Approach To The Development of Widgets To Support Personalize Learning For Disabled Students. Proceeding Hobart Full Paper
105
Gordon andLochner. 2005.The Impact of Family Income on Child Achievement,” Working Paper 11279. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research
Grodner and Rupp. 2010. The Role of Homework on Student Learning Outcomes: Evidence from a Field Experiment* East Carolina University East Carolina University Economics Department Economics Department PRELIMINARY DRAFT – COMMENTS ENCOURAGED, Download working paper at: http://www.ecu.edu/cs-educ/econ/wp2010.cfm
Habit. 2013.Use of Smartphone In 14 Asian Countries. Habit Survey 2013: Conducted By R&D Div., Hakuhodo Inc, Tokyo Institute of Technology,JapanPrach@Ak.Cradle.Titech.Ac.Jp.Akahori@Ak.Cradle.T itech.Ac.Jp Seventh Lee International Conference On Advanced Learning Technologies, 9:1-10
Haladyna. 1997. Writing Test Items To Evaluate Higher Order Thinking. Allyn and Bacon
Hanrahan.1998. The Effect of Learning Environment And Students Motivation And Leaning.International Journal of Science Education, 20:753
Hauk and Segalla. 2005. Student perceptions of the web-based homework program WeBWorK in moderate enrollment college algebra classes.Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching.24: 229–253.
Hauk, S., R. A. Powers, A. Safer, A. Segalla. 2004. Impact of the web-based homework program WeBWorK on student performance in moderate
enrollment college algebra courses.
Preprint. http://hopper.unco.edu/faculty/personal/hauk/segalla/WBWqua n.pdf
Henderson, M. 1996.Helping your student get the most out of
homework.Washington, DC: National Education Association.
Hirsch, L. and C. Weibel. 2003. Statistical evidence that web-based homework helps.MAA Focus, 23: 14.
Homan, S., and Wood, K. 2003. Taming the mega-lecture: wireless quizzing. Syllabus Magazine, Oct 7–8. BenMoussa, C. Workers on the move: new opportunities through mobile commerce. Presented at the Stockholm Mobility Roundtable, May, 22–23.
Hong, Wan, and Peng, Y. 2011. Discrepancies between students’ and teachers’
106
Hsu. 2004. Developing Concept Maps from Problem-Based Learning Scenario Discussions.Issues and Innovations In Nursing Education,48: 510-518.
James. 1890.The principles of psychology (Chapter 4): Habit.Available from
http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/James/Principles/prin4.htm
Jaradat. 2014. Students' Attitudes and Perceptions Towards Using M-Learning For French Language Learning: A Case Study On Princess Nora University. International Journal of Learning Management Systems, Int. J. Learn. Man. Sys, 1:33-44
Jenkins. 2010. Factors to Consider For The Effective Use of The Moodle Assignment Activity In Online Submission of Work. Discussion Paper. U.K: University of Bath.
Kaltz and Stotland. 1959.Preliminary Statement to a Theory of Attitude Structure and Change. Psychology, a Study of Science.New York: Mc Graw Hill KEARNY AJROTC. 2015. HOMEWORK RUBRIC Accessed in January 2015
form:http://www.sandi.net/cms/lib/CA01001235/Centricity/Domain/1654/Ho
mework_Rubric.pdf.
Kemdikbud. 2014. Model Pembelajaran Scientifik.Jakarta: Kementrian Pendidikan Dan Kebudayaan
Klopfer and Squire, K. 2008. Environmental Detectives: the development of an
augmented reality platform for environmental simulations.Educational
Technology Research and Development, 56:203-228.
Kohn, A. 2006. Abusing Research: The study of homework and other examples. Phi Delta Kappan, 8:22.
Larson. 2011. A Study of The Impact of Homework Influenced By Students Attitudes And Interests In A Sixth Grade Mathematics Classroom. Math In The Middle Institute Partnership Action Research Project Report Department of Mathematics University of Nebraska-Lincoln
Lefebvre. 2009. Integrating Cell Phones And Mobile Technologies Into Public Health Practice: A Social Marketing Perspective: Social Marketing And Health Communication. Health Promotion Practice, 10: 490-494.
Lemke. 2004.Why Study Digital Gameworlds?Notes toward a Basic Research Agenda for Learning Technologies.
107
Levitt. 2001. An Analysis of Elementary Teachers’ Beliefs Regarding The Teaching And Learning Of Science.Science Education,86: 1-22.
Li, El Helou, And Gillev.2011. Using Social Media For Collaborative Learning In Higher Education, A Case Study. Switzerland: E Cole Polytechnique De Lausanne
Li, Ullrich, Helou, and Gillet. Using Social Software for Teamwork And Collaborative Project Management In Higher Education. Proc. International Confer
Liras. 1994. Teaching and Learning The Biological Sciences And Biological Education.Journal Of Biological Education,28: 147-150.
Liu. 2007. Teaching In A Wireless Learning Environment: A Case Study. Educational.Technology & Society,10: 107-123.
Liu.2007.Student Interaction Experiences In Distance Learning Courses A Phenomenological Study. Rossier School of Education University of Southern California
MacBeath.1996. Developing skills for life after school. Forum of Education, 51: 13-22.
Macquarie University. 2008. Assessment Toolkit Resources: Writing Learning Outcomes.Sydney: Learning and Teaching Center Macquarie University Makoe, 2010. The pedagogy of mobile learning in supporting distance learners,
UNISA
Manchester Health Academy.2014.Homework/Independent Learning Policy 14. The Manchester Health Academy.
Manousou. 1989. Relationships of Attitudes Toward Biology Classroom Environment, Attitude Toward Biology And Achievement In Biology, Among Ninth And Eleventh Grade Greek Students. Unpublished Master Thesis, Middle East Technical University, Ankara.
Marchaim. 2001. High-School Student Research At Migal Science Institute In Israel.Journal of Biological Education, 35: 178-182.
Ngai-ying. 1992. The Relationship among Mathematics Achievement, Affective Variables and Home Background. The Chinese University of Hong Kong,Mathematics Education Research Journal, A:3.
108
Mcloughlin, and Lee. 2009. Personalized Learning Spaces And Self-Regulated Learning: Global Proceedings Ascilite 2011 Hobart: Full Paper Examples Of Effective Pedagogy.
Melissa, 2013. Theoretical Implementation of Various Mobile Applications Used In English Language Learning. Journal of Teaching English With Technology,14: 35-46
Mitral. 2009. The Levels of Difficulty And Discrimination Indices In Type A Multiple Choice Questions of Pre-Clinical Semester 1 Multidisciplinary Summative Tests.IEJSME. 3: 2-7
Moore, M.1989. Three Types of Interaction. The American Journal of Distance Education, 3:1-6.
Morgan, J. M. 1992. A Theoretical Basis For Evaluating Wildlife-Related Education-Programs.American Biology teacher. 54, 153–157.
Motiwalla. 2007. Mobile Learning: A Framework And Evaluation. Computers & Education,4: 581-596.
Mulhenbruck, L., Cooper, H., Nye, B., and Lindsay, J. J. 1999. Homework and achieve- ment: Explaining the different strengths of relation at the elementary and secondary school levels. Social Psychology of Education, 3”295-317.
Mulhenbruck, L., Cooper, H., Nye, B., and Lindsay, J. J. 1999. Homework and achievement: Explaining the different strengths of relation at the
elementary and secondary school levels.Social Psychology of Education,
3:295–317
Murphy and Decker. 1989. Teachers' use of homework in high schools.Journal of Educational Research, 82: 261-269.
Neo & Neo. 2009. Engaging Students in Multimedia- Mediated Constructivist Learning- Students’ Perceptions. Educational Technology and Society, 12: 254-266.
Nusca. 2009. Smartphone Vs. Feature Phone Arms Race Heats Up; Which Did You Buy? Accessed In October 2014 From: Http://Www.Zdnet.Com/Blog/Gadgetreviews/Smartphone-Vs-Feature-Phone-Arms-Race-Heats-Up-Which-Did-You-Buy/6836
Ogata and Yano 2004. Knowledge awareness map for computer-supported
ubiquitous language-learning.Proceedings of the 2nd IEEE International
Workshop on Wireless and Mobile Technologies in Education,
109
Oludipe and Oludipe. 2009. Effect of Constructivist- Based Teaching Strategy On Academic Performance of Students In Integrated Science At The Junior Secondary School Level.Educational Research and Reviews,5:347:353. Ongowo. 2008. Secondary School Teachers’ Perceptions of A Biology
Constructivist Learning Environment In Gem District, Kenya. International Journal of Educational Research and Technology.4:1–6 Osborne. 2000. Science Education for Contemporary Society: Problems, Issues
and Dilemmas. Final Report of The International Workshop on The Reform In the teaching of Science and Technology at Primary and Secondary Level In Asia: Comparative References To Europe, Beijing. Ozcan and Nezrin. 2003. A Group of Students’ and Teachers’ Perception With
Respect To Biology Education At High School Level, A Thesis. Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences: Middle East Technical University
Pachler. 2010. Mobile Learning: Structures. Agency, Practices. New York: Springer
Palmer. 2005. A Motivational View of Constructivist-Informed Teaching, InternationalJournal of Science Education, 27:1853-1881.
Parker and Chao. 2011. Developing An Interactive Social Media Based Learning Environment. Issues In Informing. Science and Information Technology, 8:1
Partnership for 21st Century Learning.2012.Framework For 21st Century Learning. www.21centuryskills.Org
Paulu.1996. Helping Your Students with Homework A Guide For Teachers. U.S.: Office. Educational Research and Improvement U.S. Department of Education
Pekel. 2006. Biology Teachers Attitude And Communication Behavior In Turkey: From The View Point of Their Students. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology.5:3-11
Peters, Almekinders, J.J., Van Buren, R.L.J., Snippers, R. & Wessels, J.T.J. 2003,
Young People’s Motives For SMS Use. International Communication
Association, San Diego, USA
Peters.2007. M-Learning: Positioning educators for a mobile, connected
future.International Journal of Research in Open and Distance
Learning, 8:1-17.
110
[Online] Available Ttp://Www.Gartner.Com/It/Page.Jsp?Id=1622614 Accessed May 29, 2015.
Prawat. 1992. Teachers’ Beliefs About Teaching And Learning: A Constructivist Perspective.American Journal of Education,100: 354-395.
Prensky. 2001. Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants. On The Horizon, 9: 1-6
Quinn. 2001. Get ready for m-learning.Training and Development, 20: 20–21.
Razak. 2004. Understanding interaction experience in mobile learning.Computer
Human Interaction: Proceedings Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 3101, 672-674
Robledo, 2012. Mobile Devises for Learning, What You Need To Know. New York: The George Lucaseducational Foundation
Ross.2005. Sample Design for Educational Survey Research. Paris: Unesco International Institute of Educational Planning
Saavendra and Opfer. 2012. Teaching and Learning 21st Century Skills Lessons from The Learning Sciences.A Global Cities Education Network Report Schonbon and Begeholtz. 2009. Knowledge Transfer and Transition Across
External Representation: Expert Views and Challenges For Learning. InternationalJournal of Sciences and Mathematics Education, 7:931-955 Sharples and Vavoula, G. 2010. A Theory of Learning for The Mobile Age. In B.
Bachmair (Ed.), Medienbildung In Neuen Kulturräumen Wiesbaden: Vs Verlag Für Sozialwissenschaften.
She and Fisher. 2002. Teacher Communication Behavior and Its Association with Students’ Cognitive and Attitudinal Outcomes In Science at Taiwan. Journal of Research In Science Teaching, 39:63-78.
Silius.2010. Students’ Motivations For Social Media Enhanced Studying and Learning, Knowledge Management & E-Learning. An International Journal,2:51-67,
Simpson and Troost. 1982. Influences on Commitment to and Learning of Science Among Adolescent Students.Science Education,66: 763-781.
Small. 2014. Theoretical Implementations of Various Mobile Applications Used In English Language Learning. Teaching English with Technology, 14: 35-46
111
Sorgo. 2009. Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) In Biology Teaching In Slovenian Secondary Schools. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics. Science & Technology Education, 6:37-46
Statista. 2014. Number of Mobile Phone Users In Indonesia From 2011 To 2017 (In Millions). Accessed On August 2014 From:
Http://Www.Statista.Com/Statistics/274659/Forecast-of-Mobile-Phone-Users-In-Indonesia.
Survey School.2010. Homework Quality not Quantity. Surrey School Leadership in learning. Surrey School: California
Talton and Simpson. 1986. Relationships of Attitudes Toward Self, Family And School With Attitude Toward Science Among Adolescents. Science Education, 70: 365-374
Talton, L.E., & Simpson, R.D. 1986. Relationships of Attitudes Toward Self, Family And School With Attitude Toward Science Among Adolescents.. Science Education,70: 365-374.
Tanner And Allen. 2005. Approaches to Biology Teaching And Learning: Understanding The Wrong Answers-Teaching Toward Conceptual Change.Journal of Cell Biology Education,4:112–117
Trautwein, U., Koller, O., Schmitz, B., and Baumert, J. 2002. Do homework assignments Enhance achievement? A Multilevel Analysis in 7th-grade Mathematics.Contemporary Educational Psychology,27: 26–50.
Travers. 1982. Essentials of Learning, The New Cognitive Learning Or Students of Education.United States of America: Macmillan Publishing
Tuomi and Multisilta. 2010. Experiences And Attitudes, Learning With A Mobile Social Video Application.Digit. Cult. Educ,2:165–189
Van Voorhis, F. 2003. Interactive homework in middle school: Effects on family involvement and science achievement. Journal of Educational Research, 96:323-338.
Vaselinovska. 2011. Applying Appropriates Methods For Teaching Cell Biology. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences,15:2837–2842
Virvou, M., and Alepis, E. 2005. Mobile educational features in authoring tools for personalized tutoring.Computers
Walsh and White. 2006. Ring, Ring, Why Did I Make That Call? Mobile Phone
112
Walter. 2012. Smartphone Application Usage Amongst Students At A South
African University St-Africa. Conference Proceedings Paul Cunningham
And Miriam Cunningham (Eds) Iimc International Information Management Corporation.
Warton, P. 2001. The forgotten voices in homework: Views of students. Educational Psychologist, 36: 155-165.
Weisgerber and Butler. 2010. Editor's Introduction: Special Issue On Communication Pedagogy In The Age of Social Media. Electronic Journal of Communication,20: 1-3.
Wikipedia. 2014. Educational Aims and Objective. Accessed In November 2014 Form:Http://En.Wikipedia.Org/Wiki/Educational_Aims_And_Objectives
Young And Heim. 2008. How Mobile Phones Help Learning In Secondary Schools. Nottingham, UK: Learning Sciences Research Institute University of Nottingham
