Identification of instructional learning design by Alan Hoffer’s model and its effect on students’ creative thinking in mathematics

Year 2020, , 783 - 793, 15.06.2020

Ayat Jebur

https://doi.org/10.17478/jegys.703766

Abstract

This study aims to know the effect of using instructional learning designs by Alan Hoffer’s model on students' creative thinking at the second stage of mathematic department in Axiomatic system and engineering. The experimental design created by a post-test divided into two groups in the academic year 2018-2019. The sample of experimental design is 86 male and female students divided into 43 students for the experimental group by the instructional learning design and 43 for the control group by traditional teaching methods. Two variables used in this study; an age, and the total average points of the experimental students of the previous stage (first stage). The researcher used 100 behavioral goals according to Bloom's classification in the field of knowledge of levels (knowledge, understanding, application, analysis, composition, evaluation), these behavioral goals based on the content of the scientific subject, and it has been presented it to a reviewer to determine the extent of their suitability in the preparation of study plans. A creative thinking test consisting of 21 items. The results of the study indicates that there are significant differences between teaching methods and instructional learning designs based on Alan Hoffer’s model on students’ creative thinking tests. This study concluded use Alan Hoffer’s model by teachers lead to developing a student’s creative thinking in mathematics and recommended for apply Allan Hoffer’s model in teaching, especially in engineering subjects in order to increase student’s creative thinking abilities, and provided the mathematic books of the students at schools with many activities in order to motivate students to complete learning and develop their mathematical thinking level.

Keywords

Instructional Learning Design, Alan Hoffer's Model, Creative Thinking

References

• Abdul Azim, S. (2011). A Proposed Program in Mathematics Depends on Learning brain Theory to develop achievement and creative thinking for preparatory students. Journal of Education Collage in Suez, 1(4), 12-55.
• Abdul Aziz, S. (2009). Teaching Thinking Skills, (1st Ed), Dar Al- Thaqufa Publishing, Amman, Jordan.
• Abu Atra & Ali. M. (2010). The effect of the "express-plans-evaluate" strategy in teaching of mathematics on developing creative thinking among students in the seventh grade in Gaza, M.A Thesis, College of Education, Islamic University of Gaza.
• Abu Jado & Mohammed, S. (2007). Teaching theoretical thinking and practice, (1st Ed), Dar Almassira publishing, Amman, Jordan.
• Abu Lum, K. (2007). Methods and Strategies of Teaching Engineering (2nd Ed). Dar Almassira publishing, Amman, Jordan.
• A-l Ali, O. (2010). The Effect of Teaching mathematics according to Alan Hoffer model in achievement and engineering proof skills on higher primary level in Jordan. Published PhD Thesis, Arab University of Amman, https://search.mandumahm.com/Record/637087
• Al-Ayasra, R. (2011). Probe and Creative Thinking. Dar Osama Publishing, Amman, Jordan.
• Al-Ghamdi, M. (2018). The Effect of Alan Hoffer model in developing van Hel's levels of Engineering Thinking and Reducing the Anxiety of Mathematics among First-Grade Female Students in Riyadh. Dirasat: Educational Sciences, 45(2), 11-42.
• Al-Kubaisi, W (2008). Methods of Teaching Mathematics and Its Styles (Examples and Discussions), (1st Ed), Library of Arab Society, Amman.
• Alwan, H. (2018). The Effect of Alan Hoffer model in Solving Engineering Issues of First Intermediate Female Students on Their motivation, Collage of Basic Education/Maysan University.
• Brookfield, S. (2020). Teaching for critical thinking. In Handbook of Research on Ethical Challenges in Higher Education Leadership and Administration (pp. 229-245). IGI Global.
• Cavallo, A.M. (1996). Meaningful learning, reasoning ability, and students' understanding and problem solving of topics in genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching: The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, 33(6), 625-656.
• Chen, C.W.J., & Lo, K.M.J. (2019). From Teacher-Designer to Student-Researcher: a Study of Attitude Change Regarding Creativity in STEAM Education by Using Makey Makey as a Platform for Human-Centred Design Instrument. Journal for STEM Education Research, 2(1), 75-91.
• Choi-Koh, S. S. (2000). The activities based on van Hiele model using computer as a tool. Journal of the Korea Society of Mathematical Education Series D: Research in Mathematical Education, 4(2), 63-77.
• Clarke, D., & Roche, A. (2018). Using contextualized tasks to engage students in meaningful and worthwhile mathematics learning. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 51, 95-108.
• Deeley, S.J., & Bovill, C. (2017). Staff student partnership in assessment: enhancing assessment literacy through democratic practices. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 42(3), 463-477.
• Dickson, H., Harvey, J., & Blackwood, N. (2019). Feedback, feedforward: evaluating the effectiveness of an oral peer review exercise amongst postgraduate students. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 44(5), 692-704.
• Ebel, R.L., & Frisbie, D.A. (1972). Essentials of educational measurement (pp. 492-494). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
• Ellis, A., Özgür, Z., & Reiten, L. (2019). Teacher moves for supporting student reasoning. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 31(2), 107-132.
• Erdogan, T., Akkaya, R., & Celebi Akkaya, S. (2009). The Effect of the Van Hiele Model Based Instruction on the Creative Thinking Levels of 6th Grade Primary School Students. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 9(1), 181-194.
• González, G., & Deal, J. T. (2019). Using a creativity framework to promote teacher learning in lesson study. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 32, 114-128.
• Guilford, J. P. (1956). The structure of intellect. Psychological Bulletin, 53(4), 267-293.
• Harris, R. (2004). Creative problem solving: Step by step approach. Los Angeles: Pyrczak Publishing.
• Hoffer, A. (1981). Geometry is more than proof. Mathematics Teacher, 74(1), 11-18.
• Holden, R.R., Fekken, G.C., & Jackson, D.N. (1985). Structured personality test item characteristics and validity. Journal of Research in Personality, 19(4), 386-394.
• Kristanti, F., Ainy, C., Shoffa, S., Khabibah, S., & Amin, S. M. (2018). Developing creative-problem-solving-based student worksheets for transformation geometry course. International Journal on Teaching and Learning Mathematics, 1(1), 13–23. https://doi.org/10.18860/ijtlm.v1i1.5581
• Merhi, A. (1983). Unique Education. First edition, Dar al-Fikr, Amman.
• Nasr, H. (1998). A Proposed Program for Developing Engineering Thinking for Intermediate School in the light of the Alan Hoffer model. Unpublished M.A Thesis, University of Assiut.
• National Counil of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics Reston, Va. NCTM.
• Odeh, S. (1999). Educational Assessment and Evaluation in Teaching Processes, Third edition, Dar Al- Amal Publishing, Amman.
• Padget, S. (2012). Summer, creativity and critical thinking for teachers in training. (2nd ed) Routledge, 3, P61.
• Rich, J. D., & Weisberg, R. W. (2004). Creating all in the family: A case study in creative thinking. Creativity Research Journal, 16(2-3), 247-259.
• Rofiki, I., Nusantara, T., Subanji, & Chandra, T. D. (2018). Exploring local plausible reasoning: The case of inequality tasks. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 943(1), 012002. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/943/1/012002
• Runco, M.A. (1986). Flexibility and originality in children's divergent thinking. The Journal of Psychology, 120(4), 345-352.
• Rossa, P.I.E. (1996). Teaching Young children to think: The Effect of specific instructional program. Elsevier science Ltd.
• Schoevers, E. M., Leseman, P. P., Slot, E. M., Bakker, A., Keijzer, R., & Kroesbergen, E. H. (2019). Promoting pupils’ creative thinking in primary school mathematics: A case study. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 31, 323-334.
• Stefani, L. (2008). Planning teaching and learning: Curriculum design and development. In A handbook for teaching and learning in higher education (pp. 58-75). Routledge.
• Suryani, A. I., Anwar, Hajidin, & Rofiki, I. (2020). The practicality of mathematics learning module on triangles using GeoGebra. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1470(1), 012079. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1470/1/012079
• Tan, F. D., Whipp, P. R., Gagné, M., & Van Quaquebeke, N. (2019). Students’ perception of teachers’ two-way feedback interactions that impact learning. Social Psychology of Education, 22(1), 169-187.
• Turner, J.C., Styers, K.R., & Daggs, D.G. (1997). Encouraging Mathematical Thinking. Mathematics Teaching in the middle School, 3(1), 66-72.
• Van Popta, E., Kral, M., Camp, G., Martens, R. L., & Simons, P.R.J. (2017). Exploring the value of peer feedback in online learning for the provider. Educational Research Review, 20, 24-34.
• Whitman, N. C., Nohda, N., Lai, M. K., Hashimoto, Y., Iijima, Y., Isoda, M., & Hoffer, A. (1997). Mathematics education: A cross-cultural study. Peabody Journal of Education, 72(1), 215-232.
• Ylink, M. (1998). Mathematical Thinking (In-A-T.I.) Translation by the Institute of Education. Amman. Department of Education, UNRWA/UNESCO.