DDD-E model: Teaching four arithmetic operations in decimal expressions using the problem-based learning approach

Abstract

In this study, it is aimed to reveal students' attitudes and views on a micro-lesson design application in accordance with the DDD-E model in which the Problem Based Learning (PBL) approach is integrated. In the study, a micro-level instructional design that addressed the outcomes of the subject "Four Arithmetic Operations in Decimals" contained within the scope of a 6th grade math curriculum was planned. A blended pattern approach was employed in the study which aimed to integrate the PBL stages with the steps of the DDD-E model. Quantitative data was collected by use of an "achievement test" and a "Technological Attitude Scale for Students" prepared by an instructor. Qualitative data was obtained through open-ended questions involved in a feedback form on the use of technology in learning. Analyses were conducted by two mathematics education expert. In the quantitative data analysis, the level of coherence between encoders was 83%. Ultimately, affirmative changes were observed in the opinions of the students on the use of technology in learning with the help of the micro-level instructional design in question. Furthermore, an increase was detected in the grade average of the scale. The process of making their own decisions for the students in the DDD-E design model contributed to the creativity of the students and enabled them to learn about a plurality of multimedia tools. Additionally, with the help of the PBL approach, the students were able to produce creative and unique solutions for the problem cases they encountered and were able to experience possible cases they might face mathematically in real life.

Keywords

• DDD-E model
• Problem-Based Learning
• Instructional Design

References

1. Alıcı, M. (2018). The Effect of STEM Instruction on Attitude, Career Perception and Career Interest in a Problem-based Learning Environment and Student Opinions (Unpublished master's thesis). Institute of Science Kirikkale University, Kırıkkale.
2. Anazifa, R., Djukri, D. (2017). Project- based learning and problem-based learning: are they effective to improve student’s thinking skills?. Jurnal Pendidikan IPA Indonesia, 6(2), 346-355. 10.15294/jpii.v6i2.11100
3. Arsovic, B., Stefanovic, N. (2020). E-learning based on the adaptive learning model: case study in Serbia. Sādhanā, 45, 266. 10.1007/s12046-020-01499-8
4. Bağcı, N. (2003). New approaches towards students and learning objectives in the learning process. Journal of National Education, 159, 142-148.
5. Cantürk Günhan, B., Başer, N. (2009). Students’, Teachers’ and Faculty Members’ OpinionsAbout Problem Based Learning, Necatibey Education Faculty Electronic Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 3(1), 134-155. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/balikesirnef/issue/3368/46498
6. Cerit, Y. (2008). Students, Teachers and Administrators' Views on Metaphors with Respect to the Concept of Principal. Education and Science, 33(127), 693-712.
7. Çetin, Y. & Mirasyedioğlu, Ş. (2019). The effects of the technology supported problem-based learning activities on students’ achievement in mathematics. Journal of Computer and Education Research, 7(13), 13-34. https://doi.org/10.18009/jcer.494907
8. Dağhan G., Kalaycı E., Seferoğlu S. S. (2011). The examination of technology policies in national education councils. Academic Informatics, 2(4), Inonu University, Malatya.

9. Delisle, R. (1997). How to use problem-based learning in the classroom. https://www.ascd.org/books/how-to-use-problem-based-learning-in-the-classroom.
10. Divarcı, Ö, Saltan, F. (2017). The Effects of the Multimedia Supported Problem Based Learning on Academic Success and Attitude in Science Education. Journal of Ahi Evran University Kirsehir Education Faculty, 18(3), 1-23. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/kefad/issue/59420/853347
11. Ellington, A. J. (2003). A meta-analysis of the effects of calculators on students' achievement and attitude levels in precollege mathematics classes. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 34(5), 433-463.
12. Ersoy, E, Başer, N. (2011). The Effect on Retention of Applied Scenarios in the Problem-Based Learning Method. Journal of Uludag University Faculty of Education, 24(2), 355-366. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/uefad/issue/16694/173522
13. Göktaş Y., Yıldırım Z., Yıldırım S. (2008), Status of ICT in schools of teacher education: deans’ views, Education and Science, 33(149), 30-50.
14. Hannafin, R. D., Burruss, J. D. ve Little, C. (2001). Learning with dynamic geometry programs: Perspectives of teachers and learners. Journal of Educational Research, 94(3), 132-44.
15. Hassan, M., Habiba, U., Majeed, F., Shoaib, M. (2019). Adaptive gamification in e-learning based on students’ learning styles. Interactive Learning Environments, 29(4), 545-565. 10.1080/10494820.2019.1588745 .
16. Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004), Problem-based learning: what and how do students learn?. Educational Psychology Review, 16, 235–266. 10.1023/B:EDPR.0000034022.16470.f3 .
17. İpek, İ., Sözcü, Ö. & Ziatdinov, R. (2013, Ocak). Integrated E-Learning Design Model and Rapid Instructional Design Strategies. XV. Academic Informatics Conference, Antalya.
18. Ivers, K. S., Ann E. B. (2002). Multimedia projects in education designing, producing, and assessing. Retrieved from https://www.academia.edu/download/35952048/_Karen_S._Ivers__Ann_E._Barron__Multimedi _ProjectBookFi.org.pdf
19. Ellis‐Barrett, L. (2007), Multimedia projects in education: designing, producing and assessing third edition, Library Review, 56(3), 264-265. 10.1108/00242530710736145.
20. Karataş, Z. (2017). Paradigm transformation in social sciences research: rise of qualitative approach. Turkish Journal of Social Work Research 1(1).
21. Kaya, Z. (2002). Distance Education. Retrieved from http://www.jret.org/FileUpload/ds217232/File/uzaktanegitim.pdf
22. Kılıç, İ., Moralar, A. (2015). The effect of problem-based learning approach on academic success and motivation in science education. Pegem Journal of Education and Training, 5(5). 10.14527/pegegog.2015.034
23. Mays, N., & Pope, C. (2000). Qualitative research in health care, assessing quality in qualitative research. BMJ, 320, 50-52.
24. Mazman, S. G., Usluel, Y. K. (2011). Ict integration into learning-teaching process: models and indicators. Educational Technology Theory and Practice, 1(1), 62-79. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/etku/issue/6274/84241
25. Muhammad N., Herminarto S., Moh F., Rabiman R. (2019). Problem-based learning (pbl) in industry 4.0: improving learning quality through character-based literacy learning and life career skill (ll-lcs). Universal Journal of Educational Research, 7(11), 2487-2494. 10.13189/ujer.2019.071128.
26. Nugraha, F.F. (2017). Interactive multimedia use of games model on ips school study list. Education Program of Elementary School of Universitas Kuningan Journal of Elemantary Education,1(1), 17. 10.22460/pej.v1i1.421 .
27. Sheehan, M. & Nillas, A.L. (2010). Technology integration in secondary mathematics classrooms: Effect on students’ understanding. Journal of Technology Integration in the Classroom, 2(3), 67-83.
28. Stake, R. R. (2005). Case studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (Third edition). London: Sage.
29. Streubert, H. J., & Carpenter, D. R. (2011). Qualitative research in nursing. (5th ed.). Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams ve Wilkins.
30. Tutak, T. (2020). The effect of problem-based learning approach on student achievement and attitude in teaching linear equations and inequalities. Electronic Journal of Education Sciences, 9(18), 97-108.
31. Wahidah N. I., Ibrahim N, Muslim S. (2019). E-module : Design a learning material with rowntree and hannafin model for higher education. International Journal of Scientific & Technology Research, 8(12), 3373-3376.
32. Uygun, N., Işık Tertemiz, N. (2014). Effects of problem-based learning on student attitudes, achievement and retention of learning in math course. Education and Science, 39(174). 10.15390/EB.2014.1975
33. Yin, R. (1984). Case study research: design and methods (3rd edition). California: Sage.
34. Yıldırım, S. (2000). An indispensable educational tool. Information Week Türkiye, 111, 45-46.
35. Yurdugül, H., Aşkar, P. (2008). An investigation of the factorial structures of pupils’ attitude towards technology (patt): A Turkish sample. Elementary Education Online, 7(2), 288-309.