Turnitin Originality Report

Mastering Reasoning Skills In Learning Differentiation Using The Marzano’s Strategy by Nizam
Arshad
From Conference Journal Paper (Conference Journal Paper)

 Processed on 14-Dec-2016 00:37 MYT

 ID: 752559171
 Word Count: 2965

Similarity Index
2%
Similarity by Source
Internet Sources:
N/A
Publications:
N/A
Student Papers:
2%

sources:

1
2% match (student papers from 05-Sep-2016)
Submitted to Universiti Teknologi Malaysia on 2016-09-05

paper text:

Mastering Reasoning Skills In Learning Differentiation Using The Marzano’s Strategy Mohamad
Nizam Arshad a, Noor Azean Atanb, Abdul Halim Abdullahc, Mahani Mokhtard and Mohd Salleh
Abue a, b, c, d and e Faculty of Education, University of Technology Malaysia, Malaysia
*Corresponding author Email: pidahnzam@yahoo.com Received: xxxx Accepted: xxxxx
Reasoning skills, due to their significance, were stipulated as one of the major components of the
Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) in the Malaysian Education Development Plan (2013-2025),
to be mastered by students. The study involved a total of 31 purposively-sampled students from
a secondary boarding school in Johor. It aimed at improving their level of reasoning skills in
Differentiation, one of the topics in Additional Mathematics. This study used a pre-experimental,
one-group pre-test-post-test design and a single group time-series design. A pre-test was given
to the participants in advance, followed by several repetition tests, prior to the post-test
assessment. The data for this study was collected using a set of Reasoning Test Questions on
Differentiation (RTQD) and 10 sets of learning activities on Differentiation, based on a modified
Marzano Rubric for Specific Task of Situations (1992). The data was analyzed using descriptive
and inferential statistics to get the mean, range, maximum and minimum value, paired sample t-
test and ANOVA at a significant level of 0.05. Overall, it was found from the study that, the
Differentiation Reasoning Level (DRL) of the students showed a significant difference after
learning, using Differentiation Reasoning Learning Strategies (DRLS), compared to learning
without the approach (t=-27.47; p < 0.05). The mean scores (M) for all the four components of
DRL, namely, comparing, classifying, inductive and deductive improved tremendously from 2.32,
2.65, 2.65 and 2.39, respectively to 3.37, 3.56, 3.70 and 3.39 in the same order. The results of t-
test also showed a significant difference in the four components of DRL, due to the intervention,
their values being [(31) = - 22.097, p <0.05], [(31) = - 32.416, p <0.05], [(31) = - 38.325, p <0.05]
and [(31) = - 26.843, p <0.05], in the same order as above. Lastly, repeated measure by One-
Way ANOVA (Analysis of Variance) test also showed significant differences in the students’
reasoning level of the four component of DRL. In conclusion, the Marzano Model of Dimensional
Learning (1992) is a thinking skill model that can help improve students' reasoning skills. The
findings also implied that, the processes of teaching and learning play an important role in
ensuring students’ capability to emphasize on the implementation process of reasoning skills.
Keywords: Reasoning skills, Differentiation, Dimensional Model of Expanding and Enhancing
Knowledge, Comparing, Classifying, Inductive and Deductive, Differentiation Topic 1.
Introduction The main focus of the Secondary School Standard Curriculum (SSM) which will be
fully implemented in 2017 is to foster higher order thinking skills (HOTS) among students so that
they are able to demonstrate their own abilities through reasoning skills1. HOTS encompasses
creative thinking, critical thinking and logical thinking skills2. In general, Mathematics forms the
most important basis of the knowledge of Science and Technology in getting the students ready
to make critical thinking a culture 3. Additional Mathematics is an extended knowledge of
Mathematics, often considered difficult and challenging by most students who are only able to
understand it procedurally, whereas the main focus of Teaching and Learning (TNL) in
secondary schools is on conceptual understanding to boost the potential of students to a higher
level 4. According to a study conducted by 5, 6, 7, students in Malaysia, both at the school and
tertiary levels, were less capable of reasoning skills, especially in solving complex problems.
Similarly, a study conducted by 8 to identify the mastery of critical thinking skills among Form
Four students who were taking Additional Mathematics, which components included making
inferences, scrutinizing assumptions and interpretations, and evaluating students’ arguments,
found that, the TNL should give emphasis on the thinking skills application process, so that
students could improve their mastery of critical thinking skills, especially in solving Additional
Mathematics problems. Differentiation is one of the analytical mathematical concepts which
requires students to think before making a decision, by reasoning to solve problems, and needs
them to have a good level of conceptual understanding to do the above task. As such, reasoning
skills should be incorporated into the TNL process, to enable the students to have their thinking
ability triggered, idea generated, mind controlled and good solutions achieved 9,10. Earlier
studies to identify the students’ level of reasoning via Reasoning Test Questions on
Differentiation (RTQD) conducted by 11 proved that, the requirement for the students to master
mathematical reasoning was at a sufficient level, but the context grew wider when they learned
analytical mathematical concepts, such as Calculus (Differentiation, Integration and others).
Learning dimension introduced by Marzano (1992) could also be used to diversify and increase
the TNL activities that would enhance students' reasoning skills, a major element in HOTS 12,
13. All of the above findings showed the importance of mastering Calculus among students
undertaking critical courses in the university, which basis should be developed earlier while in the
secondary school. 2. Problem Statement Information, evidence and critical arguments stated by
most of the studies by 4, 11 suggested that, empirical evidence existed to indicate that,
Malaysian students acquired the procedural understanding and Lower Order Mathematics
Thinking Skills (LOMTS) but less mastered conceptual understanding and High Order
Mathematics Thinking Skills (HOMTS), particularly, reasoning skills. The weakness in reasoning
was commonly associated with mathematical learning difficulties experienced by the students.
Empirical evidences were aplenty to show that, many Malaysian students had problems
mastering both aspects of mathematics learning, namely, conceptual understanding and
HOMTS. Therefore, this study looked into improving the Differentiation Reasoning Level (DRL) of
reasoning skills among students for a topic in the Additional Mathematics subject, known as
Differentiation, through Differentiation Reasoning Learning Strategies (DRLS) 3. Methods The
study design was in the form of DRLS, expected to support students’ learning of Differentiation,
covering all the skills in the subject. Discussions on the data analysis focused on two types of
data, namely, DRL and DRL component levels of comparing, classifying, inductive and
deductive. Data analysis was conducted according to the following perspectives: ? Effectiveness
Analysis I: Analysis of overall changes in DRL (before and after learning using DRLS). ?
Effectiveness Analysis II: Analysis of changes in the levels of DRL components of comparing,
classifying, inductive and deductive (before and after learning using DRLS). The respondents
comprised a total of 31 purposively-sampled students from a secondary boarding school in
Johor. The aim was to improve their Reasoning Level through DRLS and their achievement in
Differentiation. 4. Data Analysis Descriptive statistics such as mean and standard deviation was
used to describe the data distribution. Inference test analysis was also used to study the impact
of DRLS developed, to help students improve their DRL through RTQD and to improve their
Reasoning Level in the four components of DRL namely, comparing, classifying, inductive and
deductive. 5. Findings Results of Data Analysis for Mean Score Difference for Students’ TPP
Before and After Learning Using SPPP. The findings displayed in Table 1 showed the DRL mean
score of 3.6 after learning using DRLS, a tremendous improvement from the previous score of
1.2. In addition, the standard deviation after the intervention also improved to 0.043, from 0.035,
obtained in the pre-test. These values indicated that, the students’ scores were not evenly
scattered where the score gap in the post-test was slightly higher than that in the pre-test. Mean,
M=2.4 obtained for the spurt in change of students’ scores (M = 2.4) implied that the their DRL
increased very well. A measurement followed to gauge the way the difference between pre- and
post-test scores caused significant impacts on the students’ achievement Table 1 Referring to
the value of d = 0.996 14 obtained above, This suggested that, DRLS significantly contributed
towards the main and interactive effects on the performance of secondary school high achievers
in DRL.the difference in mean scores the students’ DRL in the pre and post-tests had substantial
impacts on their DRL on Differentiation. This further showed that, the results of the findings
suggested that, learning using DRLS could increase the mean score of DRL among the students
who participated in this study. Following the findings, a statistical analysis was performed to see

1significant differences between the mean scores of DRL, before and after being

subjected to the sample paired t-test. Based on results of the findings, 1paired sample t-

test was conducted to verify if 1there was a significant difference

between pre- and post- intervention. 1Referring to Table 1, the results of

the analysis showed that, there was a significant difference in mean scores due

to the intervention (t = -59.961; p <0.001). It was observed that, overall, DRL for each student
involved in this study improved from a lower to a higher mean range (see table 1) after learning
using DRLS. Results of Data Analysis of Mean Score Differences for Each of Students’
Reasoning Components Before and After Learning Using SPPP. Table 2 shows the results of
paired t-test for reasoning components in Pre- and Post- learning using DRLS. Comparing the
score range of reasoning level for each component, the students seemed to have a good level of
reasoning on each component after learning using DRLS. Referring to Table 6, it was found that,
the minimum and the maximum scores were 1 and 2 respectively, before learning using DRLS
and these scores improved to 2 and 4, respectively for the comparison component. Similarly, for
the other components, there was a slight improvement experienced by the students in the Post-
Test. Overall, the level of reasoning for each component after learning using DRLS was good
and excellent with average minimum scores in Pre-Test and Post-Test being 1 and 3,
respectively, and average maximum scores 2 and 4, respectively. Subsequently, a t-test was
used for the DRL components, before and after learning using DRLS to verify if there was a
significant difference in mean scores achieved before and after learning using DRLS. Table 2
Referring to Table 2, the results of the t-test analysis showed impacts of learning using DRLS on
the DRL components, comparing [(31) = -22.097, p <0.05, eta2 = 0.942], classifying [(31) = -
32.416, p <0.05, eta2 = 0.972], inductive [(31) = - 38.325, p <0.05, eta2 = 0.979] and deductive
[(31) = - 26.843, p <0.05, eta2 = 0.960]. This difference could clearly be seen from the mean
scores before and after learning using DRLS. The mean of comparing (M = 1.05), classifying (M
= 1.24), inductive (M = 1.05) and deductive (M = 1.00) improved to an excellent level after
learning using DRLS, with respective values of (M = 3.37), (M = 3.56), (M = 3.70) and (M = 3.39).
All of the mean differences were measured at the significance level of 0.05. A further analysis
using One-Way ANOVA was subsequently conducted to observe significant differences that
occurred in each of the DRL components in DRLS learning as shown in Table 3 Table 3
Referring to the results of the ANOVA test analysis (Test of Within-Subject Contras) in Table 3,
significant differences were observed after the interventions conducted on the DRL components
for comparing in Pre-Post1 [F (1,30) = 538.82, p <0.05, eta2 = 0.94], Post1-Post2
[F(1,30)=19.00, p<0.05, eta2=0.38] and Post2-Post3 [F(1,30)=41.20, p<0.05, eta2=0.57],
classifying in Pre-Post1 [F(1,30)=99.36, p<0.05, eta2=0.77], Post1-Post2 [F(1,30)=34.30,
p<0.05, eta2=0.53] and Post2-Post [F(1,30)=11.23, p<0.05, eta2=0.27] , inductive in Pre-Post1
[F(1,30)=504.133, p<0.05, eta2=0.944] and Post3-Post [F(1,30)=38.734, p<0.05, eta2=0.564],
followed by deductive in Pre-Post1 [F(1,30)=35.328, p<0.05, eta2=0.541], Post1-Post2
[F(1,30)=834.910, p<0.05, eta2=0.965] and Post2-Post [F(1,30)=720.526, p<0.05, eta2=0.960] .
Therefore, it could be concluded that, there were major mean differences in the 10 learning
activities conducted which contributed to significant F values for all the four DRL components. All
of the mean differences were measured at the significance level of 0.05. Based on the above
results, it was evident that interventions conducted via successive DRLS learning in DRL
components were effective in improving the students' reasoning skills. 6. Conclusions The
findings of the study indicated that the students’ reasoning skills, comprising the four
components, namely, comparing, classifying, inductive and deductive as a whole was at an
excellent level. Similarly, students' achievement in the Differentiation topic improved
tremendously. The reasoning level obtained by the researchers was similar with what was
proposed by 12, who realized the potentials of these four components as being able to generate
Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) among students. Based on results obtained from the
measured DRL components, the researchers deduced that, the level of mastery of all the four
components of comparing, classifying, inductive and deductive showed a tremendous
improvement after learning using DRLS with their pre-convention mean (M) values of 1.05, 1.24,
1.05, 1.24, respectively, raising to post-convention mean (M) values of 3:37, 3.56, 3.70, 3.56,
respectively. This, accordingly, explained that, the students succeeded to increase their level of
reasoning from weak and moderate levels to good and excellent levels. However, the results
obtained by the researchers were different from those obtained by 8, where in their study, the
mastery of Critical Thinking Skills, comprising components of making inferences, comparing
assumptions, making deduction and interpretation, as well as evaluating arguments was in
general at a moderate level. The researchers found that, the students’ reasoning skills for
comparing, classifying, inductive and deductive were at an excellent level after learning using
DRLS with the 10 activities being very carefully organized according to the learning objectives
and systematic grading of learning level, tailored to the students’ pace to improve their reasoning
skills in all the four components. Besides, views of experts in Mathematics education were also
taken into account in establishing this DRLS, to ensure its effectiveness for the intended
purpose. In contrast, a study by 12 found that the level of HOTS for students who majored in
technical education in UTHM was moderate for comparing, inductive and deductive, and low for
classifying. This could have resulted from such factors as reasoning skills being examined solely
using questionnaire provided, compared to the method used by the researchers, who produced
our own DRLS module, systematically, which proved itself in this study to have improved the
students’ reasoning skills in all the four components. References and Notes 1. Malaysia, Ministry
of Education. Malaysian Education Development Plan 2013-2025.Putrajaya: Ministry of
Education Malaysia, (2012). 2. Switala, M. S. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Pittsburgh),
(2013). 3. Arsaythamby, V., Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Universiti Utara Malaysia.
(2006b). 4. Surif, J., Ibrahim, N. H., & Mokhtar, M., Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 56
(Ictlhe), 416–425 (2012). 5. Amalina Ibrahim, Nor‘ain Binti Mohd. Tajudin and Norashiqin Mohd.
Idrus. Jurnal Pendidikan Sains & Matematik Malaysia , 8–19. (2012). 6. Maidinsah, H., (Doctoral
dissertation, Universiti Sains Malaysia), (2004). 7. Mohd Eizuan Abu Hassan, Noor Shah Saad
dan Mohd Uzi Dollah, Jurnal Pendidikan Sains & Matematik Malaysia. Vol.2 No.2, 8–19. (2013).
8. Aziz, N., Jurnal Pendidikan Matematik, 2(2), 31-49. (2015). 9. Marzano, Robert J. A different
kind of classroom: Teaching with dimensions of learning. Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development, 1250 North Pitt Street, Alexandria, (1992). 10. Marzano, Robert J.,
Debra Pickering, and Jay McTighe. Assessing Student Outcomes: Performance Assessment
Using the Dimensions of Learning Model. Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development, 1250 N. Pitt St., Alexandria,(1993). 11. Mohamad Nizam, A., Noor Azean, A.,
Mohd Salleh, A., Abdul Halim, A., dan Mahani, M., International Conference on Education and
High Order Thinking Skills 2016 in conjunction with the 2nd International Seminar on Science
and Mathematics Education. (2016). 12. Yee, M. H., Jailani, M. Y., Suzanna, I., Othman, W., &
Tee, T. K. The pattern of Marzano’s higher order thinking skills based on dimensions using
significant knowledge. (2010). 13. Yee, M. H., (Doctoral dissertation, Universiti Tun Hussein Onn
Malaysia). (2015). 14. Cohen,J.W. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd
edn). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. (1988). Table captions Table 1. Paired
sample t-test for TPP Before and After Learning Using SPPP Table 2. Results of Paired t-test for
Reasoning Components in Pre- and Post- Using SPPP Table 3. Results of Paired t-test for
Reasoning Components in Pre- and Post- Using SPPP Table 1: Paired sample t-test for TPP
Before and After Learning Using SPPP Pairs Mean Std. Deviation t Sig. (2-tailed) Cohen d Pre-
test Post- test Spurt in Score Change 1.2 3.6 2.4 0.198 0.240 0.225 -59.961 <0.001 0.996 Table
2: Results of Paired t-test for Reasoning Components in Pre- and Post- Using SPPP Component
N Pre Min Post Pre Max Post Pre Mean Post Pre S.D Post t Sig. Cohen d Comparing 31 1 3 2 4
1.05 3.37 0.15 0.57 -22.097 .000 0.942 Classifying 31 1 3 2 4 1.24 3.56 0.28 0.35 -32.416 .000
0.972 Inductive 31 1 3 2 4 1.05 3.70 0.21 0.30 -38.325 .000 0.979 Deductive 31 1 3 1 4 1.00 3.39
0.00 0.49 -26.843 .000 0.960 Table 3: Analysis of Within-Subjects Contrasts Via One-Way
ANOVA Test for TPP Components Type III Sum of Partial Eta Source Intervention Squares df
Mean Square F Sig. Squared Comparing Pre – Post 1 Post 1 - Post 2 Post 2 - Post 3 Post 3 –
Post 166.06 1 10.35 1 18.06 1 .97 1 166.06 538.82 10.35 19.00 18.06 41.20 .97 1.85 .000 .000
.000 .183 .94 .38 .57 .05 Classifying Pre – Post 1 Post 1 - Post 2 Post2 – Post 42.38 1 42.38
99.36 .000 .76 17.94 1 17.94 34.30 .000 .53 4.77 1 4.77 11.23 .002 .27 Inductive Pre – Post 1
Post 1 - Post 2 Post2 – Post3 116.452 .538 .202 1 1 1 116.452 .538 .202 504.113 1.791 .668
.000 .191 .420 .944 .056 .022 Post3 – Post 13.337 1 13.337 38.734 .000 .564 Pre – Post 1
17.065 1 17.065 35.328 .000 .541 Post 1 - Post 2 211.645 1 211.645 834.910 .000 .965 Post2 -
Post 176.645 1 176.645 720.526 .002 .960 Deductive 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8