USING PHET-BASED GRAPHING QUADRATICS SIMULATION TO ENHANCE STUDENTS' MATHEMATICAL VISUAL SKILLS
Keywords:
PhET-based Graphing Quadratics Simulation; Visual Skills; Students’ Mathematical SkillsAbstract
This study aims to analyze the effect of using PhET-based Graphing Quadratics simulations on students' mathematical visual skills in graphing quadratic equations. Involving 50 tenth-grade students divided into two groups, with 25 students in the experimental group and 25 in the control group, this research employed a pretest-posttest method to measure students' skill improvement. The results indicate that the experimental group experienced an average posttest score increase of 23.2 points, while the control group only improved by 7.4 points. Statistical analysis using independent t-tests yielded a p-value of 0.001, indicating a significant difference between the two groups. Students in the experimental group also demonstrated a better understanding of key graph elements, such as vertex and axis of symmetry. Student feedback highlighted an increase in interest and motivation when using the simulation, enriching their learning experience. This study recommends the use of PhET simulations as a teaching aid in mathematics education to enhance students' understanding and skills.
References
Moore, R. L., Herzog, T. G., & Brown, K. A. (2020). Interactive Simulations and Their Impact on Mathematics Learning: A Study of PhET's Graphing Quadratics. Journal of Educational Technology, 12(3), 45-58.
Wieman, C. E., & Perkins, K. K. (2005). Transforming Physics Education. Physics Today, 58(11), 36-41.
Finkelstein, N. D., Adams, W. K., Keller, C. J., Kohl, P. B., Perkins, K. K., Podolefsky, N. S., & LeMaster, R. (2005). When Learning about the Real World Is Better Done Virtually: A Study of Substituting Computer Simulations for Laboratory Equipment. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research, 1(1), 010103.
Jonassen, D. H. (2011). Learning to Solve Problems: A Handbook for Designing Problem-Solving Learning Environments. Routledge.
Bower, M., Dalgarno, B., Kennedy, G., Lee, M. J. W., & Kenney, J. (2015). Design and Implementation Factors in Blended Synchronous Learning Environments: Outcomes from a Cross-Case Analysis. Computers & Education, 86, 1-17.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Harvard University Press.
Piaget, J. (1973). To Understand Is to Invent: The Future of Education. Viking Press.
De Jong, T., & Joolingen, W. R. (1998). Scientific Discovery Learning with Computer Simulations of Conceptual Domains. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 179-201.
Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75-86.
Perkins, D. (1992). Smart Schools: From Training Memories to Educating Minds. Free Press.
Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia Learning. Cambridge University Press.
Zhao, Y. (2009). Catch Up or Lead the Way: American Education in the Age of Globalization. ASCD.
Hake, R. R. (1998). Interactive-Engagement vs. Traditional Methods: A Six-Thousand-Student Survey of Mechanics Test Data for Introductory Physics Courses. American Journal of Physics, 66(1), 64-74.
Schunk, D. H. (2012). Learning Theories: An Educational Perspective. Pearson.
Keller, J. M. (2010). Motivational Design for Learning and Performance: The ARCS Model Approach. Springer Science & Business Media.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Ahmad Rifai Siregar, Nur Halimah Matondang, Hamidah Nasution
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
