Mobile seamless inquiry media: effective strategies for enhancing students’ conceptual mathematics learning outcomes in the digital era

Introduction. In the digital age, the implementation of innovative strategies and technology-based approaches that enhance conceptual understanding in mathematics education is becoming increasingly essential. By utilising mobile technology, mobile seamless inquiry media (MoSIM) enables students to engage in research activities anytime and anywhere, thereby overcoming the constraints of traditional classroom learning.

Aim. This study aims to develop and evaluate tools for MoSIM.

Methodology and research methods. The study was conducted using the ADDIE pedagogical design model. Data analysis included a paired t-test and growth calculation (N-gain) to evaluate improvements in conceptual learning outcomes.

Results and scientific novelty. The results indicate that MoSIM significantly enhances students’ conceptual understanding, showing a statistically significant difference (Sig. < 0.001) and an N-gain percentage of 72.42%. This research presents an innovative educational solution by integrating inquiry-based learning (IBL) and seamless learning in a mobile-based format, specifically designed to align with the learning preferences of Generation Z, who are proficient with technology.

Practical significance. MoSIM provides a practical and flexible solution for teaching abstract mathematical concepts beyond classroom limitations. Its successful application highlights its potential to improve mathematics education and serve as a model for integrating mobile technology into other instructional contexts.

1. Suh J., Matson K., Seshaiyer P., Jamieson S., Tate H. Mathematical modeling as a catalyst for equitable mathematics instruction: preparing teachers and young learners with 21st century skills. Mathematics. 2021;9(2):1–20. Accessed October 23, 2024. https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/9/2/162

2. Maass K., Geiger V., Ariza M.R., Goos M. The role of mathematics in interdisciplinary STEM education. ZDM – Mathematics Education. 2019;51(6):869–884. Accessed February 27, 2024. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11858-019-01100-5

3. Al-Mutawah M.A., Thomas R., Eid A., Mahmoud E.Y., Fateel M.J. Conceptual understanding, procedural knowledge and problem-solving skills in mathematics: high school graduates work analysis and standpoints. International Journal of Education and Practice. 2019;7(3):258–273. Accessed November 06, 2024. https://archive.conscientiabeam.com/index.php/61/article/view/600

4. Kilpatrick J., Swafford J. Helping Children Learn Mathematics. Washington DC: National Academy Press; 2001. 52 p.

5. Martin W.G. Principles and Standards for School Mathematics. Virginia: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics; 2000. 402 p.

6. Rittle-Johnson B., Siegler R.S. The relation between conceptual and procedural knowledge in learning mathematics: a review. In: Donlan C., ed. The Development of Mathematical Skills. London: Psychology Press; 2021:75–110. doi:10.4324/9781315784755-6

7. OECD. PISA 2022 Results (Volume I): The State of Learning and Equity in Education. Paris: OECD Publishing; 2023. 491 p. doi:10.1787/53f23881-en

8. Kemendikbudristek. PISA 2022 dan Pemulihan Pembelajaran di Indonesia. Jakarta: Balai Penjaminan Mutu Pendidikan (BPMP); 2023. (In Indonesian) Accessed February 07, 2024. https://lpmpdki.kemdikbud.go.id/pisa-2022-dan-pemulihan-pembelajaran-di-indonesia/

9. Kemdikbud. Rencana Strategis Kementerian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan 2020–2024. Jakarta: Kementerian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan; 2020. (In Indonesian) Accessed February 07, 2024. https://dikti.kemdikbud.go.id/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/RENSTRA-KEMENDIKBUD-full-version.pdf

10. Ramadhani R., Umam R., Abdurrahman A., Syazali M. The effect of flipped-problem based learning model integrated with LMS-Google classroom for senior high school students. Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists. 2019;7(2):137–158. Accessed March 04, 2024. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/jegys/issue/45717/548350

11. Jankvist U.T., Niss M. Upper secondary school students’ difficulties with mathematical modelling. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology. 2020;51(4):467–496. Accessed May 17, 2024. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0020739X.2019.1587530

12. Attard C., Holmes K. “It gives you that sense of hope”: an exploration of technology use to mediate student engagement with mathematics. Heliyon. 2020;6(1):1–11. Accessed June 01, 2024. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405844019366046

13. Sun J., Anderson R.C., Lin T.J., Morris J.A., Miller B.W., Ma S., Nguyen-Jahiel K.T., Scott T. Children’s engagement during collaborative learning and direct instruction through the lens of participant structure. Contemporary Educational Psychology. 2022;69(102061):1–19. Accessed February 17, 2024. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0361476X22000200

14. Andrews-Larson C., Johnson E., Peterson V., Keller R. Doing math with mathematicians to support pedagogical reasoning about inquiry-oriented instruction. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education. 2021;24(2):127–154. Accessed May 16, 2024. http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10857-019-09450-3

15. Freeman S., Eddy S.L., McDonough M., Smith M.K., Okoroafor N., Jordt H., Wenderoth M.P. Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Psychological and Cognitive Sciences. 2014;111(23):8410–8415. Accessed May 17, 2024. https://pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1319030111

16. Istikomah E. The relationship between conceptual understanding and student learning outcomes through the use of geometers Sketchpad software. In: Journal of Physics: Conference Series; 2019; Bandung, Indonesia. Accessed November 12, 2024. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/1157/4/042070

17. Laursen S.L., Rasmussen C. I on the prize: inquiry approaches in undergraduate mathematics. International Journal of Research in Undergraduate Mathematics Education. 2019;5(1):129–146. Accessed February 10, 2024. http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40753-019-00085-6

18. Gómez-Chacón I.M., Bacelo A., Marbán J.M., Palacios A. Inquiry-based mathematics education and attitudes towards mathematics: tracking profiles for teaching. Mathematics Education Research Journal. 2023;36:715–743. Accessed May 18, 2024. https://link.springer.com/10.1007/s13394-02300468-8

19. Kilbane C.R., Milman N.B. Teaching Models-Designing Instruction for 21st Century Learners. 1st ed. USA: Pearson Education; 2014. 500 p.

20. Schallert S., Lavicza Z., Vandervieren E. Merging flipped classroom approaches with the 5E inquiry model: a design heuristic. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology. 2022;53(6):1528–1545. Accessed January 27, 2024. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0020739X.2020.1831092

21. Love B., Hodge A., Corritore C., Ernst D.C. Inquiry-based learning and the flipped classroom model. Primus. 2015;25(8):745–762. Accessed February 15, 2024. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10511970.2015.1046005

22. Suárez Á., Specht M., Prinsen F., Kalz M., Ternier S. A review of the types of mobile activities in mobile inquiry-based learning. Computers & Education. 2018;118:38–55. Accessed March 04, 2024. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360131517302397

23. Moon J., Lee D., Choi G.W., Seo J., Do J., Lim T. Learning analytics in seamless learning environments: a systematic review. Interactive Learning Environments. 2023;32(7):3208–3225. Accessed February 15, 2024. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10494820.2023.2170422

24. Wong L.H., Looi C.K. What seams do we remove in mobile-assisted seamless learning? A critical review of the literature. Computers & Education. 2011;57(4):2364–2381. Accessed January 29, 2024. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0360131511001369

25. Chan T.W., Roschelle J., Hsi S., Kinshuk K., Sharples M. One-to-one technology-enhanced learning: an opportunity for global research collaboration. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning. 2006;1(1):3–29. Accessed February 02, 2024. https://telearn.hal.science/hal-00190632/document

26. Safiah I., Degeng I.N.S., Setyosari P., Ulfa S. Design and development of seamless learning to improving learning outcome of Islamic economic course: a case study in Indonesia. Journal of E-Learning and Knowledge Society. 2020;16(3):60–67. Accessed March 04, 2024. https://www.je-lks.org/ojs/index.php/Je-LKS_EN/article/view/1135249

27. Ulfa S., Surahman E., Octaviani H.I. Mobile seamless language learning framework to improving students’ speaking skills for junior high students during pandemic Convid-19: a case study in indonesian context. In: Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Information Technology and Education; 2020; Paris, France. Accessed January 29, 2024. https://www.atlantis-press.com/article/125948752

28. Ramansyah W., Praherdhiono H., Degeng I.N.S., Kuswandi D. A gamified MOOC: the development of an interactive Moodle-based learning environment. Ubiquitous Learning: An International Journal. 2023;17(1):93–119. Accessed May 15, 2024. https://cgscholar.com/bookstore/works/a-gamified-mooc

29. Song Y., Wen Y. Integrating various apps on BYOD (Bring Your Own Device) into seamless inquiry-based learning to enhance primary students’ science learning. Journal of Science Education and Technology. 2018;27(2):165–176. Accessed May 22, 2024. http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10956-017-9715-z

30. Hendrowibowo L., Kristanto W. Seamless learning implementation to improve student-teacher skills in lesson planning. The International Journal of Technologies in Learning. 2023;31(1):1–23. Accessed February 02, 2024. https://cgscholar.com/bookstore/works/seamless-learning-implementation-to-improve-studentteacher-skills-in-lesson-planning

31. Paristiowati M., Fitriani E., Aldi N.H. The effect of inquiry-flipped classroom model toward students’ achievement on chemical reaction rate. In: The 4th International Conference on Research, Implementation, and Education of Mathematics and Science; May 15–16, 2017; Yogyakarta, Indonesia. Accessed February 10, 2024. https://pubs.aip.org/aip/acp/article/641767

32. Capaldi M. Including inquiry-based learning in a flipped class. PRIMUS. 2015;25(8):736–744. Accessed November 11, 2024. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10511970.2015.1031303

33. Ariani D.N., Sumantri M.S., Wibowo F.C. The impact of Android module-based inquiry flipped classroom learning on mathematics problem solving and creative thinking ability. International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies. 2022;16(24):32–46. Accessed May 10, 2024. https://online-journals.org/index.php/i-jim/article/view/35749

34. Anderson L., Krathwohl D., Airasian P., Cruikshank K., Mayer R., Pintrich P., et al. A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. 1st ed. New Jersey: Pearson; 2000. 336 p.

35. Donlan C. The Development of Mathematical Skills. 1st ed. London: Psychology Press; 2022. 268 p.

36. Hiebert J. Conceptual and Procedural Knowledge: The Case of Mathematics. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers; 1986. 326 p.

37. Mumu J., Tanujaya B. Measure reasoning skill of mathematics students. International Journal of Higher Education. 2019;8(6):85–91. Accessed November 12, 2024. http://www.sciedu.ca/journal/index.php/ijhe/article/view/16347

38. Yu R., Singh K. Teacher support, instructional practices, student motivation, and mathematics achievement in high school. The Journal of Educational Research. 2018;111(1):81–94. Accessed November 12, 2024. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00220671.2016.1204260

39. Koskinen R., Pitkäniemi H. Meaningful learning in mathematics: a research synthesis of teaching approaches. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education. 2022;17(2):1–15. Accessed November 12, 2024. https://www.iejme.com/article/meaningful-learning-in-mathematics-a-research-synthesis-of-teaching-approaches-11715

40. Herwinarso, Koswojo J., Pratidhina E. Development of an inquiry-based module with scientific equipment to facilitate primary school students learning the force concept. Journal of Education and e-Learning Research. 2023;10(2):314–322. Accessed December 16, 2024. http://asianonlinejournals.com/index.php/JEELR/article/view/4617

41. Arends R.I. Learning to Teach. 10th ed. McGraw-Hill Education; 2015. 608 p.

42. Kuhlthau C.C., Maniotes L.K., Caspari A.K. Guided Inquiry: Learning in the 21st Century. 2nd ed. California: Libraries Unlimited; 2015. 254 p.

43. Joyce B., Weil M. Models of Teaching. 9th ed. Pearson; 2014. 480 p.

44. Panjaitan M.B., Siagian A. The effectiveness of inquiry based learning model to improve science process skills and scientific creativity of junior high school students. Journal of Education and e-Learning Research. 2020;7(4):380–386. Accessed December 16, 2024. http://asianonlinejournals.com/index.php/JEELR/article/view/2293

45. Song Y. “Bring Your Own Device (BYOD)” for seamless science inquiry in a primary school. Computers & Education. 2014;74:50–60. Accessed February 02, 2024. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0360131514000153

46. Looi C., Seow P., Zhang B., So H., Chen W., Wong L. Leveraging mobile technology for sustainable seamless learning: a research agenda. British Journal of Educational Technology. 2010;41(2):154–69. Accessed January 29, 2024. https://bera-journals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.14678535.2008.00912.x

47. Zhang B.H., Looi C.K. Developing a sustainable education innovation for seamless learning. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2011;15:2148–2154. Accessed February 2, 2024. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S187704281100615X

48. Li C., Wang B., Li J., Fang Y. A review research on mobile social networking application in constructing seamless learning space. In: Proceedings of the 2013 International Academic Workshop on Social Science; 2013; Paris, France. Accessed February 02, 2024. http://www.atlantis-press.com/php/paper-details.php?id=9483

49. Branch R.M. Instructional Design: The ADDIE Approach. New York: Springer; 2009. 203 p.

50. Suartama I.K., Setyosari P., Sulthoni S., Ulfa S. Development of an instructional design model for mobile blended learning in higher education. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning. 2019;14(16):4–22. Accessed November 21, 2024. https://online-journals.org/index.php/ijet/article/view/10633

51. Richey R.C. Validating instructional design and development models. In: Spector J.M., Ohrazda C., Schaack A.V., Wiley D.A., eds. Innovations in Instructional Technology. 1st ed. New York: Routledge; 2005:171–185. doi:10.4324/9781410613684-16

52. Kamber D., Takaci D. On problematic aspects in learning trigonometry. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology. 2018;49(2):161–175. Accessed January 24, 2024. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0020739X.2017.1357846

53. Urrutia F.J.Z., Loyola C.C., Marín M.H. A tangible user interface to facilitate learning of trigonometry. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning. 2019;14(23):152–164. Accessed January 28, 2024. https://online-journals.org/index.php/i-jet/article/view/11433

54. Buchori A., Pramasdyasari A.S., Senowarsito S., Osman S., Fadila N. Virtual lab geometry development as online learning media alternatives at Universitas PGRI Semarang and Universiti Teknologi Malaysia. TEM Journal. 2023;12(1):414–423. Accessed November 21, 2024. https://www.temjournal.com/content/121/TEMJournalFebruary2023_414_423.html

55. Degeng I.N.S. Mencari Paradigma Baru Pemecahan Masalah Belajar Dari Keteraturan Menuju ke Kesemrawutan. Malang: Institut Keguruan dan Ilmu Pendidikan Malang; 1998. 47 p. (In Indonesian)

56. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Principles and Standards for School Mathematics: An Overview. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics; 2000. 20 p.

57. Prasetyani I., Darojah D.M., Novianti N., Sulisworo D. Developing eXeLearning application through project-based learning. In: The Sixth Seminar Nasional Pendidikan Matematika; November 03, 2018; Yogyakarta, Indonesia. Accessed May 23, 2024. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/1188/1/012068