no comments


Aku ditunjukkan petikan dari satu kajian berikut..

Findings of the study indicated that students’ academic achievement was correlated significantly with their motivation towards learning and their self-efficacy…. thus this finding is in line with that highlighted in X (2009) study. X reported that motivation was significantly related to achievement. This finding is supported by other research, such as that by Y (1992) who reported …..

Amati kenyataan berikut:

a. Membincangkan dapatan seperti di atas hanya menunjukkan wujud “duplikasi” apabila anda menulis bahawa dapatan kajian anda “is in line with…” satu kajian lepas.

b. Kenapa perlu sandarkan dapatan anda dgn dapatan kajian lepas sedang kajian anda patutnya lebih “baik” selepas anda membuat review kajian2 semasa yang lain. Anda hanya downgraded dapatan anda sendiri apabila menulis “this finding is supported by…” kajian lepas

c. Anda dakwa kajian anda kununnya mengisi kelompongan (gap) yang belom lagi dijalankan oleh kajian lepas.. abis yang di tulis “this finding is in line with” dan “this finding is supported by..” tu amende?

d. Anda dakwa kununnya dapatan kajian anda novel… abis kalau disokong. didokong, disupport dll tu… amendenye yang novel… telenovela bolehlah !

Ini sama seperti menulis:

Kajian ini menghasilkan satu model baru (2015) yang selari dgn model X (2009) malah disokong oleh model oleh Y (1992) dan menepati model Z (2001). Apa perlunya dapatan kajian 1992, 2009 dan 2001 tu nak support dapatan kajian anda – ini sokong membawa rebah !

Contoh: Ini satu discussion (kajian experimental – petikan Othman 2007) yang tak perlu citation kerana sifat dapatan yang novel. Sila baca setiap perkataan utk dapat maksud yang tersirat dalamnya…. wpun anda tak berada nak faham…

The findings and analysis from the study show a positive benefit of using animations to teach conceptual change of electrochemistry concepts. It is clear that the students in the animation group performed better in the post-test compared to the students in the conventional method. Parametric tests revealed that the students who were exposed to animation demonstrated significantly better post-test mean scores, compared to their counterparts in the conventional group.

This suggests that the students in the animation group experienced a strong conceptual change. Specifically, exposure to animation significantly increased the post-test mean score of the high and low achiever students of the animation group compared to the high and low achiever students of the conventional group. Furthermore, the high and low achiever students in the animation group demonstrated better performance in the overall post-test scores compared to the high and low achiever students in the conventional group. Therefore, the main hypothesis, which postulated that animation improved students’ conceptual change, was supported. In animation group, the teacher encourages active learning through collective discussion with the use of animations. This strategy seems to help the construction of knowledge among the students in the experimental group. The collective discussion approach, derived from the social constructivist view of learning, helps students to recognize and evaluate their own ideas, as compared to new concepts. As students are aware of the strengths and weaknesses of their ideas, they become more ready to restructure them.

The results of the questionnaire help to explain the students’ perceptions toward animation and static illustration, respectively. From the analysis of the questionnaire, animation is perceived by the students to provide greater opportunities for collective discussion and hence greater assistance to promote their conceptual. The high percentage of agreement in the questionnaire that claimed that they were unable to imagine chemical phenomena from the teacher’s presentation using animations shown provided an insight into the effectiveness of using animations in presenting electrochemical concepts. The use of animations to present dynamic and abstract concepts and processes in electrochemistry helped the students to gain a better understanding at the macroscopic and microscopic levels. The use of conventional instruction in presenting and explaining facts, such as factors affecting electrolysis for aqueous solutions and the electrochemical series were preferred over text-based animations. Perhaps, presenting text-based animations is not much different from conventional overhead transparencies. The findings showed that direct presentation of chemical facts through transparencies was positively perceived by students in the control group in giving an initial understanding of the facts.

Furthermore, the text-based animations as viewed by the students in the Animation group did not contribute to the students’ ability to visualize any abstract and dynamic concept. This finding indicates that the text-based animations do not necessarily affect students’ understanding of the factual knowledge. This might well be a limitation of using text-based animation in chemical instruction.

To conclude, this study has provided significant evidence to support the value of using animation in teaching for conceptual change. As the study was conducted based on cognitive and social constructivist perspectives, the findings show how learning is considered as an active process in which learners construct knowledge through animations. Analysis has revealed that the students who were exposed to animation have better post-test mean scores and overall positive responses to the fundamental concepts of electrochemistry than those who were exposed to static illustration. Overall, regardless of the students’ level of achievement, these findings indicate that animation had positive effects on the subjects’ performance for both the general and specific post-test questions.


Sumber: Dr Othman Talib