Berikut adalah contoh sorotan literatur yang ditulis dengan beberapa
keperluan yang berbebza
Contoh 1 – What else need to be done
Tajuk: Segmentation animation – one way to facilitate students’ conceptual change of dynamic sequence concepts.
To date, empirical research in technology-based instruction failed to convince the fact that computer animation is superior to static illustration. One of the reasons given is that many animations designed for teaching are limited to attracting students’ attention but not to activate their minds to understand dynamic concepts (Lowe, 2004). Therefore, it is suggested here that computer animation should be presented to students through systematic discrete sequences which allow the teacheror instructor to control the flow of animation segment by segment, which will become meaningful upon integration with prior knowledge.
Contoh 2 – Sokongan kepada dakwaan
Tajuk: Pembinaan dan Penilaian Prototaip I-OMR
Visual animasi yang digunakan dalam pengajaran kimia organic berupaya membantu menghasilkan simulasi proses yang berlaku. Simulasi dalam kimia organik memerlukan animasi yang telah dianggap alat yang boleh memberikan kesan yang positif untuk diekploitasi dengan cara yang paling optimum bagi menghasilkan pembelajaran bermakna. Tambahan, animasi ‘provides a bridge between students’ prior knowledge and the learning of a new physical concept, helping students develop scientific understanding through an active reformulation of their misconception.’Jimoyiannis dan Komis (2001, p.185)
Contoh 3 – Mengemukakan teori dalam kajian
Tajuk: Prototype Model of Computer Instruction in Understanding the Concepts of Electrochemical Cells
In science education, where knowledge is well-developed and highly structured (West & Pines, 1985), concept development and conceptual change in cognitive structure plays an important role in understanding science concepts. In relation to this, Haney and Czerniak (2003) mentioned that constructivist approaches to teaching and learning has been one of thecomplete models for explaining the progression of student’s concept development or what generally known as conceptual change. Posner, Strike, Hewson and Gertzog (1982) and; Strike and Posner (1992) proposed a conceptual change model, which established the conditions for conceptual change to take place in teaching and learning.
Contoh 4 – Menunjukkan latarbelakang kajian
Topik – M-learning as tools for learners with background diversity
The last decade has seen significant innovations and improvement in human lifestyle brought by technology namely computers and the Internet (Bachmair, 2007). These tools are utilized to modernize industrial societies, improve productivity and economic growth. In addition, they also provide opportunities to bring the latest technology into educational institutions, as such linking these institutions to the world of work, economy and technology. For the educational practitioners the introduction of technology into the educational setting has always attracted them for it is viewed as a tool and enabler to help overcome various educational ills especially with regard to teaching and learning.
Therefore, in the educational context, there is a growing interest in the latest digital technologies specifically portable tools and their effect on learning (Kress & Patchler, 2007). These technologies can be employed to help develop learners to become not only active consumers, but also constructors andcreators of their own learning. The concept of teaching and learning has changed and no longer confined to the four walls of a classroom. In fact, learning can be done anywhere and everywhere since the tools afforded by technology have integrated and permeated into every aspect of our lives. As advocated by Kress and Patchler (2007) the use of digital technologies has affected the world in which we live, work and learn.
Contoh 5 – Kritikan terhadap teori pilihan anda
Topik – Computer-Animated Instruction and students’ conceptual change in electrochemistry
Although studies within the conceptual change framework have helped science teachers to understand the important aspects of knowledge construction, there are critiques concerning the practicality of conceptual change approach in science education. The conceptual change approach as argued by Duit and Treagust (2003) has two limitations in the broader realm of science education. Firstly, it focuses only on isolated concepts of science such as electrochemistry, heat, energy, and photosynthesis rather than the changes of overall views of the underlying concepts of the nature of science. Secondly, its approaches do not emphasize affective aspects of learning such as students’ perception towards learning science and motivation. According to Lee, Kwon and Park (2003, p.587) ‘sometimes, affective reasons are more important than logical/cognitive reason in students’ learning.’
Limon (2001) has claimed that although cognitive conflict seems to be a necessary condition, it is not guaranteed that cognitive conflict will always promote conceptual change. As pointed out by Chan, Brutis and Bereiter (1997, p.2) students are ‘often unable to achieve meaningful conflict or to become dissatisfied with their prior conceptions.’ There must be strategies where students need to be aware of their dissatisfaction. Cognitive conflict conditions have also been criticized for being too subjective to be traced (Limon, 2001). Furthermore, teachers can only organize and control teaching activities but not the students’ mind. In presenting teaching materials for example, what is considered intelligible and plausible by the teacher might not be considered intelligible and plausible by the students.
In relation to handling discussion or argumentation, one common problem is that some students do not readily give their opinion and participate. Even though it is good to ‘learn from mistakes’, most students are comfortable by just being passive spectators. In cases where students may already have rote learnt knowledge, discussion may become a mere repetition of facts.
Contoh 6 – Perdengarkan suara anda
Topik – Uncovering Malaysian Students’ Motivation to Learning Science
Malaysia’s vision to become a developed nation by the year 2020 has placed science and technology as important subjects to excel in. This is especially so since science and technology are often perceived as fundamental forces behind economic development in industrialized countries (Lee, 1989; Loo et al., 1997). Reports on performance in science learning, especially those that highlighted students’ lack of interest as well as declining ability to do science (Kong, 1993; Lee, 2001; MOE, 1998) sparked much concern about the ability to achieve the targetted goals.
Although there were researches examining factors that influence science learning in Malaysia, the studies were not comprehensive and much more need to be studied. Among the aspects investigated include language influence on students’ understanding (Nabilah, 2006; Loo & Sarmiento, 2005); problems with translating and analyzing text, pictures, charts and diagrams as well as failure to come up with the right conceptions of science objects or process (T. Subahan, 1996; Yee, 1998; Othman, 2007); difficulty arising from complexity of terminology and its ideological or technological nature (Mohd Zakaria, 1992); inability to apply process skills (Mohammad Najib, 1999; MOE, 1998), and failure to classify, synthesize and evaluate information (MOE, 1994; MOE, 1995; MOE, 1996; MOE, 2001b). However none of the above aforementioned studies were comprehensive enough to cover the affective, language and cognitive ability determinants of science learning.
This study, which is part of a bigger research, attempts to outline a profile of indicators that secondary science students in Malaysia need in order to excel in science. Initial observation of science students with excellent academic performance suggests that apart from the way science is taught in classrooms and laboratories, good performance in science subjects is largely the result of numerous interacting factors, both internal as well as external to the students. Amongst others, these include the students’ English language proficiency (as science is currently taught in English), cognitive ability, talent, the right attitude towards science learning as well as their social support system. For the past twenty years, most research examining factors influencing science learning focused primarily on the cognitive domain, particularly investigations on conceptual understanding, and misconceptions held, of science concepts. However, in more recent years, attention has been paid on how students’ affective, social and value domains (Weinburgh, 1995; Bloom, 1992; 1995) affect their science learning outcomes.
Sumber: Dr Othman Talib