Mathematical Engagement In Interactive Learning: A Case Study Of The Use Of Lumio In Understanding The Concept Of Normal Distribution

Indri Lestari; Windia Hadi; Giyanti Giyanti; Khotimah Khotimah

doi:10.24239/koordinat.v6i2.192

Indri Lestari Universitas Serang Raya
Windia Hadi University of Szeged
Giyanti Giyanti Universitas Serang Raya
Khotimah Khotimah Universitas Serang Raya

DOI: https://doi.org/10.24239/koordinat.v6i2.192

Keywords: Interactive Learning, Lumio, Mathematical Engagement, Normal Distribution

Abstract

Understanding the concept of normal distribution in statistics is often challenging for students, as it requires a deep understanding of symmetry, probability distribution, and the use of normal distribution tables. These challenges are often caused by difficulties in connecting theoretical concepts with data visualization and in comprehending z-score transformations. This study aims to analyze students' mathematical engagement in understanding the concept of normal distribution using Lumio-based interactive media. The study employed a quantitative, quasi-experimental design, with a pre-test post-test control group design. The experimental group engaged in learning using Lumio-based interactive media, while the control group received traditional lecture-based teaching methods. The research instruments included a concept comprehension test, a mathematical engagement questionnaire, and an analysis of Lumio activity logs. The data were analyzed using paired sample t-tests and ANCOVA to evaluate the effectiveness of Lumio in improving students' mathematical engagement and conceptual understanding. The results showed a significant difference between pre-test and post-test scores in both the experimental and control groups. The experimental group, which used Lumio, showed a significantly higher improvement in both conceptual understanding and engagement compared to the control group. The findings suggest that using Lumio-based learning significantly enhanced students' engagement and understanding of normal distribution, compared to the conventional teaching methods

References

Bryman, A. (2016). Social research methods (5th ed.). Oxford University Press.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Dittrich, L. (2022). Quasi-experimental designs in educational research: Methods and applications. Educational Research Review, 32(1), 72-83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2022.100294

Fei, N., Gao, Y., Lu, Z., & Xiang, T. (2021). Z-score normalization, hubness, and few-shot learning. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (pp. 142–151). https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCV48922.2021.00151

Fink, A. (2013). How to conduct surveys: A step-by-step guide (5th ed.). Sage Publications.

Ha, T. N., Lubo-Robles, D., Marfurt, K. J., & Wallet, B. C. (2021). An in-depth analysis of logarithmic data transformation and per-class normalization in machine learning: Application to unsupervised classification of a turbidite system in the Canterbury Basin, New Zealand, and supervised classification of salt in the Eugene Island minibasin, Gulf of Mexico. Interpretation, 9(3), T685–T710. https://doi.org/10.1190/INT-2020-0142.1

Hartmann, L. M., & Schukajlow, S. (2021). Learning statistics through visuals: The role of interactive media. Mathematical Education Research Journal, 42(4), 458–475. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-021-00357-y

Hartmann, L. M., Krawitz, J., & Schukajlow, S. (2021). Create your own problem! When given descriptions of real-world situations, do students pose and solve modeling problems? ZDM Mathematics Education, 53(4), 919–935. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-021-01244-2

Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487

Janssen, J. (2021). Cognitive barriers in learning complex concepts: Understanding z-scores and transformations. Journal of Educational Psychology, 45(2), 122-138.

Johnson, B., & Christensen, L. (2020). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches (6th ed.). Sage Publications.

Lehtonen, D. (2022). Interactive learning strategies in mathematics education: A study on visualization in teaching probability. Journal of Educational Technology, 45(3), 112–124.

Mainali, B. (2021). Representation in teaching and learning mathematics. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science, and Technology, 9(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.46328/ijemst.1078

Marupudi, V., & Varma, S. (2024). Human visual clustering of point arrays. Psychological Review. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000320

Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2007). Interactive learning environments: The role of dynamic visualizations. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(3), 622–636. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.3.622

Pashler, H., & McDaniel, M. (2009). Learning styles and instructional strategies: A review of the literature. Educational Psychology Review, 21(3), 135–155. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-009-9100-3

Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice (4th ed.). Sage Publications.

Scholtz, F. (2021). Purposive sampling: A practical guide for educational research. Journal of Applied Research in Education, 15(4), 220–230.

Schunk, D. H. (2012). Learning theories: An educational perspective (6th ed.). Pearson Education.

Strunk, K. K., & Mwavita, M. (2024). Design and analysis in quantitative educational research: Univariate designs in SPSS. Taylor & Francis.

Tversky, B., & Morrison, J. B. (2002). Animation: Can it facilitate? International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 57(4), 247–262. https://doi.org/10.1006/ijhc.2002.1017