Concept of Metacognitive Online Discussion Model for Online Teaching to Enhance Students’ Engagement and Mastery During Coronavirus Outbreaks

Abstract

This concept paper discusses the design and development of metacognitive online discussion learning models to create active learning and ensure that students master mathematics contents during outbreaks online teaching sessions. The model aims to provide teachers with guidance and reference to produce a simple and effective online teaching to address the problems limitations of internet networks, applications, equipment and motivations of teachers and students during outbreaks. In addition to maintaining motivation, engagement, fun and effective to the students’ mastery of mathematics concepts. This model is an integration of elements from Anderson’s (2002) metacognitive learning strategy model, common active learning criteria proposed by Bonwell & Eison (1991) and online motivated instructional design, ARCS Model (Keller, 1987).

Trends of the Implementation of Hybrid Teaching and Learning in Mathematics Education: A Systematic Literature Review

“…In addition, factors such as interaction, communication, and peer support also have a profound effect on students facing online teaching and learning. According to Bakar (2020), it is necessary to develop an online mathematics teaching model that integrates metacognitive learning strategies. To assess the creativity of student progress, an instrument has been developed to assess the creativity of student progress as one of the main targets in Science, Technology, Innovation, Mathematics, Engineering for the Young (STIMEY).…”

“…Wang, 2021;Wu et al, 2021), followed by 12 articles published in 2022 (Brunetto et al, 2022;Cavanaugh et al, 2022;DeCoito & Estaiteyeh, 2022;Durandt et al, 2022;Ní Fhloinn & Fitzmaurice, 2022;Gehrtz et al, 2022;Giberti et al, 2022;Kier & Johnson, 2022;Kurianski et al, 2022;Rocha et al, 2022;Segerby, 2022;P. Wang, 2022), 5 articles in 2020 (Bakar, Mohamad & Ismail, 2020;Jeong et al, 2020;Panisoara et al, 2020;Singh-Pillay & Naidoo, 2020;Van Nuland et al, 2020), 4 articles in 2018 (Chen & Huang, 2018;Golding & Bretscher, 2018;Lambert & Alony, 2018;Muirhead et al, 2018) and finally 2 articles have been published in 2019 (Musabirov et al, 2019;Trenholm et al, 2019). The year with the highest number of published articles was 2021.…”

“…In general, research approaches can be divided into two, namely quantitative and qualitative. Based on Figure 3 shows the research approach that can be analyzed from 41 articles in this study where the highest is using a qualitative research approach of 19 articles (Ashraf et al, 2021;Bakar et al, 2020;Batra et al, 2021;Bouck & Long, 2021;Brunetto et al, 2022;Church et al, 2021;Ní Fhloinn & Fitzmaurice, 2022;Gehrtz et al, 2022;Golding & Bretscher, 2018;Goulart et al, 2021;Kier & Johnson, 2022;Kurianski et al, 2022;Lambert & Alony, 2018;Muirhead et al, 2018;Pourdavood & Song, 2021;Singh-Pillay & Naidoo, 2020;Trenholm et al, 2019;Nuland et al, 2020;Wang et al, 2020), 16 articles use a quantitative research approach (Aristika et al, 2021;Cao et al, 2021;Cavanaugh et al, 2022;Chen & Huang, 2018;Durandt et al, 2022;Fujita et al, 2021;Giberti et al, 2022;Jeong et al, 2020;Musabirov et al, 2019;Nair & Nair, 2021;Panisoara et al, 2020;Pavlysh et al, 2021;Pócsová et al, 2021;Rasheed et al, 2021;P. Wang, 2022;Wu et al, 2021) and 6 articles using a mixed method research approach (DeCoito & Estaiteyeh, 2022;…”

“…Although the United States recorded the highest record, researchers from the same institution and some from different institutions. Furthermore, six studies have been published on hybrid teaching and learning in China which is known to be a country that has been very affected by the Covid-19 pandemic (Ashraf et al, 2021;Cao et al, 2021;Cao et al, 2021;Wang, 2021;Wang, 2022;Wu et al, 2021), three studies focused on Canada (DeCoito & Estaiteyeh, 2022;Le Pichon et al, 2021;Muirhead et al, 2018), Malaysia (Bakar et al, 2020;Rasheed et al, 2021;Wang et al, 2020), two studies focused on South Africa (Durandt et al, 2022;Singh-Pillay & Naidoo, 2020), India (Batra et al al., 2021;Nair & Nair, 2021), Italy (Brunetto et al, 2022;Giberti et al, 2022), Australia (Lambert & Alony, 2018;Trenholm et al, 2019). Meanwhile, one study focused on Belarus (Pavlysh et al, 2021), Brazil (Goulart et al, 2021), Indonesia (Aristika et al, 2021), Ireland (Ní Fhloinn & Fitzmaurice, 2022, Japan (Ní Fhloinn & Fitzmaurice, 2022), England (Golding & Bretscher, 2018), Romania (Panisoara et al, 2020), Russia (Musabirov et al, 2019), Spain (Jeong et al, 2020), Slovakia (Pócsová et al, 2021, Sweden (Segerby, 2022) and United Kingdom (Shaw & Tranter, 2021).…”

“…Figure 5 shows the trend analysis of the implementation of teaching and learning in mathematics education based on the purpose of each study. The researcher has identified the purpose of the study that has been carried out which is 14 research articles related to the implementation of online teaching and learning Durandt et al (2022) (Pourdavood & Song, 2021;Chen & Huang, 2018;Rocha et al, 2022), three articles aimed at studying related to developing mathematics teaching models (Bakar, Mohamad & Ismail, 2020;L. Wang et al, 2020;Pavlysh et al, 2021;), two articles aim to examine students' perceptions of online teaching and learning (Batra et al, 2021;Cavanaugh et al, 2022), one article aims to study teachers' perceptions of online teaching and learning (Cao et al, 2021) and one article aimed at studying interventions in teaching and learning (Bouck & Long, 2021).…”