Instructional Planning for STEM Learning in Computer Science
Abstract
The Malaysian Matriculation Department aims to produce high-quality pre-university students who meet industry demands, in line with the Malaysia Education Blueprint 2013-2025. However, traditional instructional methods rely heavily on rote memorization, limiting students’ ability to apply knowledge in real-world contexts. To address this, STEM education must integrate authentic learning experiences that foster critical thinking and problem-solving skills. This study proposes a structured blended learning model for computer science education in Malaysian matriculation programs, incorporating blended learning strategies, authentic learning approaches, 21st-century skills, and technology tools. A convergent mixed-methods research design was employed, collecting both qualitative and quantitative data from students, lecturers, and administrators in a one-year matriculation program. Findings indicate that structured instructional guidance enhances students' engagement in real-world tasks, promoting self-directed learning and reducing reliance on rote memorization. A teaching guide was developed to support lesson planning, enabling educators to design interactive and meaningful learning experiences. The study also highlights that institutional support and educators’ willingness to adopt new teaching methods are critical for successful blended learning implementation. This research contributes to computer science education by providing a comprehensive instructional model tailored to the Malaysian matriculation context. By shifting towards student-centered, technology-driven learning, the proposed model enhances knowledge retention and practical skill development, better preparing students for higher education and future careers.
Downloads
References
Alammary, A. (2019). Blended learning models for introductory programming courses: A systematic review. PLoS ONE, 14(9), e0221765. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0221765
Chan, M. S., Tan, P. J. & Ong, S. F. (2022). Blended learning practices in Malaysian higher education: A comprehensive review. Mathematics and Engineering Applications, 12(1), 45-60. https://www.philstat.org/index.php/MSEA/article/view/1497
Cheng, L., Wang, X., & Ritzhaupt, A. D. (2023). The effects of computational thinking integration in STEM on students’ learning performance in K-12 education: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 61(2), 416–443. https://doi.org/10.1177/07356331221114183
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. SAGE Publications, Incorporated.
Diana, N., Turmudi, T., & Yohannes, Y. (2021). Analysis of teachers’ difficulties in implementing STEM approach in learning: a study literature. Journal of Physics: ConferenceSeries, 1806(1),012219. https://doi.org/10.1088/17426596/1806/1/012219
Dziuban, C., Graham, C. R., Moskal, P. D., Norberg, A., & Sicilia, N. (2018). Blended learning: The new normal and emerging technologies. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 15(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-017-0087-5
Farahani, M. (2014). From Spoon Feeding to Self-Feeding: Are Iranian EFL Learners Ready to Take Charge of their Own Learning? Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 11(1). https://e-flt.nus.edu.sg/wp-content/uploads/farahani.pdf
Govender, I. (2022). Research status in computational thinking in STEM education. In M. Kalogiannakis & M.Ampartzaki (Eds.), Advances in Research in STEM Education (pp.1-24). IntechOpen. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.104472
Hadiyanto, H., Failasofah, F., Armiwati, A., Abrar, M., & Thabran, Y. (2021). Students’ Practices of 21st Century Skills between Conventional learning and Blended Learning. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice, 18(3), 83–102. https://doi.org/10.53761/1.18.3.7
Horn, M. B., & Staker, H. (2017). The blended Workbook: Learning to Design the Schools of our Future. John Wiley & Sons.
Ismail, M. H., Fadzil, H. M., & Saat, R. M. (2022). Student's View on STEM Lessons: An Analysis of Needs to Design Integrated STEM Instructional Practices Through Scientist-Teacher-Students Partnership (STSP). MOJES: Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 10(2), 35-46. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1343905
Krejcie, R. V., & Morgan, D. W. (1970). Determining sample size for research activities. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 30(3), 607–610. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316447003000308
Law, K. E., Karpudewan, M., & Zaharudin, R. (2021). Computational Thinking in STEM Education among Matriculation Science Students. Asia Pacific Journal of Educators and Education, 36(1), 177–194. https://doi.org/10.21315/apjee2021.36.1.10
Li, Y., Schoenfeld, A. H., diSessa, A. A., Graesser, A. C., Benson, L., English, L. D., & Duschl, R. A. (2020). On computational thinking and STEM education. Journal for STEM Education Research, 3, 147–166. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41979-020-00044-w
Loomis, K. (2017). Think outside the box: The CIA of blended learning and 10+ designs for secondary schools. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.
Mater, N., Ayah Amro, & May Abdullah. (2022). Online STEM education and 21st Century skills development. Radical Solutions in Palestinian Higher Education, 67–73. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-0101-0_6
McCowan, T. (2018). Five perils of the impact agenda in higher education. London Review of Education, 16(2). https://doi.org/10.18546/lre.16.2.08
Miao, Y., Holst, S. J., Haake, J. M., & Steinmetz, R. (2000). PBL-Protocols: Guiding and Controlling Problem Based Learning Processes in Vitual Learning Environments. In B. Fishman & S. O'Connor-Divelbiss (Eds.), Fourth International Conference of the Learning Sciences (pp. 232-237). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Ministry of Education Malaysia. (2024). Malaysia Education Blueprint 2013-2025: Annual report 2023. Ministry of Education Malaysia. https://www.moe.gov.my/storage/files/shares/Dasar/PPPM/PPPM%20Laporan%20Tahunan%202023%20(BI).pdf
Ministry of Education Malaysia. (2013). Malaysia Education Blueprint 2013 - 2025. Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia. https://www.pmo.gov.my/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Malaysia-Education-Blueprint-2013-2025.pdf
Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2009). P21 framework definitions (ERIC No. ED519462). ERIC. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED519462
Ramli, N. F., & Talib, O. (2017). Can education institution implement STEM? From Malaysian teachers’ view. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 7(3), 721-732.
Rasuli, M. H. (2020). The Significance of a Lesson plan and Its Considerations in Teaching and Learning Process. IJRAR-International Journal of Research and Analytical Reviews (IJRAR), 7(1), 852-857. https://www.ijrar.org/papers/IJRAR2001541. pdf
Roach, K., Tilley, E., & Mitchell, J. (2018). How authentic does authentic learning have to be? Higher Education Pedagogies, 3(1), 495–509. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 23752696.2018.1462099
Siti Hamizah Aspin, Marlina Ali & Muhammad Abd Hadi Bunyamin (2021). STEM Education in Malaysia: A Review. Learning Science and Mathematics, 15, 125-139. http://www.recsam.edu.my/sub_LSMJournal/images/docs/2022/2022_9_ASPIN_125139.pdf
Stanley, T. (2018). Authentic learning: Real-world experiences that build 21st-century skills (1st ed.). Prufrock Press.
Tucker, C. R., Wycoff, T., & Green, J. T. (2017). Blended learning in action: A practical guide toward sustainable change. Corwin Press.
University of Queensland. (2022,). Project-based learning. https://itali.uq.edu.au/ teaching-guidance/teaching-practices/active-learning/ project-based-learning
Zakaria, R., Satari, S. Z., Damahuri, N. A. & Khairuddin, R. (2019). Descriptive analysis of students' CGPA: A case study of Universiti Malaysia Pahang. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 469, 012100. https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/469/1/012100Z