Designing a microsoft teams–based blended learning tool through design-based research to foster senior high school students’ mathematical creative thinking in linear programming
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.59965/ijmsed.v4i2.322Keywords:
blended learning, design-based research, Microsoft Teams, Mathematical creative thinking, Linear programmingAbstract
Mathematical creative thinking remains underdeveloped in Indonesian secondary classrooms: only 31% of Indonesian students reached baseline proficiency in PISA 2022, compared with 78% across OECD countries (OECD, 2024). In Linear Programming, instruction often emphasises procedures over flexible, original problem solving. This Design-Based Research (DBR) study developed and evaluated a Microsoft Teams-based blended learning toolkit to strengthen Grade XI science students’ mathematical creative thinking. One DBR macro-cycle comprised four phases, Analysis and Design, Development, Implementation, and Evaluation, with two embedded design–test–revise micro-cycles. Needs analysis, expert review, and classroom observation informed development, while a quasi-experimental pretest–posttest evaluation involved 60 students in experimental and control groups at a private senior high school in Batam, Indonesia. Content and media validity ratings were 82% and 90%, respectively. However, the creative-thinking component scored 56%, prompting targeted redesign. Teacher and student responses indicated high practicality (83.33%). ANCOVA showed a higher adjusted posttest mean for the experimental group (75.52 versus 66.34; F(1, 57) = 55.13, p < .001, partial η² = .49). Normalised gain was moderate in the experimental group (0.33) and low in the control group (0.08). The findings suggest that iterative, technology-mediated design was associated with improved mathematical creative thinking and revealed design tensions requiring revision. Replication across schools is needed before generalising the resulting design principles.
References
Aiken, L. R. (1980). Content validity and reliability of single items or questionnaires. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 40(4), 955–959. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316448004000419
Aiken, L. R. (1985). Three coefficients for analyzing the reliability and validity of ratings. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 45(1), 131–142. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164485451012
Alamri, M. M. (2021). Using blended project-based learning for students’ behavioral intention to use and academic achievement in higher education. Education Sciences, 11(5), 207. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11050207
Anderson, T., & Shattuck, J. (2012). Design-based research: A decade of progress in education research? Educational Researcher, 41(1), 16–25. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X11428813
Attard, C., & Holmes, K. (2020). “It gives you that sense of hope”: An exploration of technology use to mediate student engagement with mathematics. Heliyon, 6(1), e02945. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2019.e02945
Barab, S., & Squire, K. (2004). Design-based research: Putting a stake in the ground. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1301_1
Bozkurt, A. (2022). A retro perspective on blended/hybrid learning: Systematic review, mapping and visualization of the scholarly landscape. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 2022(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.5334/jime.751
Cao, W. (2023). A meta-analysis of effects of blended learning on performance, attitude, achievement, and engagement across different countries. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1212056. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1212056
Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297–334. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02310555
Ersoy, E., & Özcan Kara, D. (2026). The effect of the creative problem-solving approach on creative thinking skills. Frontiers in Psychology, 17, 1734855. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1734855
Garrison, D. R., & Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 7(2), 95–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2004.02.001
Hake, R. R. (1998). Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics, 66(1), 64–74. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.18809
Irmayanti, I., Jamaluddin, Musdalifah, A., & Sudirman, P. (2023). Efektivitas penerapan media pembelajaran Microsoft Teams terhadap minat dan hasil belajar mahasiswa. JTMT: Journal Tadris Matematika, 4(1), 49–55. https://doi.org/10.47435/jtmt.v4i1.1497
Khrisat, Z., & Fakhouri, H. N. (2024). Impact of e-learning tools (Moodle, Microsoft Teams, Zoom) on student engagement and achievement at Jordan universities. International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies, 18(18), 125–145. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijim.v18i18.49895
Leikin, R., & Pitta-Pantazi, D. (2013). Creativity and mathematics education: The state of the art. ZDM Mathematics Education, 45(2), 159–166. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-012-0459-1
Levene, H. (1960). Robust tests for equality of variances. In I. Olkin (Ed.), Contributions to Probability and Statistics (pp. 278–292). Stanford University Press.
OECD. (2023). PISA 2022 results (Volume I): The state of learning and equity in education. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/53f23881-en
Putri, A. D., et al. (2025). Blended learning and math achievement: A meta-analytic review highlighting the effectiveness and heterogeneity. Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 23(1), 113–128. https://academic-publishing.org/index.php/ejel/article/view/3781
Rahman, O., et al. (2021). Improving high school students’ critical thinking ability in linear programming through problem based learning assisted by GeoGebra. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1882, 012070. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1882/1/012070
Rasheed, R. A., Kamsin, A., & Abdullah, N. A. (2020). Challenges in the online component of blended learning: A systematic review. Computers & Education, 144, 103701. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103701
Sari, R. F., & Afriansyah, E. A. (2022). Kemampuan berpikir kreatif matematis dan belief siswa pada materi persamaan dan pertidaksamaan linear. Plusminus: Jurnal Pendidikan Matematika, 2(2), 275–288. https://doi.org/10.31980/plusminus.v2i2.1755
Schindler, M., & Lilienthal, A. J. (2020). Students’ creative process in mathematics: Insights from eye-tracking-stimulated recall interviews on students’ work on multiple solution tasks. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 18(8), 1565–1586. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-019-10033-0
Shapiro, S. S., & Wilk, M. B. (1965). An analysis of variance test for normality (complete samples). Biometrika, 52(3/4), 591–611. https://doi.org/10.2307/2333709
Situmorang, A. S. (2020). Microsoft Teams for Education sebagai media pembelajaran interaktif meningkatkan minat belajar. Sepren, 2(1), 30–37. https://doi.org/10.36655/sepren.v2i1.351
Spatioti, A. G., Kazanidis, I., & Pange, J. (2022). A comparative study of the ADDIE instructional design model in distance education. Information, 13(9), 402. https://doi.org/10.3390/info13090402
Sugiarto, I. J., Usodo, B., & Saputro, D. R. S. (2021). High school students’ mathematic literacy performance in solving linear programming problem. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1776, 012014. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1776/1/012014
The Design-Based Research Collective. (2003). Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5–8. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X032001005
Tinoca, L., Piedade, J., Santos, S., Pedro, A., & Gomes, S. (2022). Design-based research in the educational field: A systematic literature review. Education Sciences, 12(6), 410. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12060410
Wang, F., & Hannafin, M. J. (2005). Design-based research and technology-enhanced learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 5–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504682
Wijaya, A. J., Pujiastuti, H., & Hendrayana, A. (2022). Tingkat kemampuan berpikir kreatif siswa dalam menyelesaikan soal open ended. JIPM (Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan Matematika), 11(1), 108–122. https://doi.org/10.25273/jipm.v11i1.10866
Wilkie, K. J. (2024). Creative thinking for learning algebra: Year 10 students’ problem solving and problem posing with quadratic figural patterns. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 52, 101550. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2024.101550
Wu, J., Tlili, A., Salha, S., Mizza, D., Saqr, M., López-Pernas, S., & Huang, R. (2025). Unlocking the potential of artificial intelligence in improving learning achievement in blended learning: A meta-analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 16, 1691414. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1691414
Zheng, L. (2015). A systematic literature review of design-based research from 2004 to 2013. Journal of Computing in Education, 2(4), 399–420. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-015-0036-z
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Erza Candra, Yumiati Yumiati, Endang Wahyuningrum
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
