THE EFFECT OF MOBILE HOMEWORK ON STUDENTS’ LEARNING OUTCOMES, HOMEWORK QUALITY, AND PERCEPTION TOWARD MOBILE LEARNING FOR DIGESTIVE AND RESPIRATORY SYSTEM TOPICS AT SMA NEGERI IN MEDAN.

THE EFFECT OF MOBILE HOMEWORK ON STUDENTS’ LEARNING
OUTCOMES, HOMEWORK QUALITY, AND PERCEPTION TOWARD
MOBILE LEARNING FOR DIGESTIVE AND RESPIRATORY
SYSTEM TOPICS AT SMA NEGERI IN MEDAN

A THESIS

Submitted to the Biology Education Study Program in Partial Fulfillment of
the Requirement for Degree of
Magister Pendidikan

By:

DINA KHARIDA
Student Registration Number: 8136173006

BIOLOGY EDUCATION
POSTGRADUATE PROGRAM
STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN
2015

ABSTRACT
Dina Kharida: The Effect Of Mobile Homework On Students’ Learning
Outcomes, Homework Quality, and Perception Toward Mobile Learning For
Digestive and Respiratory System Topics at SMA Negeri in Medan. Thesis.
Post-graduate Program UNIMED. 2015.
The aims of this study were to investigate the effect of Mobile Homework on
students’ (1) learning outcomes, (2) ability in answering questions based on
Bloom’s taxonomy of cognitive domain, (3) homework scores, (4) homework
quality, and to analyze (5) the correlation between leaning outcomes and average
homework score, (6) the correlation between leaning outcomes and average
homework quality score, (7) students’ perception on mobile learning, (8) student’
rate of homework submission, and (9) the rate of homework submission among
male and female students. Three classes of students from three different public
senior high schools in Medan, North Sumatera Province, Indonesia, were clustery
selected and assigned with mobile homework, while other three classes of
students were given with paper-based homework. Students’ learning outcomes
were measured with multiple choice tests and essay test, while rating scales was
used to assess students’ homework quality. Data of perception on the mobile
homework were derived from questionnaire filled by the students. The data were
analyzed with Quade Non-parametric ANCOVA, Mann Whitney-U test,

Spearman rank correlation, and Chi-Square using SPSS and MYSTAT v.13.1
software packages. Results showed that Mobile Homework had significantly
effected student’ (1) learning outcomes (F = 56.38 ; P = 0.00), (2) ability in
answering C3 (Application) and C4 (Analysis-Synthesis) questions (U = 3,
130.00; P = 0.00), (3) ability in answering C5 (Evaluation) and C6 (Creation)
questions (U = 3.643,00; P = 0.00), (4) homework scores (U = 1,090.00; P =
0.00), (5) homework quality (U = 3, 194.00; P = 0.00), of the experimental class
compare with those who were given with paper-based homework, while (6) there
was a moderate, positive correlation between homework scores and learning
outcomes (rs = 0.47; P = 0.00), (7) there was a moderate, positive correlation
between good homework quality and better learning outcomes (rs = 0.49; P =
0.00), (8) experimental class have equal rate of homework completion compare
with those who were given with paper-based homework, in which the difference
of the rate of homework submission were not significantly different, χ2 (2) = 5.23;
p = 0.07, and (9) the frequency and total percentage of both experimental and
control group with regards to their gender, showed that male student in general
have lower complete mobile homework submission compared with female
students. Students at experimental class are in general show a positive perception
towards mobile learning. Thus, mobile homework with its mobile learning feature
has a number of advantages over traditional paper based homework

Keywords: mobile learning, homework, learning outcome, homework quality

ABSTRAK
Dina Kharida: Pengaruh Mobile Homework Terhadap Hasil Belajar Siswa,
Kualitas Tugas, dan Persepsi Terhadap Mobile Learning, Pada Topic Sistem
Pencernaan dan Pernapasan di SMA Negeri Medan. Tesis. Program
Pascasarjana UNIMED. 2015.
Tujuan penelitian ini adalah untuk memahami pengaruh Mobile Homework
terhadap (1) hasil belajar, (2) kemampuan menjawab pertanyaan berdasarkan
Taxonomi Ranah Kognitif Bloom, (3) skor tugas rumah, (4) kualitas tugas rumah
siswa, dan untuk menganalisis (5) korelasi antara hasil belaljar dan skor tugas
mingguan, (6) korelasi antara hasil belajar dan kualitas tugas rumah, (7) persepsi
siswa atas mobile learning, (8) rata-rata pengumpulan tugas rumah dan, (9) ratarata penyelesaian tugas rumah antara siswa pria dan wanita dan (10) persepsi
siswa terhadap Mobile Learning. Enam kelas dari tiga SMA Negeri di Kota
Medan, Provinsi Sumatera Utara, Indonesia dipilih secara bertingkat dan ditugasi
dengan mobile homework, sedangkan tiga kelas lainnya diberikan tugas rumah
tertulis. Hasil belajar siswa diukur dengan menggukan tes pilihan berganda dan
tes uraian, sedangkan skala pengukuran digunakan untuk menilai kualitas tugas
rumah siswa. Data persepsi siswa terhadap Mobile Learning berasal dari
Kuesioner yang diisi oleh siswa kelas eksperiment. Data dianalisis menggunakan

Quade Non-parametric ANCOVA, Mann Whitney-U test, Spearman rank
correlation, and Chi-Square dengan bantuan Software SPSS v.19 and MYSTAT
v.13.1. Hasil menunjukkan bahwa Mobile Homework secara signifikan
berpengaruh terhadap (1) hasil belajar (F = 56.38; P= 0.00), (2) kemampuan
menjawab pertanyaan berdasarkan Ranah Kognitif C3 dan C4 (U = 3, 130.00; P =
0.00), (3) kemampuan menjawab pertanyaan berdasarkan Ranah Kognitif C5 dan
C6 (U = 3, 643.00; P = 0.00), (4) skor tugas mingguan (U = 1, 090.00; P = 0.00),
(5) kualitas tugas rumah (U = 3, 194.00; P = 0.00) siswa pada kelas eksperimen
dibandingkan dengan siswa yang diberikan tugas rumah tertulis (6) terdapat
korelasi positif sedang antara hasil belajar dan skor tugas rumah (rs= 0.47; P =
0.00), dan (7) terdapat korelasi positif sedang antara hasil bekajar dan kualitas
tugas rumah (rs= 0.49; P = 0.00), (8)siswa yang ditugaskan dengan Mobile
Homework memiliki rata-rata pengumpulan tugas yang sama ketika dibandingkan
dengan siswa yang diberikan tugas rumah tertulis dimana perbedaan antara rataan
pengumpulan tugas tidak berbeda signifikan, χ2 (2) = 5.23; p = 0.07, dan (9)
berdasarkan persentase dan frekuensi total, baik kelas eksperimen dan kelas
control, menunjukkan bahwa siswa pria secara umum memiliki rataan
pengumpulan tugas rumah yang lebih rendah dibandingkan siswa perempuan.
Siswa pada kelas eksperimen secara umum menunjukkan persepsi yang positif
terhadap Mobile Learning, sehingga Mobile Homework dengan kelebihan Mobile

Learningnya dapat dikatakan memiliki sejumlah kelebihan dibandingkan tugas
rumah tertulis.
Kata kunci: mobile learning, mobile homework, hasil belajar, kwalitas tugas
rumah

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
All praise and glory to Almighty Allah (Subhanahu Wa Taalaa) who
gave the writer courage and patience to carry out this work. Peace and blessing of
Allah be upon last Prophet Muhammad (Peace Be upon Him).
A major research project like this is never the work of anyone alone, but
the support of many people, in which the contribution of them, in different ways,
had made this possible. The writer hardly knows where to start expressing her
gratitude, but several people deserve her sincere thanks.
The writer would like to express her unrestrained appreciation to her
thesis supervisors, Syarifuddin, M.Sc, Ph.D., and Prof. Dr. Herbert Sipahutar
M.S., M.Sc., for their constant help and guidance. Both supervisor had been
helping out and supporting the writer throughout the course of this work and on
several other occasions. Thanks are also due to the thesis committee members
Prof. Dr. Busmin Gurning, M.Pd., Dr. Hasruddin, M.Pd., and Dr. Fauziyah
Harahap, M.Si., for their attention, cooperation, comments and constructive

criticism.
The writer is also acknowledging her colleagues and friends, especially
the member of Pascasarjana Pendidikan Biologi A 2013, whom the writer had a
pleasant, enjoyable and fruitful company. Thanks are due to all the faculty and
staff of Biology Education Study program, to the head of the study program, Dr.
Hasruddin and Dr. Fauziyah Harahap for their stimulating support and the
assistance in completing the administrative procedures.
Special thanks would also be extended to the headmaster and the
headmistress of SMAN 1 Medan, SMAN 2 Medan, and SMAN 4 Medan, who
have gave permission for conducting this study and to the Biology teachers for
their great help in collecting the data. Big appreciation is also addressed to all the
students at three public schools who had responded, reacted, and gave time for the
treatments.

Finally, the writer extends her acknowledgement and heartfelt love to her
parents, brothers and sister, who have been with her all the time to spur her spirits.
June, 2015
The Writer

Dina Kharida

Student R.N. 8136173006

TABLE OF CONTENT
Approval Sheet .................................................................................................
Abstract ...........................................................................................................
Acknowledgement ...........................................................................................
Table of Content ...............................................................................................
List of Figures ..................................................................................................
List of Tables....................................................................................................
List of Diagrams ...............................................................................................
List of Appendices ...........................................................................................

Page
i
iii
v
vii
x
xii
xiii

xiv

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of study ..................................................................................
1.2 Problem Identification................................................................................
1.3 Research Scope ..........................................................................................
1.4 Research Question ......................................................................................
1.5 Objectives ...................................................................................................
1.6 Significance ................................................................................................

1
7
8
9
9
10

CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Theoritical Framework ...............................................................................
2.1.1. Biology Learning ...................................................................................
2.1.1.1 The 21st Century Biology Learning......................................................
2.1.1.2 Scientific Learning in 2013 Curriculum ..............................................
2.1.2 Learning Outcomes ................................................................................
2.1.3 Students Perception ...............................................................................
2.1.4 Homework ..............................................................................................
2.1.5.1 Fundamental Role in Learning .............................................................
2.1.5.2 Homework Policies ..............................................................................
2.1.5.3 Homework Quality ..............................................................................
2.1.5 Mobile Learning ......................................................................................
2.1.5.1 Current Students Use of Mobile Technology.......................................
2.1.5.2 Social Networking Sites as Learning Environments ............................
2.1.5.3 Mobile Technology in Educational Context .......................................
2.1.5.4 Influences of Mobile Technology on Students ‘Attitude, Behavior,
And Achievement .................................................................................
2.1.6 Mobile Homework ..................................................................................
2.2 Conceptual Framework ..............................................................................
2.3 Operational Definition ...............................................................................

11
11
13
15
16
19
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
31
32
37

CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1 Time and Location ..................................................................................... 39

3.2 Population and Sample...............................................................................
3.3 Research Method and Design.....................................................................
3.4 Development of Mobile Digital Homework ..............................................
3.5 Research Instruments .................................................................................
3.6 Criteria of Success......................................................................................
3.7 Scoring Procedures.....................................................................................
3.8 Research Procedures ..................................................................................
3.9 Data analysis ..............................................................................................
3.10 Hypotheses ..............................................................................................

39
39
40
42
48
49
51
54
55

CHAPTER IV RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1 Results ........................................................................................................ 58
4.1.1 Students’ Pre-capability ......................................................................... 58
4.1.2 Students’ Learning Outcome ..................................................................
4.1.3 Students’ Ability in Answering Question Based on Category of
Bloom Taxonomy .................................................................................. 59
4.1.3.1. Students Ability in answering C1 and C2 Question Category ............ 60
4.1.3.2. Students ability in answering C3 and C4 Question Category ............. 60
4.1.3.3. Students ability in answering C5 and C6 Question Category ............. 63
4.1.4 Students’ Weekly Homework Average Scores....................................... 66
4.1.5 Students Homework Quality................................................................... 66
4.1.6 Correlation Between Weekly Homework Average Score and
Learning Outcomes ................................................................................. 70
4.1.7 Correlation Between Homework Quality Average Score and
Learning Outcomes ................................................................................ 72
4.1.8 Students’ Perception on Mobile Learning .............................................. 74
4.1.9 Homework Submission Rate among Treatments. .................................. 78
4.1.10 The Rate of Submission among Male and Female Students. ............... 79
4.2 Discussion ................................................................................................ 80
4.2.1 The Effect of Mobile Homework on Students Learning Outcomes ....... 80
4.2.2. The Effect of Mobile learning on Students’ Ability in Answering
Question Based on Category of Bloom Taxonomy ............................... 85
4.2.3 The Effect of Mobile Homework on Students’ Average Homework
Score ....................................................................................................... 88
4.2.4 The Effect of Mobile Homework on Students’ Homework Quality ...... 89
4.2.5 The Correlation between students’ homework scores and
Learning Outcomes ................................................................................ 91
4.2.6 The correlation between students’ homework quality and
Learning Outcomes ................................................................................. 92
4.2.7 The effect of mobile homework on student’ perception towards
Mobile learning ...................................................................................... 94
4.2.8 Homework Submission Rate among Treatment ........................................96
4.2.9 Homework Completion Rate among Male and Female Students ..............97
4.3 Limitation of Research ..................................................................................99

CHAPTER V CONCLUSION AND RECOMENDATION

5.1 Conclusion ................................................................................................. 100
5.2 Recommendation........................................................................................ 100
REFERENCES ............................................................................................... 101

LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1 Experimental Design........................................................................
Table 3.2 Summary of Research Instrument Test Analysis. ............................
Table 3.3 Criteria of Learning Gain.................................................................
Table 3.4 Quality Criteria of Completed Homework.......................................
Table 3.5 Criteria of Students’ Questionnaire of Perception and Attitude
Toward Mobile Learning.................................................................
Table 4.1 Descriptive Statistics of Overall Participant on three different
Public Schools. ................................................................................
Table 4.2 Descriptive Statistics of Students Response on Mobile
Homework. ......................................................................................
Table 4.3 Descriptive Statistics of Students Perception on Mobile Learning..
Table 4.4 Mean of Students’ Perception on Mobile Learning Effectiveness. .
Table 4.5 Categorization of Students’ response on Mobil learning
Effectiveness....................................................................................
Table 4.6 Frequency of Students Homework Submission When Gender
Category is Used..............................................................................

40
48
50
50
51
71
74
75
76
77
80

LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 4.1 The effect of types of homework assignments on students’
learning outcomes in SMAN 1, SMAN 2, and SMAN Medan,
Academic Year 2014-2015 (F= 56,38; P= 0.00 ............................ 61
Figure 4.2 Comparison of the results of students’ posttest score between
control (assigned with paper based homework) and treatment
group (given with mobile homework/ MH). ............................... 61
Figure 4.3 The Ability in answering C1 (Knowledge) and C2
(comprehension) questions between students’ who were
assigned with ‘mobile homework’ and those who were given
with ‘paper based’ homework (U = 5,060.00; P = 0.55)............. 62
Figure 4.4 Comparison of the results of students ‘Ability in answering C1
(Knowledge) and C2 (comprehension) questions between ........ 62
Figure 4.5 The effect of types of homework assignments on students’
ability in answering C3 (Application) and C4 AnalysisSynthesis) between students’ who were assigned with ‘mobile
homework’ and those who were given with ‘paper based’
homework (U = 3, 130.00; P = 0.00) 64
Figure 4.6 Comparison of the results of students ‘ability in answering C3
(Application) and C4 (Analysis-Synthesis) between control
(assigned with paper based homework) and treatment group
(given with mobile homework/ MH) .......................................... 64
Figure 4.7 The effect of types of homework assignments on students’
ability in answering C5 (Evaluation) and C6 (Creation)
between students’ who were assigned with ‘mobile homework’
and those who were given with ‘paper based’ homework U =
3, 643.00; P = 0.00)..................................................................... 65
Figure 4.8 Comparison of the results of on students’ ability in answering
C5 (Evaluation) and C6 (Creation) between control (assigned
with paper based homework) and treatment group (given with
mobile homework/ MH).............................................................. 65
Figure 4.9 The effect of types of assignments on students’ weekly
homework average score in SMAN 1, SMAN 2, and SMAN 4
Medan, Academic Year 2014-2015 (U = 3, 194.00; P = 0.00) ... 68
Figure 4.10 Comparison of the results of students’ weekly homework
average scores between control (assigned with paper based
homework) and treatment group (given with mobile
homework/ MH).......................................................................... 68
Figure 4.11 The effect of types of assignments on students’ homework
quality average scores in SMAN 1, SMAN 2, and SMAN 4
Medan, Academic Year 2014-2015 (U = 1, 090.00; P = 0.00) ... 69
Figure 4.12 Comparison of the results of students’ homework quality
average scores between control (assigned with paper based
homework) and treatment group (given with mobile
homework/ MH).......................................................................... 69

Figure 4.13 The Average scale of students’ homework quality analyzed
form 7 aspects of students’ homework quality assessments,
(HQ1: Assignment completeness; HQ2: Students work
neatness and organization; HQ3: Understanding of Topics;
HQ4:Answer Accuracy ;HQ5:Academic Integrity; HQ6:Time
for Submission; HQ7: Format of submitted work) ..................... 70
Figure 4.14 The correlation between learning outcomes (X) and weekly
homework average score (Y) in SMAN 1, SMAN 2, and
SMAN 4 Medan, Academic Year 2014-2015 (rs= 0.47; P <
0.00)............................................................................................. 73
Figure 4.15 The correlation between learning outcomes (X) and average
homework quality sores (Y) in SMAN 1, SMAN 2, and SMAN
4 Medan, Academic Year 2014-2015 (rs= 0.49; P < 0.00)......... 73
Figure 4.16 The rate of homework submission between classes. Students
of experimental and control group were placed into three
category of homework submission; complete (full), partial, and
zero submission, during the four times homework distribution.. 78
Figure 4.17 The rate of homework submission between treatments.............. 79

iii

LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix 1 Digestive and Respiratory System Topics....................................
Appendix 2 Pre-test and Post-Test...................................................................
Appendix 3 Student Homework.......................................................................
Appendix 4 Essay test Rubric Scoring.............................................................
Appendix 5 Questionnaires ..............................................................................
Appendix 6 Homework Quality Rating Scale .................................................
Appendix 7 Homework Terms of Submission.................................................
Appendix 8 Swim Lanes of Online Work Submission ...................................
Appendix 9 Item Analysis of Multiple Choice ................................................
Appendix 10 Item Analysis of Essay Test .......................................................
Appendix 11 Item Analysis of Homework Questionnaire...............................
Appendix 12 Item Analysis of Smartphone Usage Questionnaire...................
Appendix 13 Item Analysis of Mobile Learning Questionnaire ......................
Appendix 14 Students’ Homework Questionnaire ..........................................
Appendix 15 Students’ Smartphone Usage Questionnaire ..............................
Appendix 16 Students’ Mobile Learning Questionnaire .................................
Appendix 17 Data Transformation...................................................................
Appendix 18 Statistical Analysis .....................................................................

114
131
146
166
175
181
183
188
190
195
196
197
198
200
202
204
205
210

1

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of Study
Homework according to Cooper (1989:7) is any task assigned by
schoolteachers that meant to be carried out during non-school hours. It is
considered an important part of learning process since the involvement of students
and teachers in homework assignments is viewed one of the most effective ways
in affecting students’ academic achievement (Zimmerman and Kitsantas,
2005:398). Cooper (2006:49) summarized that in US, homework in primary and
secondary school is positively related to students’ academic achievement, with
stronger effect on secondary level.
Students’ academic achievement rises significantly when they assigned
regularly with homework (Paulu, 1996:5) as homework completion accustomed
them to practice in course that put a great emphasis on ability to solve problem
(Bonham, et al, 2003:1050, Larson, 2011:5), help them gain a deeper
understanding of important concepts (Bornemeier, 2006:2) and integrate it (Paulu,
1996:10), apply their knowledge to novel situations (Darling-Hammond and Kim,
2003:190), and develop the skills needed to solve real-world problems they may
encounter in future work place (Bornemeier, 2006:4, Tao, 2008:1). By assigning
students with homework, it is expected that they could keeping up with the pace
of classroom instruction (Bao and Stonbraker, 2008:878).
In like manner, students did acquaint with homework roles and importance
in their academic life and better school achievement. A homework related
questionnaire distributed on the preliminary study revealed that among 201 public
senior high school students in Medan, 2.11% perceive homework completion
teach them self-discipline, 6.84 % think it increases their level of school
engagement, it helps them prepare important academic work independence which
is required in college life later (4.74%), accustomed them with a good study habit
(17.89%), help checks for understanding (25.56%), reinforce what they have
learned (19.47%), and helps them in advance learning (23.16%), with 0.53% of

1

2

respondents feels that doing homework is important in preparing themselves for
better performance on next meetings (See Appendix 14).
Correspondingly, the concept of homework provides both an avenue for
achieving the three teaching focus outlined in Curriculum 2013; (1) competence,
(2) process, and (3) attitudes (Kemdikbud, 2013:6) and strengthening the idea of
learning by doing (Adebayo, 2010:84), the basic principal of constructivism.
Moreover, by individual homework activities, students could sharpening
skills of information retrieval, planning, analysis, and time management, and
achieving successful independent learning (BBS, 2013:2). The data revealed that
57.91% students do homework independently (see Appendix 14). Likewise, when
homework is seen as device to help independent learning, it gives students the
opportunity to practice beyond the classroom, beyond the tasks covered in class,
helps them work towards improving important skills and also will help young
people be more confident (Manchester Health Academy: 2014:2).
Though argued to help gained independence in learning, assistance is
needed to ensure homework quality; otherwise it’s just a series of copying others
work, losing its meaningful purposes in learning. Result of observation showed
that student did quite well on paper-based homework even though teacher did
aware that good quality homework had never been constantly assessed and be the
focus on understanding student’s homework completion. Above all, teacher did
not have any data explaining the trend of homework completion and students
perception, when gender was used as variable to evaluate. Evaluating students'
pattern of homework submission and completion along with homework
perception using gender basis, toward certain type of learning, is important for
successful development of homework in higher education.
Although deemed important for regularly practiced, homework assignment
should also not be considered easy task. When homework assignments are less
meaningful students may have less effort in completing it (Bao and Stonbraker,
2008:878), thus, decreasing its quality This less meaningful practice is quite
common in classroom setting since teacher rarely design and develop homework

3

assignments and put their thorough understanding of student’ needs and readiness.
Also, the homework completion integral and vital aspect of the students’ total
educational experience and its effectiveness may be limited for example when
learning resources are not utilized (Adebayo, 2010:85).
The claimed related to homework completion was made by students in
which as many as 47.89% of them argued that problem in understanding
instruction turned them from enjoying homework assignments, while 10.53%
thought they have inaccessible extra learning sources, the latter is possibly
because they only notice learning sources are said so when teacher clearly
mention needed supplies and access to reference materials that students could
employ in doing homework. Unmotivated feeling (1.05%), busy extracurricular
activities (1.58%), and the absence of homework timetables (34.74%) were also
among reasons students went through hardship in finishing it.
The previous claimed turn students self confidence in doing homework, as
the number of students considering it should be better and easily done at school
had shown to exceed (57.14%) those who still believe that because homework
help learning outside classroom, it should be indeed finished at home (21.17%). A
much as 34.74% of respondent said that they need tutor help in solving problem
questioned with no one stated they have access to teacher’s guidance when
finishing homework. As much as 47.89% Students express the presence and
assistance of teacher is still important for them to cope with problem during the
completion (See Appendix 14). The presence of teacher when doing homework on
the other hand could be an obstacle since teacher is unable to present physically
anytime to assist learning without the help of proper non face-to-face
communication device. By the presence of social technological resources,
students’ dreadful experience and feeling of isolation when completing homework
can be minimize when technological resources, that are now available to change
it, are adapted.
Professor Walker of the University of Sydney suggests homework
completion should be more of a social experience, pointing the role of
technological sources. He explains when homework is seen as being social and

4

cultural in nature, a type of homework is needed to be set differently, as a teacher,
he says, may look into the fact that students need some assistance with their
homework, rather than just the idea of sitting and isolating them at home
(Carbonell, 2012:1). Thus, Professor Horsley from Central Queensland suggest to
carried out a new approach, in a more sophisticated way, to develop a more
structured and organized homework, as stated by University (Carbonell, 2012:1).
Students’ experience in doing homework for example can be improved
sophisticatedly by utilizing textbooks and teaching using electronic resources
(Adebayo, 2010:85). Just like Computers and web services have changed the way
young people learn, mobile phones are set to do the same, providing all tools
necessary to boost learning. Mobile learning referred to learning and teaching
practices which is done with or via different mobile devices (Tuomi and
Multisilta, 2011:165). Its assistance in learning is not new since it is considered to
be one of the 21st century skills children should adapt early in schools stages.
Mobile phone technologies have embraced young people with a rapid
growth. Mobile phone ownership in Indonesia grew considerably from just over
130 million in 2011 to well over 170 million in 2013 and the number is projected
to grow to more than 195 million by 2017 (Statista, 2014:1). Statista (2014:1) also
mentioned that there are at least 30 million Indonesian teenagers accessing
internet on regular basis, which account for almost half of the total users in
Indonesia.
Furthermore, a study funded by UNICEF and implemented by Indonesia
Ministry of Communications, measuring online activity and the use of digital
media among children and adolescents ages 10-19 (400 respondents), showed that
more than half of respondents (52 %) access the Internet via mobile phones, less
than a quarter (21 %) using smartphones and 4 % use tablets for internet access
(Statista, 2014:1). This study, carried out across the country and representing both
urban and rural areas, also showed that the number of respondent, accounting for
more than 80 % are prominent internet user, mainly in big city of Indonesia and

5

indicates that young users in big city are more acquaint with internet and possibly
nearly 30% of them accessing it from their smartphone (Statista, 2014:1).
Mobile phones that offer more general computing capabilities and variety
of services, such as text messaging, MMS, email, Internet access, short-range
wireless communications, tons of applications, gaming, and photography, are
referred to as smartphones (Nusca, 2009:1).
The preliminary study revealed that students mostly utilizes smartphone
with operating system by Android based smartphone developer (54%), Blackberry
(20%), and Apple Inc.(20.5%), with most of them already owned it since more
than two years ago (80%) which means that in general they were exposed to
mobile phone prior to the adoption of m-learning. When asked what services and
functions

they

frequently

use,

among

the

functions

of

smartphone,

communications/social media functions have the highest counts (32.19%) (See
Appendix 15). This is in accordance to Young and Heim study (2008:52), in
which students mostly saw their phones as mainly for social means or normally
only using the camera to take pictures of parents or friends when socializing.
In formal education, however, mobile devices, especially mobile phones,
are criticized by teachers in view of the problems they bring, distraction from
school works, and use of only for entertainment purposes of it (Robledo, 2012:2).
This raises set of issues to do with ownership, use, and societal perceptions of
device usage. The same attitudes are expressed by students in this study; sending
message with smartphone application is done more frequently in communication
compare with other activities, using Blackberry Messenger (BBM) and LINE
were among dominantly operate messaging application (See Appendix 15).
In the view of problem of smartphone ownership in school education, a
cultural anthropologist studying new media use, particularly among young people
in Japan and the US, Mizuko Ito, said that adults tend to see mobile device as a
learning distractors because they aren’t participating in formalizing the process.
They’re not participating in shaping the kind of influence these devices could
trigger on students’ learning (Robledo, 2012:4). A good example is a story from

6

Singapore’s Ministry of Education, who encouraging schools to prepare
Singaporean students in developing 21st century skills, e.g., self-directed learning
and collaborative learning (Saavendra and Opfer, 2012:5), by using tools that are
needed to truly teach 21st century skills, the smartphone mobile device.
Likewise, the self-directed learning support by mobile technologies in
mobile learning is in accordance to independent learning stimulate by homework,
as technology now enables students to complete homework assignments or
independently study with ease eat home, using various internet learning source
(Manchester Health Academy: 2014:3). Thus, utilizing smartphone in finishing
homework can offer opportunities to provide sophisticated learning resources to
improve students’ experience in doing homework.
A teacher problem in direct assistance with homework can also no longer
be a barrier when technological resources is utilized, which also promote a more
collaborative learning skills that need to be prepared for 21th century life and
work. Through socializing application in smartphone, a teacher can expect
reinforcing skill and understanding with a more access in monitoring students’
devoting their time to particular demands (Manchester Health Academy: 2014:3).
Look deeply also into the problem of biology learning, teachers need to develop
homework to help coping with enrichment problems and curricula overload
(Cimer, 2012: 67) while at the same time enhancing students’ afterschool
activities and independence.
Learning with mobile devices is still a new research area and more work is
needed to understand the benefits and effects of using technology to support
learning (Mwanza, 2007). Although mobile phones, in general, as the instructional
tools in Indonesia are yet to be developed, projects in mobile learning could be
highlighted and examined through a study to explore its application in teaching
and learning.

7

1.2 Problem Identification
Based on the elaboration of the background of the study, the problems are
identified as follows:
a. Traditional paper based homework tend to be an individualized activity, in
which students often express frustration when finishing it.
b. Students are unable to receive immediate assistance or feedback on a difficult
problem or exercise.
c. Students’ frustration and inability to receive immediate assistance or feedback
on a difficult problem turned them from enjoying homework assignments.
d. Homework assignments is usually not explicitly informed to students as
learning tools, rather it is viewed merely as an assessment instrument, making
homework less meaningful.
e. Teachers are rarely develop homework to help coping with matters related
enrichment problems and curricula overload while at the same time enhancing
students’ activities and independence outside the classroom.
f. There was no particular data explaining the trend of homework completion and
students’ perception, when gender was taken into consideration, even though
evaluating students' homework submission and perception using gender basis
could be one important aspect for successful development of homework in
higher education.
g. A custom cognitive based homework question were rarely discussed outside
classroom and homework usually meant only to be finished with less attention
in process of knowledge gain and retention during the homework completion.
h. Students are not encouraged to finish homework with higher quality.
i. The integral and vital aspect of the students’ total educational experience and
effectiveness when doing homework may be limited when learning resources
are not utilized, and a more sophisticated, structured, and organized homework
is not planned.
j. Mobile phone technology serves to a more efficient and effective learning, in
which it helps improving learning since these tools serves as sustainable, cost-

8

wise devise, and were more in concert with the emergence of mobile
technologies as a dominant technology in this century, even though the
utilization in aiding learning was still limited.
k. Though smartphones allow users to do various things they have been more
usually seen as disruptive, rather than useful, in school education.
l. Teacher believed that students usually use their smartphone only for
entertainment purposes
m. Students often saw their phones as mainly for online social uses.
n. Mobile phone is believed to distract students’ schoolwork

1.3 Research Scope
The scopes of this study were limited to the effect of mobile homework
limited on students’ homework learning outcome. The effect of assigning students
with mobile homework (homework was received, possibly finished, discussed,
and submitted digitally via mobile social messaging application on smartphone,
which serves to improved experience in finishing homework) was also be
examined trough the analysis of homework quality. This study was also being
attempted to analyze correlation limited to the relation between homework
average scores and learning outcome along with the relation between homework
qualities and learning outcomes. Because the power of mobile learning was also
being introduced here, the analysis limited to students’ attitude toward mobile
learning was being performed. The rate of homework submission between genders
was also being examined to understand its pattern on the experimental and control
groups. Other details were mentioned as follows:
a. Research was done at SMA Negeri 1, SMA Negeri 2, and SMA Negeri 4
Medan.
b. Research was conducted for Grade Eleven (XI) Science Program at SMA
Negeri 1 Medan, SMA Negeri 2 Medan, and SMA Negeri 4 Medan Academic
Year 2014/2015

9

1.4 Research Questions
This study was attempted to answer nine research questions as follows:
a. Do assigning students with mobile homework significantly affect their learning
outcome?
b. Do assigning students’ with mobile homework significantly affect their ability
in answering questions based on Bloom’s taxonomy of cognitive domain?
c. Do students homework score significantly affect by assigning them with
mobile homework?
d. Do students homework quality significantly affect by assigning them with
mobile homework?
e. Do students’ weekly average homework score correlate with leaning
outcomes?
f. Do students’ homework quality correlate with leaning outcomes?
g. How are students’ perceptions toward mobile learning?
h. Do students assigned with mobile homework have higher rate of homework
submission than those who were given with paper-based homework?
i. How is the rate of homework submission differing among male and female
students?

1.5 Objectives of The Study
The objectives of the research were to:
a) examine the effect of assigning students with mobile digital homework on
learning achievement.
b) examine the effect of assigning students with mobile digital homework on
students’ ability in answering questions based on category of Bloom’s
taxonomy cognitive domain
c) examine the effect of assigning students with mobile homework on students’
homework score
d) examine the effect of assigning students with mobile digital homework on
students’ homework quality.

10

e) examine the correlation between students’ homework score and leaning
achievement
f) examine the correlation between students’ homework quality and leaning
achievement
g) analyze student perception toward mobile learning.
h) analyze the rate of homework submission between the treatments.
i) analyze the rate of homework submission among male and female students.

1.6 Significance of The Study
The research findings were important for researcher, to provide significant
information about students’ experience when homework was received, possibly
finished, and submitted digitally via mobile social messaging application in
smartphone. For teachers, this study was important to: (1) to provide information
about the utilization of learning resources and new approach that need to be
carried out to improve homework assignment, (2) to provide information about a
better understanding in how social application on smartphone help students
improve their homework experience and better achievement, (3) to provide new
information about mobile learning and its possible powerful impact to help
students learning, (4) to provide some feedback for teachers and educators in term
of enlarging knowledge and improvement on homework assignment and student’s
achievement in Biological topics. The study was also important to for students to
help students with a more effective way of learning with the aid of technological
sources.

100

CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION AND RECOMENDATION

Based on the objectives, results, and discussion previously described to analyze
the effect of mobile homework on students’ learning outcomes, homework
quality, and attitudes toward mobile, the conclusions are drawn as follows:
a.

Mobile homework significantly affect grade eleven mathematics and science
program students’ learning outcomes for Digestive and Respiratory System
Topics in

SMA N 1, SMA N 2, and SMA N 4 Medan, Academic Year

2014/2015.
b.

Mobile homework significantly affect grade eleven mathematics and science
program students’ ability in answering C3 (Application) and C4 (AnalysisSynthesis).

c.

Mobile homework significantly affect grade eleven mathematics and science
program students’ ability in answering C5 (Evaluation) and C6 (Creation).

d.

Mobile homework significantly affect grade eleven mathematics and science
program students’ weekly homework average scores for Digestive and
Respiratory System Topics in SMA N 1, SMA N 2, and SMA N 4 Medan,
Academic Year 2014/2015.

e.

Mobile homework significantly affect grade eleven mathematics and
science program students’ homework quality average scores for Digestive
and Respiratory System Topics in

SMA N 1, SMA N 2, and SMA N 4

Medan, Academic Year 2014/2015.
f.

There was a moderate, positive correlation between homework scores and
learning outcomes.

g.

There was a moderate, positive correlation between good homework quality
and better learning outcomes.

h.

In general, students of the experimental group have positive perception
towards mobile learning in which they also showed to have quite an

100

101

understanding regarding mobile learning weakness when mobile device
were used to aid learning
i.

Students who were assigned with mobile homework have equal rate of
homework completion compare with those who were given with paperbased homework, in which the difference among the rate of homework
submission were not significantly different

j.

The frequency and total percentage of both experimental and control group
with regards to their gender, showed that male student in general have lower
complete mobile homework submission compared to female students.

5.2 Recommendation
In line with conclusion drawn, it is suggested that Biology teacher to
apply mobile homework in the attempts of improving students’ homework
experiences. Teacher should actively assign students to engage in learning
activities by aiding learning with technological sources. Evaluating students’
homework completion and submission could be one source of information for
developing understanding on Biological topics achievement. The result of this
research can be a consideration for Biology teacher to develop an outside
classroom activity which is in line to the improvement of students’ learning. The
result of this study can be used as reference on digestive and respiratory system
topic being taught in Grade Eleven. Further study is also suggested to be carried
regarding the implementation of mobile learning with larger number of participant
and new technological approach that could support students’ better learning
experience.

101

REFERENCES

Adebayo. 2010. Is Electronic-Based Homework System An Effective Tool For
Teaching And Learning The Fundamentals of Accounting? SBAJ, 10:84
– 103.
Afolabi and Akinbobola. 2009. Constructivist Problem Based Learning Technique
And Academic Achievement of Physics Student With Low Ability Level
In Nigerian Secondary Schools. Eurasian Journal of Physics and
Chemistry Education, 1:45-51.
Aghigh and Bondagi. 2011. Learning Methods and Concepts Used In Mobile
Learning and How to Improve Them Using New Approaches. The
Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on
E-Learning
University of British Columbia Okanagan, Kelowna British Columbia
Canada.
Ajaja. 2013. Which May Do We Go In the Teaching of Biology? Concept
Mapping, Cooperative Learning or Learning Cycle. International.
Journal of Education Science and Technology, 4:18-29.
Aksoy, Tevfik, and Charles R. Link. 2000. A Panel Analysis of Student
Mathematics Achievement in the US in the 1990s: does increasing the
amount of time in learning activities affect math achievement?
Economics of Education Review, 19: 261-277.
Alan. 2015. Homework and Study Expectation. The Puke High School Newsletter,
New
Zealand:
Waikato,
Accessed
in
June
2015
form: http://www.tphs.school.nz/userfiles/file/News/Newsletters/Issue%
202%20-%20March%202015%20V2.pdf.
Ally. 2009. Mobile Learning: Transforming the Delivery of Education and
Training. Canada: Au Press, Athabasca University, and Education, 44:
53–68.
Attewell. 2004. Mobile Technologies And Learning A Technology Update And MLearning Project Summary Technology Enhanced Learning Research
Centre. London: Learning and Skills Development Agency
Aubusson and Watson. 2003. Packaging Constructivist Science Teaching In
Curriculum Resource. Asia Pacific Forum on Science Learning and
Teaching, 7:1-25
Bao and Stonebreker. 2008. A Flexible Homework Method. American Society of
Physics Teachers Am. J. Phys. 76: 878:9881, Accessed from:
Http://Aapt.Org/Ajp

102

Barr. 2013. Have Video Games Influenced or Inspired Academic Direction Or
Vocational Choices. University Glasgow
Becker, H. J., and Epstein, J. L. 1982. Parent involvement: A survey of teacher
practices. Elementary School Journal, 83:85-102.
Becker, H. J., and Epstein, J. L. 1982. Parent involvement: A survey of teacher
practices. Elementary School Journal, 83: 85–102.
Ben-Ari. 2001. Constructivism in Computer Science Education. Journal of
Computers In Mathematics And Science Teaching, 20: 45-73.
Bennett J.2003. Teaching And Learning Science. London: Continuum
Bertsos, 2005, Differentiating Biology Homework to Enhance Academic
Achievement. Master's Theses and Doctoral Dissertations. Paper 126.
http://commons.emich.edu/theses/12
Biggs, J. 2003. Teaching for quality learning at university: What the student
does (2nd ed.). Buckingham: Society for Research into Higher Education
and Open University Press.
Bishop Barington School. 2012. Homework Policy. Bishop Barrington School
Woodhouse Lane Bishop Auckland County Durham LA: Bishop
Barrington School Publication
Bloom. 1956. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of
Educational Goals. In B. S. Bloom. Susan Fauer Company, Inc