Developing an Arduino–Tinkercad Teaching Module to Support Virtual Practicum and Learning Outcomes in Grade XII Informatics Education

Chulwatun Chasanah; Rufi’i Rufi’i; Reza Rachmadtullah

doi:10.35445/alishlah.v18i2.9703

Developing an Arduino–Tinkercad Teaching Module to Support Virtual Practicum and Learning Outcomes in Grade XII Informatics Education

Chulwatun Chasanah, Rufi’i Rufi’i, Reza Rachmadtullah

Abstract

Practical Arduino learning in Grade XII Informatics is intended to develop students’ computational thinking, programming literacy, and problem-solving skills through hands-on activities. However, many schools face limitations in equipment availability, practicum time, and component maintenance, which restrict students’ opportunities for repeated practice. To address these challenges, this study developed an Arduino teaching module integrated with Tinkercad Circuits as a virtual practicum resource. This study employed a Research and Development (R&D) approach using the 4D model (Define, Design, Develop, and Disseminate). The study was conducted at SMA Negeri 4 Surabaya and involved two expert lecturers, two Informatics teachers, five students in a small-group trial, and 33 students in a large-group trial. Data were collected through validation sheets, practicality questionnaires, and pretest–posttest instruments. Data were analyzed using Aiken’s V, descriptive statistics, category distribution, and normalized gain (N-gain). The developed module demonstrated high validity, with an average Aiken’s V of 0.861 (range = 0.750–1.000). Practicality results indicated that the module was very practical according to teachers (M = 4.24), small-group students (M = 4.40), and large-group students (M = 4.47). In the large-group trial, 87.88% of students rated the module as very practical. Students’ learning outcomes improved from a pretest mean of 50.24 (SD = 8.11) to a posttest mean of 75.33 (SD = 10.87), yielding a moderate N-gain of 0.520. The findings indicate that the Arduino–Tinkercad teaching module is valid, practical, and moderately effective in supporting virtual Arduino practicum activities. The module provides a safe, accessible, and repeatable learning environment and offers a feasible alternative when physical Arduino equipment is limited.

Keywords

Arduino; Tinkercad Circuits; virtual practicum; teaching module; informatics learning

Full Text:

PDF

References

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

Brinson, J. R. (2015). Learning outcome achievement in non-traditional (virtual and remote) versus traditional (hands-on) laboratories: A review of the empirical research. Computers & Education, 87, 218-237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.07.003

Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Houghton Mifflin.

Chung, C.-C., & Lou, S.-J. (2021). Physical computing strategy to support students’ coding literacy: An educational experiment with Arduino boards. Applied Sciences, 11(4), Article 1820. https://doi.org/10.3390/app11041830

de Jong, T., Linn, M. C., & Zacharia, Z. C. (2013). Physical and virtual laboratories in science and engineering education. Science, 340(6130), 305-308. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1230579

Grover, S., & Pea, R. (2013). Computational thinking in K-12: A review of the state of the field. Educational Researcher, 42(1), 38-43. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X12463051

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

Likert, R. (1932). A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of Psychology, 22(140), 1-55.

Marín-Marín, J.-A., García-Tudela, P. A., & Dúo-Terrón, P. (2024). Computational thinking and programming with Arduino in education: A systematic review for secondary education. Heliyon, 10(8), Article e29177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e29177

Rouse, R., & Rouse, A. G. (2022). Taking the maker movement to school: A systematic review of preK-12 school-based makerspace research. Educational Research Review, 35, Article 100413. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2021.100413

Sarı, U., Pektaş, H. M., Şen, Ö. F., & Çelik, H. (2022). Algorithmic thinking development through physical computing activities with Arduino in STEM education. Education and Information Technologies, 27, 6669-6689. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-10893-0

Shute, V. J., Sun, C., & Asbell-Clarke, J. (2017). Demystifying computational thinking. Educational Research Review, 22, 142-158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2017.09.003

Smetana, L. K., & Bell, R. L. (2012). Computer simulations to support science instruction and learning: A critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science Education, 34(9), 1337-1370. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.605182

Supardi, Kadarisman, N., Kuswanto, H., Sumarna, & Purwanto, A. (2022). Arduino Tinkercad simulator training for applied physics MGMP vocational teachers in the Special Region of Yogyakarta. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Education Research, and Innovation (ICERI 2021) (pp. 358-363). Atlantis Press. https://doi.org/10.2991/978-2-494069-67-1_40

Thiagarajan, S., Semmel, D. S., & Semmel, M. I. (1974). Instructional development for training teachers of exceptional children: A sourcebook. Indiana University.

Widiarini, P., Pramadi, I. P. W. Y., & Mardana, I. B. P. (2021). Pengaruh model pembelajaran berbasis proyek berbantuan lab virtual terhadap kreativitas mahasiswa. ORBITA: Jurnal Hasil Kajian, Inovasi, dan Aplikasi Pendidikan Fisika, 7(1), 212-218.

Wing, J. M. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33-35. https://doi.org/10.1145/1118178.1118215

DOI: https://doi.org/10.35445/alishlah.v18i2.9703