Development of an IoT-Based 3-Phase Electric Motor Controller Trainer Equipped to Improve Critical Thinking Skills, Creativity, and Learning Outcomes: Supporting SDG 4
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.63230/jocsis.2.4.229Keywords:
Digital literacy practices, EFL classroom, Identity contruction, Thai studentsAbstract
Objective: To develop a learning device for an Internet of Things (IoT)-based Right-Left Rotating Induction Motor Control Trainer equipped with Student Worksheets (LKM) to improve critical thinking skills, creativity, and student learning outcomes. Method: The research method used the ADDIE model development research. The testing or evaluation process is carried out a validity test, a student response test, and an effectiveness test. Data analysis techniques using descriptive statistics, N-Gain test, and Paired Samples Test. Results: The results show that the Internet of Things (IoT)-based Right-Left Rotating Induction Motor Control Trainer equipped with Student Worksheets is highly valid based on expert validation results, highly practical based on student responses, and highly effective in terms of improving critical thinking, creativity, and student learning outcomes. Therefore, the resulting trainer is highly suitable for use in electrical machinery lectures. Novelty: The novelty of this research lies in the integration of an IoT-based Right-Left Rotating Induction Motor Control Trainer with Student Worksheets and learning outcome measurements covering cognitive, affective, and psychomotor domains. This study highlights how technology-based learning innovation supports SDG 4 by promoting quality education, competency development, and improved learning experiences.
References
A. Chistyakov, M. L. Kunitsyna, and R. I. Yagudina, (2023). Exploring the characteristicsand effectiveness of project-based learning for science and STEAM education,” Eurasia Journal Mathematic Science Technology Education., 19(5), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/13128.
Achuthan, K., Raghavan, D., Shankar, B., Francis, S. P., & Kolil, V. K. (2021). Impact ofremote experimentation, interactivity and platform effectiveness on laboratorylearning outcomes. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 18(1), 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-021-00272-z.
Arthur I Miller& H. Wilson, B., (2019). Art and science in a transdisciplinary curriculum. CIRCE Magazine: STEAM Edition.
Coletta, V. P., & Steinert, J. J. (2020). Why normalized gain should continue to be used in analyzing preinstruction and postinstruction scores on concept inventories. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 16(1), 101-108. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.16.010108.
H. M. Siregar, (2019). Analisis kesalahan siswa dalam menyelesaikan soal tes kemampuan berpikir kreatif matematis materi lingkaran, 8(3), 497–507. https://doi.org/10.24127/ajpm.v8i3.2379.
Joko, F. Akhmad, and A. A. P. Putra, (2022). Development of IoT-based and project-based learning human machine interface learning media to improve ability, innovative behavior, and skill of industrial 4.0 and society 5.0 students, Eurasian Journal Education Resistance, 2(2), 281–296. https://doi.org/10.14689/ejer.2022.99.017.
Katz-buonincontro, (2018). Creativity for whom ? Art education in the age of creative agency, decreased resources, and unequal art achievement outcomes, 71(6), 34-37. https://doi.org/10.1080/00043125.2018.1505388.
L. R. Aiken. (2009). Psychological testing and asessmen. New York, Pearson Education,
M. R. Prihatin., F. Tentama, and B. Santosa, (2020). The Influence of competence, independence,interest, and discipline on the readiness of working in vocational school students in lombok barat district, Journal Vocation Education. Stud., 3(2), 97–110. https://doi.org/10.12928/joves.v3i2.1856.
N. Ika Noviyanti, W. Rosyadah Mukti, I. Dahlia Yuliskurniawati, S. Mahanal, and S. Zubaidah, (2019). Students’ scientific argumentation skills based on differences in academic ability. Journal Physics Confference Series, 12(1), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1241/1/012034. Nieeven
Niebki. (2013). Educational design research. Netherlands, Netherlands Institute for Curriculum Development (SLO).
Nurhayati, N. Syam H, & Yahya, M. (2022). Improving learning putcome Embedded System (ES) Using learning media based IoT at Polytechnic. In 1st world.
O. Shatunova, T. Anisimova, F. Sabirova, and O. Kalimullina, (2019). STEAM as an innovative educational technology. Journal Social Study Education Resistance, 10(2), 131–144. https://jsser.org/index.php/jsser/article/view/916
Perry R., I. McMurray, and B. Charlotte. (2014). SPSS explained. Second edition. London: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
R. W. Thatcher. (2010). Validity and reliability of quantitative electroencephalography. Journal Neurother. 14(1), 122–152. https://doi.org/10.1080/10874201003773500.
R. E. Anggraeni, S. Suratno, and E. Narulita, (2022). The validity and practicality of the SEDC learning model in enhance student’s higher order thinking skills in science learning. Biosfer, 15 (1). 12–24. Https://doi.org/10.21009/biosferjpb.21616.
R. J. Shavelson, O. Zlatkin-Troitschanskaia, K. Beck, S. Schmidt, and J. P. Marino, (2019). Assessment of university students’ critical thinking: Next generation performance assessment. International Journal Test, 19(4), 337–362. Https://doi.org/10.1080/15305058.2018.1543309.
R. M. Branch and T. A. Dousay, (2023). Survey of instructional design models, Sixth Edition. Bloomington: Association for. Educational Communications & Technolog.
S. M. Ritter, X. Gu, M. Crijns, and P. Biekens, (2020). Fostering students’ creative thinking skills by means of a one-year creativity training program, PLoS One, 15(3), 1–18. Https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0229773.
Sugiyono. (2021). Metode penelitian kuantitatif, kualitatif, dan R&D. Bandung, Alphabeta. S.
Stéphan Vincent-Lancrin, Carlos González-Sancho,Mathias Bouckaert, Federico de Luca, Meritxell FernándezBarrerra, Gwénaël Jacotin, Joaquin Urgel and Quentin Vidal (2019). Exsploring differences in perceived innovative thinking skill between first year and upperclassmen engineers. Educational research and innovation. https://doi.org/10.1787/62212c37-en.
Suharsimi Arikunto. (2018). Evaluasi program pendidikan: Pedoman teoretis praktis bagi mahasiswa dan praktisi pendidikan. Jakarta, Bumi Aksara.
T. Maas, A. Jochim, and B. Gross, (2018). Mind the gap: Will all students benefit from21st Century learning? https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED590195.pdf.
Y. A. Alkhabra, U. M. Ibrahem, and S. A. Alkhabra, (2023). Augmented reality technology in enhancing learning retention and critical thinking according to STEAM program. Humanition Social Science Commun, 10 (1).1-11. Https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01650-w. Y. L. O.
Siahaan and R. I. Meilani, (2019). Sistem kompensasi dan kepuasan kerja guru tidak tetap di sebuah SMK swasta di Indonesia. Jurnal Pendidik Manajemen Perkantoran, 4 (2). 141-149. Https://doi.org/10.17509/jpm.v4i2.18008.
Shatunova, O., Anisimova, T., Sabirova, F., & Kalimullina, O. (2019). STEAM as a tool for developing creative thinking skills in students. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 14(14), 4–12.
Aiken, L. R. (2009). Three coefficients for analyzing the reliability and validity of ratings. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 45(1), 131–142.
Branch, R. M., & Dousay, T. A. (2023). Instructional design: The ADDIE approach. Springer.
Nieveen, N. (2013). Educational design research. In T. Plomp & N. Nieveen (Eds.), Educational Design Research.
Sugiyono. (2021). Metode penelitian pendidikan: Pendekatan kuantitatif, kualitatif, dan R&D. Alfabeta.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Journal of Current Studies in SDGs
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
