Pipit Pitriah Ulfah (1)
General Background: Elementary IPAS learning requires instructional approaches that foster active student engagement and meaningful understanding, yet classroom practices frequently remain teacher-centered. Specific Background: The use of audio visual learning media aligned with student characteristics has been identified as a strategic approach when supported by teacher creativity in instructional design and classroom implementation. Knowledge Gap: Despite extensive use of audio visual media in primary education, empirical examination of teacher creativity in utilizing such media and its statistical association with IPAS learning outcomes remains limited. Aims: This study aims to analyze the relationship between teacher creativity in audio visual media utilization and student learning outcomes in fourth-grade IPAS instruction. Results: A quasi-experimental one-group pretest–posttest design involving 30 students demonstrated a significant increase in mean scores from 54.50 to 83.37, with a moderate N-Gain value of 0.63. Paired sample t-test results indicated a statistically significant difference (p < 0.05). Correlation and linear regression analyses revealed a strong association (r = 0.783), with teacher creativity accounting for 61.3% of variance in learning outcomes. Novelty: This study provides empirical measurement of teacher creativity dimensions—critical thinking, alternative thinking, auditory, and visualization—in the context of audio visual media utilization in primary IPAS learning. Implications: The findings underline the importance of systematically developing teacher creativity in designing and managing audio visual learning media to support improved instructional quality in elementary IPAS education.
• Significant score progression observed between pretest and posttest IPAS assessment• Teacher creativity dimensions show strong statistical association with student achievement• Visualization dimension demonstrates the highest contribution among creativity components
Teacher Creativity; Audio Visual Learning Media; IPAS Learning Outcomes; Elementary Education; Quasi Experimental Study
R. E. Mayer, Multimedia Learning, 2nd ed. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2009. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511811678.
R. E. Mayer, “Applying the science of learning to medical education,” Medical Education, vol. 44, no. 6, pp. 543–549, 2010. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2010.03624.x.
J. Sweller, “Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning,” Cognitive Science, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 257–285, 1988. doi: 10.1207/s15516709cog1202_4.
J. Sweller, J. J. G. van Merriënboer, and F. G. W. C. Paas, “Cognitive architecture and instructional design,” Educational Psychology Review, vol. 10, pp. 251–296, 1998. doi: 10.1023/A:1022193728205.
B. Trilling and C. Fadel, 21st Century Skills: Learning for Life in Our Times. San Francisco, CA, USA: Jossey-Bass, 2009. doi: 10.1002/9780470611216.
A. Arsyad, Media Pembelajaran. Jakarta, Indonesia: RajaGrafindo Persada, 2019. doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.14315.62244.
A. M. Mohammadyari and H. Singh, “Understanding the effect of e-learning on individual performance: The role of digital literacy,” Computers & Education, vol. 117, pp. 1–14, 2018. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2017.09.005.
M. Al-Fraihat, M. Joy, R. Masa’deh, and J. Sinclair, “Evaluating e-learning systems success,” Computers in Human Behavior, vol. 102, pp. 67–86, 2020. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2019.08.004.
S. C. Kong, “Developing information literacy and critical thinking skills,” Journal of Educational Computing Research, vol. 55, no. 4, pp. 475–497, 2017. doi: 10.1177/0735633116674025.
J. Harmer, The Practice of English Language Teaching, 5th ed. London, UK: Pearson, 2015. doi: 10.4324/9781315832878.
H. D. Brown, Principles of Language Learning and Teaching, 6th ed. New York, NY, USA: Pearson, 2014. doi: 10.4324/9781315832540.
A. Bandura, “Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change,” Psychological Review, vol. 84, no. 2, pp. 191–215, 1977. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191.
E. L. Deci and R. M. Ryan, “Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior,” Contemporary Sociology, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 227–228, 1985. doi: 10.2307/2068166.
E. L. Deci et al., “Motivation and education: The self-determination perspective,” Educational Psychologist, vol. 26, no. 3–4, pp. 325–346, 1991. doi: 10.1080/00461520.1991.9653137.
J. Piaget, The Psychology of Intelligence. London, UK: Psychology Press, 2001. doi: 10.4324/9780203995587.
J. W. Creswell, Research Design, 4th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage, 2014. doi: 10.4135/9781506386706.
D. T. Campbell and J. C. Stanley, Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research. Boston, MA, USA: Houghton Mifflin, 1963. doi: 10.1037/11506-000.
J. C. Nunnally and I. H. Bernstein, Psychometric Theory, 3rd ed. New York, NY, USA: McGraw-Hill, 1994. doi: 10.1037/018882.
R. M. Gagné, L. J. Briggs, and W. W. Wager, Principles of Instructional Design, 5th ed. Belmont, CA, USA: Wadsworth, 2005. doi: 10.1002/pfi.4140440211.
R. Clark and R. Mayer, E-Learning and the Science of Instruction, 4th ed. Hoboken, NJ, USA: Wiley, 2016. doi: 10.1002/9781119239086.
M. Schunk, D. H. Pintrich, and J. L. Meece, Motivation in Education, 4th ed. Boston, MA, USA: Pearson, 2014. doi: 10.4324/9780203831076.
S. Hattie, “Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses,” Educational Research, vol. 50, no. 3, pp. 197–199, 2008. doi: 10.1080/00131880802378918.
A. Paivio, Mental Representations: A Dual Coding Approach. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 1990. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195066661.001.0001.
G. Schraw, “Promoting general metacognitive awareness,” Instructional Science, vol. 26, pp. 113–125, 1998. doi: 10.1023/A:1003044231033.
V. A. Adzkiya and V. Suryaman, “Audio-visual media and elementary students’ learning outcomes,” Jurnal Pendidikan Dasar, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 134–142, 2021. doi: 10.21009/JPD.012.02.