www.jsser.org Journal of Social Studies Education Research Sosyal Bilgiler Eğitimi Araştırmaları Dergisi 2018:9 (2), 124-137 124 The Implementation of PAIKEM (Active, Innovative, Creative, Effective, and Exiting Learning) and Conventional Learning Method to Improve Student Learning Results Priyono1 Abstract The research aims to find the differences in students’ learning results by implementing both PAIKEM (Active, Innovative, Creative, Effective, and Exiting Learning) and conventional learning methods for students with high and low motivation. This research used experimental design on two groups, a group of high motivation students and a group of low motivation students. Each group was divided into control group and experiment group. The results showed that there was a link between both PAIKEM and conventional learning method with the learning results of students with high motivation and low motivation, as different results were showed on each student group. Keywords: PAIKEM, conventional learning, learning motivation, learning outcomes. Introduction PAIKEM is an abbreviation of meaning an Active, Innovative, Creative, Effective, and Exciting Learning. Active means that in a learning process a teacher ought to create an atmosphere where students feel free to actively ask and tell their ideas. Active instructional strategies include a range of activities sharing common elements such as involving students in doing things and thinking on what they are doing (Bonwell & Eison, 1991). Previous research found that during lectures, student concentration began to decline after 10-15 minutes (e.g., Stuart & Rutherford, 1978 and Bligh, 2000, p. 44-56). Furthermore, Wilson and Korn (2007) supported the findings as well, after reviewing the articles (by conducting a survey using methodological and interpretive questions in the cited studies). Their critique, however, was not able to question the consistent findings of recent research as compared to 50-minutes conventional lecture; interactive lecture gave better leaning outcomes. 1 Dr., Faculty of Economics Lecturer, Universitas Bina Darma Palembang, Indonesia.priyono@binadarma.ac.id mailto:priyono@binadarma.ac.id Journal of Social Studies Education Research 2018: 9 (2), 124-137 Since the beginning of the 21st century, there have been some macro-level trends challenging conventional models on higher education (Doyle, Buckley, & Carroll, 2013). One of the most notable trends was the emergence of a new generation of groups (Elam, Stratton, & Gibson, 2007; Howe & Strauss, 2000; Howe & Strauss, 2003) called “Millennium" or "Generation Y" who are widely viewed as the first "digital native" for information technology. Another change coinciding with this new cohort is the “Mystification”, a concept referring to student enrollment that is a rapid increase on the level required to reclaim academics and other high-status professions (Cornuel, 2007), and inevitably it leads to larger and more diverse classes, even with various background and abilities of students resulting in the change in the university's financing model (Altbach, Reisberg, & Rumbley, 2009). High-level institutions have adapted to changes in the financial environment by developing new revenue streams, including providing postgraduate graduate coursework and executive education and recruiting students from different regions or foreign countries, strengthening the negative effects of spawning. Conventional schools were considered ineffective and boring by most students. To diverge this issue, utilizing educative toys and games as learning media is the best proposal in encouraging students to learn the lesson materials in enjoyment. Games generate strong motivational power that is capable to engage people even without any reward and only enjoyment offered (Kapp, 2012a). Thus, to adopt this kind of effect in learning activities, it requires certain technical infrastructure and proper pedagogical integration (Tarman, 2017; Tarman & Dev, 2018). Compared to use complex games that require a large number of design and development efforts, the "gamification" approach implies the use of game thinking and game design elements to increase learners’ involvement and motivation. Teachers should create an active learning environment to enhance students' competences, by giving options and opportunities to learn independently and planning learning activities that enable them to develop their mastery (Baytak, Tarman & Ayas, 2011). As stated by Ferreira, Cardosob & Abrantesc (2011), intrinsic motivation proves to be a very important factor that can lead to higher perceived learning in the course. In other words, motivation is energy or strength that drives us to do an activity. For example, when one wants something or to do things, one is motivated by it and tends to do it regardless anything else so long as it can be acquired or achieved. Motivation ought to be monitored by the teacher, and the teacher seeks to mobilize the students’ ability and potential. Motivation is capable to boost the effort and energy used in activities related to needs and goals (Csikszentmihalyi & Nakamura, Priyono 1989). It accelerates the time consumed by students in doing their task and it becomes a significant factor influencing their learning (Larson, 2000). Chimombo (2005) mentioned the importance of education, especially in developing countries. It increases due to the pressure in order to catch up the developed countries, for example, global competitiveness (Hawkins 2002). Considerably, it is reflected in educational settings, such as education quality and the possibilities in experiencing education, especially in rural areas where the location is far from educational facilities. Chimombo (2005) argued that country-specific circumstances should be improved on mandatory and free education to encourage general access to education as mentioned as well in the Article 26 of 1948 of the United Nations universal human rights declaration of compulsory rights and free education (UN Human Rights, 1948). Another concern with this situation is related to students’ involvement and motivation. Reports mentioned the decrease of student attendance in the classroom (Massingham & Herrington, 2006) as well as coupled with difficulties in encouraging interaction and discussion (Race, 2010). Additionally, more destructive problems such as plagiarism and fraud increase (Flint, Clegg, & Macdonald, 2006). In response, educators develop innovative teaching practices to catch students' attention, especially the “Millennium”. Considering this, “gamification” is an approach and a topic of interest that can be employed for this problem. Gamification uses “game-based mechanics, aesthetics and game thinking to engage people, motivate action, promote learning, and solve problems” (Kapp, 2012, p. 10). In general, gamification is a term applied to a series of motivational triggers, such as rewards and competitions, traditionally associated with games. Implementing “gamification” in education remains a trend (Dicheva, Dichev, Agre, & Angelova, 2015); it is very possibly used in improving student engagement and rapid learning. In some studies, there were students who disliked non-lecture approaches because those approaches were contradictory to passive learning in which they are accustomed to. Other students prefer a new approach as it has clear-cut instructions on how to actively participate in learning activity in less conventional way. An article entitled “Helping Students to Learn in Student- Centered Environments: A Guide to Facilitate Learning in Higher Education” (Doyle, 2008) offers many useful suggestions and ideas, such as big class preventing the application of active learning strategies because big class limits the use of certain active learning strategies (e.g. it is difficult to engage all students in classroom discussions in groups greater than 40), but it is not a definite problem, because by dividing large classes into small groups enables teachers to create productive Journal of Social Studies Education Research 2018: 9 (2), 124-137 classroom discussion activities Heppner 2007) and it was agreed by Stanley & Porter (2002) who offer similar idea as well. However, the actual condition emerging in State Elementary Schools 2 and 3 Cakul Dongko of the academic year 2009/2010 was lack of mutual understanding in lesson plans, and this made teachers of both schools have to carry out their teaching independently. Furthermore, the Ministry of National Education stated that PAIKEM provides more benefits for pupils, such as: 1) Making students learn more effectively/thoroughly; 2) Developing children to become more critical and creative; 3) Providing varied learning environments and experiences; 4) Improving emotional/social maturity; 5) Generating students with high productivity; 6) Being able to deal with changes and participate in the process. The main components of PAIKEM are described as follow: Figure 1, The main components of PAIKEM The research aims to find the differences in students’ learning results by implementing both PAIKEM and conventional learning methods for students with high and low motivation. Priyono Method Research design This research applied an experimental design by giving a different treatment to two homogenous sample groups. One group was taught with PAIKEM and another group with n a conventional learning method. The groups were divided based on students’ motivation in which one group was students with high motivation and another one was students with low motivation. Each group was divided into two small groups as control group and experiment group. Population and Sample The population is students in SDN 2 & 3 Cakul Dongko academic year 2009/2010, while the sample is a fifth grader Data Collection Method The data on this research were collected through: 1) Questionnaire 2) Test Data Analysis Technique Data were analyzed using two-way analysis of variance, preceded by a preliminary analysis of normality and homogeneity. Findings The results were showed in form of findings after conducting research activities in State Elementary School 2 & 3 in Cakul Dongko of the academic year 2009/2010. Table 1 PAIKEM normality test results One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test PAIKEM N 20 Normal Parameters a.b Mean 81.8500 Std. Deviation 7.99523 Most Extreme Absolute .203 Differences Positive .118 Negative -.203 Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z .909 Asymp. Sig. (2-tailded) .381 Note: Journal of Social Studies Education Research 2018: 9 (2), 124-137 a. Test distribution is Normal Calculated from data. In table 1, K-S for data PAIKEM was 0.909 with the probability of 0.381 and  was above 0.05, meaning that H0 was accepted or the learning results were normally distributed. Table 2 Normality Test Result of Conventional Learning Model One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test CONVENTIONAL N 28 Normal Parameters a.b Mean 75.0714 Std. Deviation 7.82176 Most Extreme Absolute .236 Differences Positive .121 Negative -.236 Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z 1.247 Asymp. Sig. (2-tailded) .089 Note: a. Test distribution is Normal b. Calculated from data. In table 2, K-S for conventional method was 1.247 with the probability of 0.089 and  was above 0.05, meaning that H0 was accepted or the learning results were normally distributed. Table 3 Homogeneity Calculations Dependent Variable : mathematics learning outcomes F df1 df2 Sig. 1.248 3 44 .307 H0 on tests showed by the error variance of the dependent variable is equal across groups. Design: Intercept + A_Factor +B_Factor + A_Factor*B_Factor Table 3 shows that the probability was 0.307, meaning that the probability > 0.05, and it proved that the data were homogeneous. Table 4 Descriptive Results of Mathematics Learning Descriptive Statistics Dependent Variable: Mathematics learning outcomes A_Factor B_Factor Mean Std. Deviation N PAIKEM Learning Model High Motivation 86.4615 5.04340 13 Low Motivation 73.2857 4.46148 7 Total 81.8500 7.99523 20 Conventional Learning Model High Motivation 79.2727 5.25530 11 Low Motivation 72.3529 8.12359 17 Total 75.0714 7.82176 28 Priyono Total High Motivation 83.1667 6.21825 24 Low Motivation 72.6250 7.16157 24 Total 77.8958 8.50842 48 Table 4 shows the differences in the average of mathematics learning results in both PAIKEM and conventional classes on the students with high motivation and low motivation. Table 5 Descriptive Mean Factor A (Learning Model) 1. A_Factor Dependent Variable: Mathematics learning outcomes A_Factor Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound Upper Bound PAIKEM Learning Model 79.874 1.481 76.889 82.859 Conventional Learning Model 75.813 1.223 73.349 78.277 Table 5 shows that mathematics learning results in PAIKEM class were higher than those in conventional class. Table 6 The average of PAIKEM and conventional Differential Test Independent Samples Test Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means F Sig. T Df Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference Std. Error Difference 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower Upper Mathematics Learning Outcomes Equal variances assumed .038 .845 2.933 46 .005 6.77857 2.31109 2.12659 11.43055 Equal variances not assumed 2.922 40.529 .006 6.77857 2.31974 2.09211 11.46503 In the table 6, the significance was below 0.05 ( < 0.05) meaning that there were differences in mathematics learning results of V graders at State Elementary School 2 & 3 Cakul Dongko District of the academic year 2009/2010. Table 7 Descriptive Mean B_Factor 1. B_Factor Journal of Social Studies Education Research 2018: 9 (2), 124-137 Dependent Variable : Mathematics learning outcomes B_Factor Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound Upper Bound High Motivation 82.867 1.294 80.259 85.476 Low Motivation 72.819 1.419 69.960 75.679 Table 7 shows that mathematics learning results of students with high motivation were higher than those with low motivation. Table 8 Test Different average of students with high motivation and low motivation in PAIKEM method Independent Sample Test Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means F Sig. t df Sig. (2- tailed) Mean Difference Std. Error Difference 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower Upper Mathematics Learning Outcomes Equal variances assumed .102 .753 5.786 18 .000 13.17582 2.27708 8.39186 17.95979 Equal variances not assumed 6.014 13.825 .000 13.17582 2.19092 8.47118 17.88047 Table 8 shows that the significance value was below 0.05 (<0.05) meaning that there were differences on Mathematics learning results between V graders at State Elementary School 2 & 3 Cakul Dongko District of the academic year 2009/2010 for students with high and low motivation by implementing PAIKEM method. Table 9 Differences in test means of students with high and low motivation in conventional learning method. Independent Sample Test Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means F Sig. t df Sig. (2- tailed) Mean Difference Std. Error Difference 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower Upper Mathematics Learning Outcomes Equal variances assumed 4.883 .036 2.498 26 .019 6.91979 2.76971 1.22657 12.61300 Equal variances not assumed 2.737 25.993 .011 6.91979 2.52837 1.72257 12.11700 Priyono Table 9 shows that the significance value was below 0.05 (< 0.05), meaning that there were differences in mathematics learning results between the highly anf lowly motivated fifth-graders at State Elementary School 2 & 3 Cakul Dongko District in the academic year 2009/2010 following the implementation of conventional learning method. Table 10 Descriptive Averages A_Factors and B_Factors A_Factor * B_Factor Dependent Variable: Mathematics learning outcomes A_Factor B_Factor Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound Upper Bound PAIKEM High Motivation 86.462 1.752 82.930 89.993 Low Motivation 73.286 2.388 68.473 78.099 Conventional High Motivation 79.273 1.905 75.433 83.112 Low Motivation 72.353 1.533 69.264 75.441 Based on table 10, implementing PAIKEM method for students with high motivation resulted in higher learning results than implementing conventional learning method for the same group of students. However, implementing conventional learning for students with high motivation gave better learning results than implementing PAIKEM learning for students with low motivation. Therefore, student motivation has an important role in determining learning results. Table 11 Two-way Anova Results Test of Between-Subjects Effects Dependent Variable: Mathematics learning result Source Type III Sum of Squares Df Mean Square F Sig. Corrected Model 1645.756a 3 548.585 13.740 .000 Intercept 262380.858 1 262380.858 6571.756 .000 A_Factor 178.506 1 178.506 4.471 .040 B_Factor 1092.881 1 1092.881 27.373 .000 A_Factor*B_Factor 105.918 1 105.918 2.653 .111 Error 1756.724 44 39.926 Total 294655.000 48 Corrected Total 3402.479 47 Discussion, Conclusion and Implications  The effect of implementing PAIKEM and conventional learning models on student learning results. Journal of Social Studies Education Research 2018: 9 (2), 124-137 Based on the calculations and test results conducted for each class, Mathematics learning results of the fifth graders at State Elementary Schools 2 & 3 Cakul Dongko District of the academic year 2009/2010 at the beginning of the implementation were the same. After the implementation of PAIKEM method, significant differences in the learning results were indicated by the increase in mathematics learning results. In contrast, students treated with conventional learning model had less significant learning results (either before or after implementing the learning method). It means that conventional learning method allowed only few of materials to be absorbed, unlike in PAIKEM method where most students were able to absorb the materials due to direct involvement of students and problems as those were given at the time of learning the lesson, doing the tasks, as well as understanding the lesson. Besides, students were happily engaged with the learning activities, so they easily mastered the materials. There was a significant difference between PAIKEM classes and conventional classes indicated by the average value in A Factor and the higher value of the t-value compared to t- table, where the significance value between the two lessons was below 0.05. In addition, The FA value of the 2-way analysis of variance (F-arithmetic for PAIKEM and conventional learning model) was higher than the F-table, meaning there was a significant difference in mathematics learning results between the classes of the fifth-graders who implemented PAIKEM and conventional learning methods at State Elementary Schools 2 & 3 Cakul Dongko District of the academic year 2009/2010. Therefore, the results indicated that the first hypothesis was accepted, meaning that there was a difference in the mathematics learning results of the fifth graders at State Elementary Schools 2 & 3 Cakul Dongko District of the academic year 2009/2010 who were given PAIKEM and those who were given conventional learning models.  Differences in learning results of students with high and low motivation levels The students’ motivation in learning process is very likely different; some have high motivation while others have low motivation. The difference level of motivation influences the mathematics learning results of those students. Moreover, it was indicated by the descriptive of B_ Factor and the average value of the test of differences in the learning results of both groups (students with high motivation and low motivation) after given PAIKEM and conventional learning methods, showed by the value of t-arithmetic > t-table. Priyono In addition, obtained FB-value in the two-way analysis of variance (F-arithmetic for both students with high motivation and low motivation) was higher than F-table, meaning that there were differences in mathematics learning results between students with high motivation and low motivation in grade 5 at State Elementary Schools 2 & 3 Cakul Dongko District of the academic year 2009/2010. Therefore, the second hypothesis was accepted, meaning that there was differences in the mathematics learning results of the fifth-graders at State Elementary Schools 2 & 3 Cakul Dongko District of the academic year 2009/2010 who were given PAIKEM method and those who were given conventional learning method.  Interaction of learning model and level of student motivation The calculation using two-way analyses of variance needed the understanding of the interaction between A_factor (PAIKEM and conventional learning model) and B_factor (students with high motivation and low motivation). Based on the calculation, the result showed no significant interaction. It was indicated by the value of F-arithmetic < F- table (2.653 < 4.05) and the significance level was more than 0.05 (5%), meaning that there was no interaction between learning methods and student motivation. The result indicated that there was no interaction between PAIKEM method, conventional learning method, as well as learning motivation and Mathematics learning results of the fifth-graders at State Elementary Schools 2 & 3 Cakul Dongko District of the academic year 2009/2010. Implementing PAIKEM method for students with high motivation gave higher mathematics learning results than for students with low motivation, while implementing conventional learning method for students with high motivation gave higher mathematics learning results than for students with low motivation. Furthermore, using appropriate learning methods (PAIKEM) and having high motivation were certainly able to improve students’ learning results. Journal of Social Studies Education Research 2018: 9 (2), 124-137 References Altbach, P., Reisberg, L., & Rumbley, L. (2009). Trends in global higher education: Tracking an academic revolution. Paris, France: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. From : http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0018/001832/183219e.pdf Baytak, A., Tarman, B., & Ayas, C. (2011). Experiencing technology integration in education: Children's perceptions. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 3(2), 139-151. Bligh, D. A. (2000). What’s the use of lectures? San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. From :http://commons.trincoll.edu/ctl/files/2013/08/WEEK-3-Whats-the-Use-of-Lectures.pdf Bonwell, C., & Eison, J. (1991). Active learning: Creating excitement in the classroom (ASHE- ERIC Higher Education Report No. 1). Washington, DC: George Washington University. Abstract online at http://www.ed.gov/databases/ERIC_Digests/ed340272.html Chimombo, J.P.G. (2005): Issues in basic education in developing countries: an exploration of policy options for improved delivery. CICE Hiroshima University, Journal of International Cooperation in Education, Vol. 8 (1), pp. 129-152. From : http://home.hiroshima-u.ac.jp/cice/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/8-1-11.pdf Cornuel, E. (2007). Challenges facing business schools in the future. Journal of Management Development, 26(1), 87–92. http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/02621710710720130 Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Nakamura, J. (1989). The dynamics of intrinsic motivation: A study of adolescents, Flow and the Foundations of Positive Psychology pp 175-197. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9088-8_12 Dicheva, D., Dichev C., Agre G., & Angelova G. (2015). Gamification in education: A Systematic mapping study. Educational Technology & Society, 18(3), 75–88. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1070047 Doyle, E., Buckley, P., & Carroll, C. (2013). Innovative business school teaching: Engaging the millennial generation. New York, NY: Routledge. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.11120/bmhe.2013.00002 Elam, C., Stratton, T., & Gibson, D. D. (2007). Welcoming a new generation to college: The Millennial students. Journal of College Admission, 195, 20-25. From : http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ783953.pdf http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0018/001832/183219e.pdf http://commons.trincoll.edu/ctl/files/2013/08/WEEK-3-Whats-the-Use-of-Lectures.pdf http://www.ed.gov/databases/ERIC_Digests/ed340272.html http://home.hiroshima-u.ac.jp/cice/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/8-1-11.pdf http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/02621710710720130 https://rd.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-94-017-9088-8 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9088-8_12 https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1070047 http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.11120/bmhe.2013.00002 http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ783953.pdf Priyono Ferreira, M., Cardosob, A. P., &Abrantesc, J. L. (2011). Motivation and Relationship of the Student with the School as Factors Involved in the Perceived Learning. International Conference on Education and EducationalPsychology (ICEEPSY 2011), Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 29 (2011) (pp. 1707 – 1714). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.11.416 Flint, A., Clegg, S., & Macdonald, R. (2006). Exploring staff perceptions of student plagiarism. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 30(2), 145–156. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03098770600617562 Hawkins, R. (2002). Ten Lessons for ICT and Education in the Developing World. In: Kirkman, G. et al. (Eds): The Global Information Technology Report 2001-2002: Readiness for the Networked World, Oxford University Press, Oxford 2002, 38-43 https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=8499384324717721846&hl=en&as_sdt=2005& sciodt=0,5 Heppner, F. H. (2007). Teaching the large college class: A guidebook for instructors with multitudes. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bmb.20185/full Howe, N., & Strauss, W. (2000). Millennia’s rising: The next great generation /by Neil Howe and Bill Strauss ; cartoons by R.J. Matson. New York: Vintage Books. http://www.bookrags.com/studyguide-millennials-rising/chapanal001.html#gsc.tab=0 Howe, N., Strauss, W., & Life Course Associates. (2007). Millennia’s go to college: Strategies for a new generation on campus: recruiting and admissions, campus life, and the classroom. Great Falls, Va: Life Course Associates. http://www.worldcat.org/title/millennials-go-to-college-strategies-for-a-new-generation- on-campus-recruiting-and-admissions-campus-life-and-the-classroom/oclc/123907203 Kapp, K. M. (2012). The Gamification of learning and instruction: Game-based methods and strategies for training and education. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons. http://as.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-111867443X.html Karen Wilson & James H. Korn (2007) Attention During Lectures: Beyond Ten Minutes, Teaching of Psychology, 34:2, 85-89, DOI: 10.1080/00986280701291291 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.11.416 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03098770600617562 https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=8499384324717721846&hl=en&as_sdt=2005&sciodt=0,5 https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=8499384324717721846&hl=en&as_sdt=2005&sciodt=0,5 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bmb.20185/full http://www.bookrags.com/studyguide-millennials-rising/chapanal001.html#gsc.tab=0 http://www.worldcat.org/title/millennials-go-to-college-strategies-for-a-new-generation-on-campus-recruiting-and-admissions-campus-life-and-the-classroom/oclc/123907203 http://www.worldcat.org/title/millennials-go-to-college-strategies-for-a-new-generation-on-campus-recruiting-and-admissions-campus-life-and-the-classroom/oclc/123907203 http://as.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-111867443X.html https://doi.org/10.1080/00986280701291291 Journal of Social Studies Education Research 2018: 9 (2), 124-137 Larson, R. (2000). Toward a psychology of positive youth development. American Psychologist, Vol. 55, No.1, (pp. 170-183). http://www.scirp.org/reference/ReferencesPapers.aspx?ReferenceID=48136 Lee, J., & Hammer, J. (2011). Gamification in education: What, how, why bother? Academic Exchange Quarterly, 15(2), 146. From : http://www.gameprof.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/AEQ-Lee-Hammer-2011.pdf Massingham, P. and Herrington, T., Does Attendance Matter? An Examination of Student Attitudes, Participation, Performance and Attendance, Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 3(2), 2006. Available at: http://ro.uow.edu.au/jutlp/vol3/iss2/3 McKeachie, W. J., (1986). National Center for Research to Improve Postsecondary Teaching and Learning, & Program on Instructional Processes and Educational Outcomes. Teaching and learning in the college classroom: A review of the research literature. Ann Arbor, Mich: University of Michigan. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED314999 Race, P. (2010). Making learning happen: A Guide for post-compulsory education. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications From : https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/node/60703/download-pdf Stanley, C. A., & In Porter, M. E. (2002). Engaging large classes: Strategies and techniques for college faculty. Bolton, Mass: Anker Pub. Co. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED469658 Stuart, J. & Rutherford, R. J. (1978). Medical student concentration during lectures. The Lancet, 514-516. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(78)92233-X Tarman, B., & Dev, S. (2018). Editorial: Learning Transformation through Innovation and Sustainability in Educational Practices. Research In Social Sciences And Technology, 3(1), i-ii. Retrieved from http://ressat.org/index.php/ressat/article/view/363 Tarman, B. (2017). Editorial: The Future of Social Sciences. Research in Social Sciences and Technology, 2(2). Retrieved from http://ressat.org/index.php/ressat/article/view/329 http://www.scirp.org/reference/ReferencesPapers.aspx?ReferenceID=48136 http://www.gameprof.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/AEQ-Lee-Hammer-2011.pdf http://ro.uow.edu.au/jutlp/vol3/iss2/3 https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED314999 https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/node/60703/download-pdf https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED469658 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(78)92233-X http://ressat.org/index.php/ressat/article/view/363