229

International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research

Vol. 19, No. 3, pp. 229-254, March 2020
https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.19.3.13

A Teaching Model of Polynomial Functions’

Learning Outcomes According to the System
Approach for High School Students

Ahmad A.S. Tabieh*

Middle East University, Amman, Jordan
Faculty of Educational Secince

Abstract. This study aims at designing a model for teaching polynomial

functions’ learning outcomes based on the system approach (LOSA
Model). The model includes procedural mechanisms for implementing
each of its parts, yielding the model’s outputs, i.e. the tools needed to
use the model in teaching high school students. The study consists of
three phases: designing the LOSA Model, development of the
procedural mechanism of the LOSA model, and formulating the
necessary outputs needed to use the model in teaching. This study
provides a model for teaching the learning outcomes of polynomial
functions, consisting of six domains: the mathematical content; the
equipment; teaching methods; evaluation methods; the students; and
the teacher. In each domain, the inputs were processed to produce the
required outputs through a procedural method based on the system
approach. In addition, the study provides an electronic procedural
guide that shows precisely how to use each and every constituent of the
model. It also provides the outputs of the model which are its usable
tools as a teaching model. These outputs are the learning outcomes and
their prerequisites; the mathematical content of polynomial functions;
the supporting electronic content on Blackboard; the initial, formative,
and summative evaluation tools; the mechanisms for preparing the
equipment; the teaching methods; and the training methods that qualify
the students and teachers to work with the model. The study was
applied to a cluster sample of 138 experts in education and mathematics,
and the methodology employed the quantitative and qualitative
research.

Keywords: Teaching Model; Learning Outcomes; System Approach;

Polynomial Function; High School

1. Introduction
Learning mathematics helps students acquire the necessary tools for tackling the
daily problems they face in various domains of life (Amalia, Surya, & Syahputra,

* Corresponding author: Ahmad A.S. Tabieh, Email: atabieh@meu.edu.jo

©2020 The author and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.

 230

2017). Consequently, it has been increasingly important and has been stressed on
the highest pedagogical levels (Eviyanti, Surya, Syahputra, & Simbolon, 2017).
The biggest challenge of learning mathematics is perhaps the fact that students
have their own idiosyncrasies for thinking and processing when dealing with
mathematical concepts (Curto Prieto, Orcos Palma, Blázquez Tobías, & León,
2019). This can distract students from achieving the learning goals, which causes
them to feel frustrated and bored with learning mathematics thinking that it
requires special capabilities not attainable by everyone (Clements, Fuson, &
Sarama, 2017; Tan, 2017).

To face the challenge of learning mathematics, there has been a growing

tendency to focus on students as the center of the learning process by identifying
their capabilities and inclinations as inputs that undergo processing to achieve
optimum learning results (Stelmach, Adams, & Brandon, 2019). Such successful
learning depends greatly on determining learning outcomes, which were
defined by Adam (2006) and Gudeva, Dimova, Daskalovska, & Trajkova (2012)
as the written statements that identify what a learner is expected to achieve by
the end of a unit, course, or an educational stage. Consequently, there has been a
spreading international movement towards structuring courses based on
learning outcomes (Darling-Hammond, 2017). For example, level-three courses
in European higher education institutions are being redesigned in a way that
reflects the extent of achieving learning outcomes (Alexandrov & Sancho, 2017).
Another example would be the establishment of the National Council of the
Teachers of Mathematics, NCTM, which outlined the general principle and
standards of learning outcomes in all fields of mathematics (Naja, 2018; Wilson,
2020). It is worth noting here that learning outcomes represent a more modern
and inclusive model. While the traditional approach views inputs as the content,
learning outcomes centralize students in the learning/teaching process
highlighting outputs as an indicator of students’ competence (Isdale, Reddy,
Juan, & Arends, 2018; Rothaermel, 2016), and providing teachers with insight
into their students’ level (Oudman, van de Pol, Bakker, Moerbeek, & van Gog,
2018).

The argument above necessitates designing a model for teaching learning

outcomes in a systematic approach that centralizes students in the learning
process and utilizes their inputs to achieve the outputs, i.e. learning outcomes,
through processing while at the same time enabling teachers to evaluate their
students. The researcher of this study, therefore, employed the system approach
for designing such a model. Barkley & Major (2020) defines the system approach
as an analytical method which organizes the parts in a system whereby these
parts consolidate, each according to its function, to achieve the goals set for a
certain task.

The researcher applied this model to the polynomial functions’ unit of the
College Algebra course for high school-level / pre-university students as it is the
only compulsory mathematics course for all students at all universities within
the study’s community. In addition, according to the records of the previous
academic year, the students scored lowest in polynomial function questions,
reflecting difficulty in comprehending the polynomial functions unit of the

©2020 The author and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.

 231

course. Furthermore, the researcher ensured that the learning outcomes be

created according to the standards of the NCTM so that this model for teaching
learning outcomes based on the system approach is internationally applicable.

2. Background
The literature related to the idea of this research can be reviewed under three
major fields. Teaching models in general and teaching models in mathematics
are reviewed first. Then, the review covers the concept of learning outcomes in
mathematics and their relatedness to teaching models in mathematics. Finally,
the system approach is discussed as a tool for designing a teaching model in
mathematics that is based on learning outcomes.

2.1 Teaching Models in Mathematics

A teaching model is a design for teaching that describes the processes which
identify and produce educational environments that prompt students to interact
in a way that creates a specific change in their behavior (Sinha, 2018). This
definition is in keeping with the perception of Hofer & Harris (2019) for a
teaching model as a plan or pattern that can be used to structure a course, design
content, and create an instructional guide for the classroom. In this context, the
classroom is viewed as an interactive environment between students and
teachers; an environment that allows the exchange of knowledge which
ultimately leads to a better educational system (Korhonen, Ruhalahti, &
Veermans, 2019; Lamb, Annetta, Firestone, & Etopio, 2018).

DuPlass (2006) classifies teaching models into five types, the first of which is
“disposition modeling.” Disposition modeling is based on students and teachers
sharing ways of thinking, and it requires a creative teacher who is able to
identify successful strategies for this model. In the second type, “task and
performance modeling,” a teacher highlights the tasks in which students are
expected to be initiative, which makes them feel at ease with undertaking new
tasks. The third type, “meta cognitive modeling,” foregrounds the importance of
the way of thinking by focusing on interpreting information and analyzing
statements to arrive at results for what has been learned. In “modeling as
scaffolding technique,” Webb, Massey, Goggans, & Flajole (2019) stress the
teacher’s responsibility to identify students’ role in the learning process. This
entails that a teacher, on multiple occasions, lay out tasks for students to do
while helping the students who face difficulties. Finally, in “student-centered
modeling,” a teacher helps students identify the learning outcomes expected of
them allowing the teacher to utilize the students with knowledge of the learning
outcomes in question to help their classmates.

One of the most prominent teaching models for learning outcomes in

mathematics was designed by Sari & Surya (2017) in which they analyzed the
learning outcomes observed from students’ responses to mathematical
problems. These responses, which provide tools for teaching mathematics, were
classified into five levels. Level one is characterized by impulsiveness where the
responses bear no direct relevance to the concepts required to solve the problem,
and the student makes no discernible connection between these concepts

©2020 The author and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.

 232

(Hasibuan, Saragih, & Amry, 2018). In level two, the responses show a partial
possession of the concepts without fully grasping the relation between them and
how they should be connected to achieve the solution. In level three, the student
shows complete possession of the concepts; however, connecting these concepts
to get to the solution is still somewhat lacking. The responses in level four show
profound understanding of the relational connection between the concepts and
an appreciation of how these concepts interact to deliver the solution. Finally,
level five is marked by a high degree of confidence whereby the student
transcends the mastery of the concepts and their relations to the point where
he/she tries to impart knowledge onto other students.

2.2 Learning Outcomes in Mathematics

Learning outcomes are defined as the statements that identify what a learner is
expected to comprehend, know, or perform after the completion of a learning
process (Kizilcec, Pérez-Sanagustín, & Maldonado, 2017; Murtonen, Gruber, &
Lehtinen, 2017). In addition to specifying what a student is expected to perform,
well-written learning outcomes must be observable, measurable, and achievable
within the time limit and available resources (Tractenberg, Lindvall, Attwood, &
Via, 2020). As for the domains of learning outcomes, they were outlined by
Bloom (1956) as the cognitive, affective, and psychomotor domains. The
cognitive domain involves intellectual processes such as comprehension,
analysis, and evaluation while the affective domain covers inclinations, feelings,
and values such as appreciation and tolerance. On the other hand, physical
activities, such as assembling and dismantling, fall under the umbrella of
learning outcomes of the psychomotor domain.

It is important to note that in order for most mathematical concepts to be

acquired, there has to be graduality of mental processing. This means that
mathematical concepts have to be divided into levels that are suitable for each
learning stage, starting from basic levels and culminating in the acquisition of
these concepts by the end of the last learning stage. This graduality allows the
retention of information for a long time which is essential to the acquisition of
mathematical concepts. Ross, Bruderle, & Meakim (2015) points out that learning
outcomes enhance basic understanding and develop the skills which improve
retention, leading eventually to the internalization of these concepts. As a result,
the NCTM emphasizes that learning outcomes be logically ordered in a way that
reflects the priority of learning each mathematical concept.

2.3 System Approach in Mathematics

The system approach is presented in education as an approach for managing,
controlling, and improving educational processes and outcomes (Taylor, Oberle,
Durlak, & Weissberg, 2017). This approach is built on the concept of the system
which is defined by Ackoff (1971) as a group of interrelated and coherent
elements that integrate to form a unified whole. Therefore, viewing the
learning/teaching process as a unified system of integrated elements (such as
the students, the teachers, the content, the facilities, etc.) improves its
effectiveness compared to each element functioning independently.

©2020 The author and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.

 233

One of the applications of the system approach in teaching is that of Mat, Yassin,
Ishak, Mohammad, & Pandaragan (2012). In this model, the learning/teaching
process starts, before the beginning of teaching, with preparing inputs which
include the content, lessons, teachers, facilities, and other resources. In the next
stage, the activities that students do while learning are covered. Finally, the
learning outcomes are achieved in the form of developed skills while allowing
students to give their opinions and feedback about their performance. Another
application of the system approach in learning is the model of Gupta & Gupta
(2013) which consists of several steps, namely analysis, design, development,
execution, and evaluation.

The importance of the system approach can be seen from different angles. It
perceives of the learning/teaching process as a whole rather than individual
parts. It also serves as a systematic educational framework that facilitates
decision making. In addition, it fully utilizes educational resources; offers an
evaluation system that leads to immediate feedback; and improves teacher
training programs (Rodríguez, Pérez, Cueva, & Torres, 2017). Another point in
favor of the system approach is the fact that the mathematics learning/teaching
process involves several elements such as students, teachers, content, and other
resources. This entails a system that unifies and processes these elements to
attain an effective learning/teaching process. Employing the system approach,
therefore, is ideal for achieving high quality in learning and teaching
mathematics.

As for mathematical content, it is essential to shape it based on the system

approach for a number of reasons. First, mathematical principles and concepts
are structural in nature; they integrate to form areas of mathematics. Moreover,
they are sequential in the sense that many of these concepts function as the
corner stone for subsequent ones. Graduality is another characteristic of
mathematical concepts. Each concept requires different levels of thinking to be
grasped which means it needs to be studied in multiple stages with varying
levels, starting from basic and concluding in the acquisition of the concept.

Narrowing the argument to the polynomial functions content, the researcher of

this study chose this content as it is a mathematical field that lends itself
perfectly to the system approach and because functions are an important tool in
building mathematical models (Kitchen & Berk, 2016). This applicability of the
system approach to functions is corroborated by the NCTM as it specifies that
functions at the school stage represent numerical inputs and outputs which are
expressed algebraically and that the functions’ processes represent the
calculations which transform the inputs to outputs. The NCTM also points that
functions enable checking for correct answers which in turn represents the
feedback in the system. This input-process-output approach to functions
establishes relevance to real life applications. From this point of view, the
content can serve as a thinking framework that enables a learner to determine
their inputs and process them to arrive at the outputs. It also enables verifying
these outputs and accordingly improving or fixing them.

©2020 The author and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.

 234

3. Study Objectives
The study’s primary objective is designing a model for teaching polynomial
functions’ learning outcomes based on the system approach (LOSA Model). The
model includes procedural mechanisms for implementing each of its parts,
yielding the model’s outputs, i.e. the tools needed to use the model in teaching
high school-level students. The study’s secondary objectives are the following:
1- Designing a teaching model for polynomial functions’ learning outcomes
based on the system approach (LOAS Model) used for teaching the polynomial
functions unit for high school-level students.
2- Developing the implementable procedural mechanisms of the LOSA Model
which lead to its outputs.
3- Creating the LOSA Model’s outputs (the tools that makes it usable in
teaching) resulting from implementing the procedural mechanisms.

4. Research Design
This study represents the first part of a project for producing and evaluating a
teaching model of learning outcomes based on the system approach. This project
consists of four phases, three of which are in this first part, namely design,
development, and pre-implementing. These three phases were all implemented
during the second semester of the 2018-2019 academic year. The fourth phase of
this project was the implementation and evaluation phase which will take place
in the second part of the project executed in the second semester of the
2019/2020 academic year. Figure 1 below describes the study phases, the study’s
methodology, and the data collection tools.

STUDY Phase 1: Design of LOSA Phase 2: Development of the procedural Phase 3: Pre-Implementing
PHASES Model mechanism of LOSA Model Finalization

Designing a teaching model Creating the model’s outputs which

Developing implementable procedural
Description
for polynomial functions’ learning constitute its usable tools as a teaching
mechanisms for each part of the model,
outcomes based on the system model
yielding the model’s outputs
approach (LOSA Model)

Methodology
Qualitative Qualitative Qualitative

Interviews Focus Groups Focus Groups Documents

Forming focus
groups of
mathematicians
whereby each group
Collecting the answers of is responsible for
Teachers with
mathematics education experts Forming focus groups of mathematics shaping the learning
experience in
during individual interviews education experts whereby each group is outcomes of one
teaching the College
concerning a proposed teaching responsible for creating the procedural Algebra course
lesson of the
Data model of learning outcomes. The mechanisms for implementing the responsible for
polynomial
Collection answers were coded into main inputs, process, and outputs of each of reshaping the
functions unit.
themes that represent the model’s the model’s domains. These mechanisms mathematical
domains in addition to minor are then shaped into successive content of each
themes that form each domain’s procedural steps which are later lesson of the
constituents. The number of transformed into an electronic Forming focus polynomial
answers related to each theme was procedural guide. groups of functions unit
mathematicians according to the
also documented.
whereby each group teaching model.
is responsible for
shaping the tests for
evaluating the
.learning outcomes

Figure 1: Study Phases, Methodology, and Data Collection Tools for Each Phase

©2020 The author and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.

 235

5. Participants
This study was implemented in three Jordanian universities: The University of
Jordan, Middle East University, and Amman Arab University. These universities
were chosen because of their proximity to each other and because the researcher
is a faculty member at one of them, Middle East University. The study
participants are faculty members of these universities with MS’s and PhD’s in
mathematics, mathematics education, education technology, and information
technology. The researcher formed a cluster sample (138) for this study, and
Table 1 below shows the distribution of the participants in the study sample to
the study phases based on their specialties and the phases in which they took
part.
Table 1: Distribution of Study Sample to Study phases
Development Formulating
of the the necessary
Designing
procedural outputs needed
Community Sample Specialize the LOSA
mechanism to use the
Model
of the LOSA model in
model teaching

Educational
84 43 ✓ ✓
Technology

Mathematic
al
97 50 ✓ ✓
Education
(Experts)

Mathematic
31 16 ✓
s teacher

Mathematic
49 25 ✓
ians

Information
8 4 ✓
Technology

6. Method
The method used in this study was carefully designed based on the study’s three
phases.

6.1 Phase One: Designing a Model for Polynomial Functions’ Learning

Outcomes Based on the System Approach (LOSA Model)
The researcher conducted individual interviews for fifty experts from the study
sample specialized in mathematics curriculum and teaching methods to collect
their responses to three open-ended questions about the inputs, processes, and
outputs required for creating a model for teaching polynomial functions based
on the learning outcomes. Within each of the model’s constituents (the inputs,
processes, and outputs), the responses were coded into major and minor themes,
and the number of responses for each theme was recorded. Based on the coded
main themes, the researcher, with the help of some experts, induced the
elements of the learning/teaching process as covered by the responses. These

©2020 The author and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.

 236

elements were named the model’s domains; they are the mathematical content, the
equipment, the teaching methods, the evaluation methods, the students, and the
teachers. The experts were then asked to order the six domains according to what
is best for the model’s design. Based on the experts’ responses, the major and
minor themes were reordered as they will appear in the model whereby the
inputs, processes, and outputs of each domain will include their major and
minor themes.

Next, the model, in its new format, was presented to a new committee from the
experts to get their feedback. The committee pointed out that the responses
under the inputs of each domain include some themes which, in and of
themselves, are preliminary outputs other than the final outputs at the end of
each domain. For example, in the mathematical content domain, the theme of
‘learning outcomes and their prerequisites’ constitutes a preliminary output
which will undergo processing to yield the final output, i.e. the mathematical
material of polynomial functions. Since any output, whether preliminary or
final, results from a process, the committee recommended creating an internal
system of (inputs, processes, and outputs) for the inputs alone. The researcher,
with the help of the committee, reclassified the themes under the inputs into
preliminary inputs, processes, and outputs. This dynamic is shown in Figures
2.1 and 2.2 below.

The committee also remarked that the model’s domains, with their final outputs,
are in fact the tools necessary for using the model in teaching which requires a
work plan for the model that consists of two systematic and successive stages.
The first stage would be the designing of the model which takes place before
teaching. The second stage would be the implementing and evaluating stage
which coincides with the beginning and completion of teaching whereby the
model’s final outputs in all domains serve as the inputs of this stage. These
inputs would eventually culminate into students who acquired the learning
outcomes of polynomial functions as well as teachers who are qualified to teach
polynomial functions according to the model. Figure 2 below illustrates the
model in its final configuration.

DOMAINS OF 1 2 3 4 5 6
LOSA MODEL MATHEMATICAL TEACHING EVALUATION
CONTENT EQUIPMENT METHODS STUDENT TEACHER
METHODS

INPUTS OF
DOMAIN
THE KEY
MECHANISMS OF LOSA MODEL IN EACH
TEACHING(DESIGN)

PROCESS
OF DOMAIN INPUT
INPUTS
BEFORE

OUTPUTS
OF PROCESS
INPUTS PROCESS OF OUTPUTS OF
DOMAIN DOMAIN

OUTPUT
TEACHING(IMPLEMENTATION)

OUTPUTS OF ALL
DOMAINS AS Teaching - Learning
INPUTS OF PM
IMPLEMENTATION processing
DURING AND AFTER

PROCESS OF
IMPLEMENTATION
(PM) Students with full reports
about their achievement in
MECHANISMS OF LOSA MODEL polynomial functions content
AS OVEARALL
OM

OUTPUTS OF
Qualified teacher to teach
IMPLEMENTATION
(OM)
polynomial function
according to LOSA MODEL

Figure 2: LOSA Model

©2020 The author and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.

 237

INPUT PROCESS OUTPUT

PI. Cognitive organization of mathematical material based on learning outcomes
College Algebra book & content D
O
EX N
LESSON I S OT
standards of polynomial functions T
TREATMENT
INTRODUCTION
PCOS INSIDE CLASS
EX
IS USING GROUP
T
1.MATHEMATICAL CONTENT

Procedures for writing learning Mathematical material

GO TO THE NEXT COS

outcomes EXAMPLES AND based on learning

GO TO THE NEXT LESSON

MATHEMATICAL ACTIVITIES INSIDE outcomes in
MATERIAL CLASS
polynomial functions
ORGANIZATION D
OF EACH COS VE
IE
H
AC EXERCISES
INSIDE
Course outcome statements for CLASS
polynomial functions OT ED
N I EV
H
(COS ) LESSON AC
D
SUMMARY VE
IE EXTRA
H
& AC EXERCISES
THROUH Electronic course
ELECTRONIC
Prerequisites of course COURSE based on learning
T ED
outcome statements for N OI EV outcomes in
polynomial functions A CH polynomial functions
MARKED THROUGH
ACHIEVEMENT REPORT OF COS
(PCOS) AS “UNACHIEVED”
(ECLO SYSTEM)
D AC N
VE H OT
IE IE
H VE Classifying students into groups whereby each
AC ACHIEVEMENT D
THROUGH
REPORT OF COS group has student(s) who achieved all learning
(for lesson) REVISION CLASS outcomes so that they help other students with
unachieved outcomes

Physical needs
2. EQUIPMENT

Classroom & computer

Procedures for preparing the lab compatible with
Classroom & computer lab to be compatible with teaching based on teaching based on
physical needs that were selected
learning outcomes (Classroom and Computer lab Setting ) learning outcomes in
polynomial functions
Classroom & computer lab

Figure 2.1: LOSA Model for each Domain, Part One

INPUT PROCESS OUTPUT

All teaching methods Teaching by grouping
3.TEACHING METHODES

according to learning outcomes

in polynomial functions
Characteristics should be included Teaching methods processing according to learning outcomes in
(TGLO METHOD)
in the teaching methods to teach each stage of the lesson inside the class: lesson beginning, during the
based on learning outcomes lesson, and at the end of the lesson Teaching using computer
according to learning outcomes
Traditional, teaching by groups in polynomial functions
& teaching using computer (TCLO METHOD)

All evaluation methods

Evaluation methods processing to determine the students’ capability to Prerequisites of course outcome
4.EVALUATION METHODES

statements test in polynomial

Characteristics should be included in achieve the learning outcomes before the teaching/learning process functions (PCOST)
the evaluation methods which are
needed to evaluate the students’ Evaluation methods processing to determine the students’ capability to Achievement report of course
capability to achieve learning outcomes achieve the learning outcomes during the teaching/earning process outcome statements

Initial evaluation, formative Evaluation methods processing to determine the students’ capability Course outcome statements test
in polynomial functions
evaluation, and summative evaluation to achieve the learning outcomes after the teaching/learning process (COST)

The level of all students

Preparing the details of training course (ECLO SYSTEM) Which Will
5. STUDENT

choosing the right level of the take to the selected students

students to be fit with the input of Trained students in
mathematical content domain ECLO SYSTEM

High school-level students who will The Mechanism for Training Students in the ECLO System
study the College Algebra course

The level of all teachers’ experience Trained teachers in

1.TEACHING MATERIAL
6. TEACHER

choosing the right level of the

teachers’ experience to be fit with the
Mechanism of training teachers in: teaching material, ECLO SYSTEM, 2.ECLO SYSTEM

input of mathematical content domain teaching methods (TGLO & TCLO) and evaluation tools (PCOST, 3.TGLO&TCLO METHODS
4.PCOST
ACHIEVEMENT REPORT & COST)
5.ACHIEVEMENT REPORT
Teachers of high school level who will 6.COST
teach the College Algebra course

Figure 2.2: LOSA Model for each Domain, Part Two

©2020 The author and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.

 238

6.2 Phase Two: Developing the Implementable Procedural Mechanisms of the

LOSA Model’s Constituents for each Domain to Yield Its Outputs
The researcher divided the mathematics education experts into six focus groups
whereby each group was responsible for creating the implementable procedural
mechanisms for one of the model’s six domains. Each group was asked to write
the implementable procedural steps required to process the inputs of each
domain to yield its outputs. The domains of the mathematical content, the teaching
methods, the evaluation methods, and the teachers were assigned to a group of ten
male experts while the domains of the equipment and the students were assigned
to a group of five female experts. The assignment of these experts to these
groups was based on each expert’s specialties and relevant experience. Each
group’s contribution (shown in Appendix-I) was shaped into the final form of
the procedural mechanisms of the model’s domains before returning them to the
group for further feedback and suggestions.

In the next stage, after trying several online form builders and consulting
information technology experts, the researcher transformed the implementable
procedural mechanisms into an electronic procedural guide using the online
form builder (https://www.cognitoforms.com). Once the electronic guide was
completed, forty-three educational technology experts were given a week-long
access to test the guide’s procedural validity and inclusiveness of all
constituents, and the experts’ feedback was utilized in making the necessary
modifications. Finally, the experts were asked to evaluate the electronic guide by
responding to a special evaluation form of (Singh, 2003), consisting of twenty-
five items that covered eight features of the guide (purpose, researcher’s
information, accuracy, subjectivity, consistency, inclusiveness, technicalities, and
general characteristics). The experts rated each of the eight features on a scale of
0-10 whereby 0 is “unachieved” and 10 is “fully achieved.” The following is the
link to the electronic guide
(https://www.cognitoforms.com/ElectronicForms1/LOSAMODEL).

6.3 Phase Three: Preparing to Implement the LOSA Model to Produce Its
Outputs Which Are Considered Its Usable Tools as a Teaching Model
Relying on the electronic procedural guide, the researcher identified the model’s
outputs to be prepared, namely polynomial functions learning outcomes and
their prerequisites; the mathematical and electronic content; teaching methods;
evaluation methods; and training. These outputs have been included in the
electronic procedural guide which can be consulted when using the LOSA
Model in teaching.

6.3.1 Learning Outcomes and Their Prerequisites

Based on the recommendations of mathematicians and mathematics education
experts, the researcher chose the most suitable basic algebra textbook and
identified the polynomial functions unit as the focus. Next, three standards of
polynomial functions were taken from the recommendations of the National
Council for the Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM), namely interpreting functions;
building functions; linear, quadratic and polynomial functions. The mathematics
experts of the study sample were then asked to derive and create the learning
outcomes for each lesson of the polynomial function’s unit of the chosen

©2020 The author and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.

 239

textbook according to a form prepared by the researcher for creating learning

outcomes. The experts were divided into three groups with each group assigned
the learning outcomes of one lesson. The groups’ responses were used to create
the learning outcomes that were then returned to the mathematics education
experts to verify their cognitive sequence; determine the standard for
mathematical content for each outcome; and identify the prerequisite(s) for each
outcome. The learning outcomes were revised into their final form shown in
Table 2 below.

Table 2: The (COS) and (PCOS) according to the Mathematical Content Standards of
Functions (MCS-F)
MCS-F*** COS* PCOS**

F-IF Interpreting • The ability to determine the

Functions slope of horizontal, vertical,
and any line passing through
two points • Understanding the
concepts of: O,
• Defining X and Y intercepts for undefined
any line
• Determining a point
• Using the graph of any linear that lies on any given
function to define the features linear equation or on its
intercepts as well as graph
slope
• Solving any linear
• Defining the basic features of equation with one
the quadratic function: vertex, variable
minimum-maximum value and
• Solving any quadratic
equation of symmetry
equation
• Defining the basic features of , where
polynomial functions

• Determining the type of

polynomial graph

F-BF Building • The ability to construct the • Rewriting a given linear

Function equation of the line under given equation with more
conditions than one variable in
terms of one of its
• The knowledge of the quadratic variables
function forms: standard and
shifted • Writing X and Y-
intercepts as an ordered
• The ability to reconstruct any pair
quadratic functions from
standard to shifted or vice • Understanding the
versa relationship between
parallel/perpendicular
• Using the graph of any lines
quadratic functions to build the
• Applying the

©2020 The author and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.

 240

equation completing square

technique to the
• Using the graph of any quadratic function
polynomial function to
construct its equation • Defining increasing-
decreasing intervals for
any polynomial graphs

• Defining the zeros of

any polynomial
equations written in
factored form

• Constructing the poly

with integer coefficient
from real zeros degree

F-LE: Linear, • The ability to design the graph • Using the table to graph
Quadratic, and of linear model: constant, linear equation with
Polynomial Models vertical, and oblique two variables

• The ability to design the graph • Using the table to

of quadratic model sketch the graph of any
non-linear equation
• The ability to design the graph with two variables
of the polynomial model:
• Defining the degree
and substitute for any
factorable polynomial

• Solving any factorable

polynomial equation

* Course Outcome Statements, **Prerequisites of COS’s, *** Mathematical Content

Standards of Functions
6.3.2 The Mathematical Content
The researcher divided the teachers of the study sample into four groups of four
teachers. To write the mathematical content, each group was provided with the
learning outcomes and their prerequisites; the standard for every outcome; the
chosen algebra textbook; and the LOSA Model to follow its cognitive
organization of the mathematical material. The groups were also given access to
the electronic procedural guide to utilize its procedural steps related to writing
the mathematical content. The first three groups were charged with writing the
mathematical content for polynomial functions, with each group responsible for
one of the three lessons, i.e. linear functions, quadratic functions, and
polynomial functions of higher degree. The fourth group, which consisted of the
most experienced teachers, had a supervisory role and revised the content
written by the three groups to ensure its compatibility with the procedural
guide. Finally, the mathematical content was presented to mathematics experts
whose feedback was employed in modifying the content into its final form. The
electronic procedural guide for the outputs of the first domain, the mathematical
content, contains the mathematical material for the first lesson as an example.

©2020 The author and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.

 241

The researcher chose the content for polynomial functions because the students
of the previous year scored lower in polynomial function questions than they
did in any other area of the mathematical content of the course. Therefore, if the
model proves effective in improving the students’ performance in the unit they
were worst at, this will give it greater credibility to be applied to other units. In
addition, it was the experts’ recommendation that the model be applied to the
polynomial functions unit since it is taught in the spring semester of the
academic year which coincides with the second part of this project when the
model was intended to be implemented and evaluated.

6.3.3 The Electronic Content

The researcher provided the information technology specialists in the study
sample with the mathematical content created by the teachers to build an
electronic course on Blackboard with the help of the supervisory group of the
most experienced teachers. The implementable mechanisms of the procedural
guide related to the mathematical content domain were also utilized in creating the
electronic course. After completion, the electronic course was tested and
evaluated by information technology specialists to ensure it is operating
properly. Finally, it was evaluated and reviewed by education technology
experts whose feedback was taken into consideration to finalize the course.
The electronic course was created on Blackboard to supplement and reinforce
the material given in class. This electronic course is accessible to the students
from anywhere at any time, enabling them to navigate the material, the drills
and exercises, as well as various tutorial videos related to the material. At the
end of every class, the teacher logs the achieved and unachieved outcomes for
each student which are later transferred to the electronic course. The electronic
course, as a result, provides additional exercises, prepared by the teacher,
assigned for certain learning outcomes and accessible only to the students who
failed to achieve those outcomes. This feature offers another opportunity for the
students to improve on what they could not achieve in class.

When it comes to feedback, the electronic course provides individual reports for
each student showing their achieved and unachieved outcomes. It also contains
a comprehensive report of the students achieved and unachieved outcomes
(Achievement Report of COS) which is then used by the teacher to form study
groups for a separate revision class.

The electronic system utilizes the discussion board feature of Blackboard as a

means of achieving outcomes. On the discussion board, students are able to
communicate with one another about their achieved and unachieved outcomes.
This communication is intended to help the students who have unachieved
outcomes engage in dialogue with their classmates who achieved those
outcomes, ultimately resulting in achieving all outcomes.

6.3.4 Classroom and Labs

An administrative committee was formed to prepare the classrooms and labs in
accordance with the procedural mechanisms of the second domain, the
equipment. Enough classrooms and labs were designated and prepared to be
used by the students of the LOSA Model in the spring semester of 2015/2016. In

©2020 The author and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.

 242

the labs, the electronic course was installed on each computer, and the
classrooms were provided with the necessary equipment for implementing the
model (chairs; whiteboards; hard copies of the mathematical content for each
student and teacher; and learning outcomes achievement form for the teacher of
each section). Then, the teachers of the study sample were assigned the sections
they will be working with. Finally, some of the experts of the study sample were
asked to evaluate the suitability and readiness of the classrooms and labs
according to the implementable procedural guide.

6.3.5 Teaching by Grouping according to Learning Outcomes (TGLO)

The researcher conducted a discussion session with the experts to create a
procedural guide for teaching by grouping inside the classroom. Depending on
the procedural guide of the teaching methods domain, the general guidelines of
teaching by grouping were established. The teaching by grouping method
depends on the achievement report of COS whereby the students are sorted out
in study groups for a separate revision class. The groups are created in such a
way that the students of different achieved and unachieved outcomes are joined
together. This means that in a group, each student with unachieved outcome(s)
has another student who has already achieved the corresponding outcome(s) so
that between them, all outcomes are achieved by the end of the revision class.
During the revision class, the teacher hands out separate worksheets for each
learning outcome containing various exercises related to that outcome. The
students in a group work only on the sheet(s) of their unachieved outcome(s),
and the teacher, meanwhile, checks the students’ performance to ensure that all
outcomes are achieved. Figure 3 below illustrates the mechanism of forming and
using the study groups.

Groupe Section 1 2 3 4 5 Note

3 Student
Achievement
Report Of
Course Outcome 1 2 4 5 Name
Statements
Student Name
Losa Course Outcome Statements
1
A Experimental l:Linear Functions

B Experimental l:Linear Functions

Achieved the first learning outcome

2
C Experimental l:Linear Functions Achieved All

D Experimental l:Linear Functions

F
Experimental

Experimental
l:Linear Functions

l:Linear Functions Achieved All

3 Achieved the third learning outcome

G Experimental l:Linear Functions Achieved All 4

5
I Experimental l:Linear Functions
Achieved the fifth learning outcome
J Experimental l:Linear Functions Achieved All

6 3 8 1 8 1 6 3 9
Icons Icons Icons Icons Icons

STEP I A B D E I C F G J
A A A A A A A A A
Distinguishing the students
who achieved all learning
outcomes from those who
achieved parts of them
Students who achieved parts of the learning outcomes Students who achieved all learning outcomes

STEP II
Each group contains the fewest
number of students who between
A E B D I CA G F
them, all learning outcomes are
achieved. That is, each student with
A A A A A A A
unachieved outcome(s) has another J
student who has already achieved the
corresponding outcome(s). The
students who achieved all learning
outcomes complement any shortage in
the groups, and if any remain, they
work with the teacher to help the
groups.

Figure 3: LOSA Model for each Domain, Part Two

©2020 The author and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.

 243

6.3.6 Evaluation Methods

The researcher divided the mathematics specialists into two groups responsible
for creating three instruments:

Prerequisites of Course Outcome Statements Test (PCOST) which was written

with its answers by the first group based on the prerequisites of Table 2 above.
The second group revised the test into its final form with 17 one-mark-each,
multiple choice questions covering all the prerequisites of the learning outcomes
of polynomial functions. This test serves as an initial evaluation before the
beginning of teaching in order to identify the extent to which the students
possess the prerequisites and prior knowledge of each outcome. The results of
this test function as a reference for the teacher to address the relevant
shortcomings during class and to utilize the students who possess the prior
knowledge of certain outcomes to help their classmates who lack this
knowledge. This test is found in the electronic procedural guide of the fourth
domain, the evaluation methods.

Course Outcome Statements Test (COST) which is the test that measures the
extent to which the learning outcomes have been achieved after teaching. The
test with its answers was written by the second group according to the learning
outcomes in Table 2 above. It was revised by the first group into its final form of
14 one-mark-each, multiple choice questions. This test is also found in the
electronic procedural guide of the fourth domain, the evaluation methods.

Achievement Report of Course Outcome Statements: this report is a type of

formative evaluation which uses the results of the students in the exercises for
each learning outcome to assess the extent to which each outcome has been
achieved by every student. This report serves as a reference for each student
about their performance in each outcome as well as a reference for the teacher
who updates it on the electronic course on Blackboard after teaching each
outcome.

The evaluation instruments above were revised by the experts to verify their
comprehensiveness on two levels: first, whether each question in the tests
comprehensively covers the learning outcome/prerequisite for which it was
written and second, whether the tests are inclusive of all learning outcomes and
their prerequisites. Then, the tests were applied to a pilot study of thirty
students of the previous year’s College Algebra course to verify their validity
and reliability. The PCOST and the COST had a Cronbach’s Alpha Coefficient of
(0.79) indicating high reliability for both tests. As for content validity, the
correlation coefficient for the standard of interpreting functions in all related
questions of the Prerequisites of Course Outcome Statements Test (PCOST) and
the Course Outcome Statements Test (COST) was 0.72. The correlation
coefficient for the standard of building functions in all related questions of the
PCOST and the COST was 0.74 and 0.72 respectively. The correlation coefficient
for the standard of linear, quadratic, and polynomial functions in all related
questions of the PCOST and the COST was 0.77 and 0.72 respectively. Finally,
the correlation coefficient between the marks allocated for the three standards in
the PCOST and the COST and the tests’ overall mark was 0.77 and 0.83

©2020 The author and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.

 244

respectively. The above correlation coefficients indicate a reasonable level of

correlation which indicates an acceptable level of validity.

6.3.7 Training
The teachers of the study sample were divided into four groups to be trained in
four of the training axes that were deemed necessary, namely teaching the
mathematical content; the electronic system; teaching methods; and evaluation
methods. Four experts were designated as trainers, with each expert responsible
for one of the training axes, and then assigned a group of teachers which they
trained in one of these axes. Each expert was then provided with the learning
outcomes and the training mechanisms found in the procedural guide under the
teacher domain. Finally, the scheduling of each group’s training was completed.
After the four-day training was over, each teacher was asked to train his
prospective students in how to use the electronic content. This training took
place in the first week of the following semester (the second semester 2018/2019
academic year) so that both the teachers and the students are fully prepared to
work with the teaching model.

7. Findings
Based on the method used, the study yielded both qualitative and quantitative
results which are presented in Tables 3-10 below and discussed in detail.

7.1 Qualitative Results

Tables 3-8 below represent the responses of the experts to the open-ended
questions designed to create the inputs, processes, and outputs for each of the
model’s domains. Table 9, on the other hand, shows the experts’ responses to the
most suitable order of the model’s domains. In total, fifty experts responded.

Table 3: Thematic Content of Experts’ Narratives on Designing the LOSA Model

within the Mathematical Content Domain
No. of
Category Subcategories
narratives
Input College algebra book No Subcategories 33(66%)
International standards of No Subcategories 47(94%)
polynomial functions content
Writing learning outcomes criteria No Subcategories 35(70%)
Course learning outcome No Subcategories 49(98%)
statements for polynomial
functions
Prerequisites of course outcome No Subcategories 44(88%)
statements for polynomial
functions
Process Organizations of course outcome Introduction 48(96%)
statements at lesson level Summary 37(74%)
Feedback 39(78%)
Organizations of Each course Prerequisites of Learning 38(76%)
outcome statements outcome
Learning Outcome Content 49(98%)
Class Activities(examples) 41(82%)
Class exercises 40(80%)

©2020 The author and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.

 245

Achievement feedback 42(84%)

Treatment of unachieved 46(92%)
Output New mathematical materials for No Subcategories 38(76%)
polynomial functions based on
Course outcome statements
Supported Electronic course on No Subcategories 31(62%)
blackboard
Domain Percentage 82%
Note. The percentage = (No. of narratives / 50)

Table 4: Thematic Content of Experts Narratives on Designing LOSA Model within

the Equipment Domain
No. of
Category Subcategories
narratives
Input Physical Needs Detect Physical Needs 50(100%)
Procedures of Preparing the No Subcategories 44(88%)
Physical Needs
Classroom No Subcategories 30(60%)
Computer lab No Subcategories 31(62%)
Process classroom setting Prepare classrooms to be 36(72%)
compatible with teaching
based on learning outcomes
computer lab setting Prepare computer labs to be 33(66%)
compatible with teaching
based on learning outcomes
Outputs Classrooms ready to use No Subcategories 50(100%)
computer labs ready to use No Subcategories 44(88%)
Domain Percentage 80%
Note. The percentage = (No. of narratives / 50)

Table 5: Thematic Content of Experts Narratives on Designing LOSA Model within

the Teaching Methods Domain
No. of
Category Subcategories
narratives
Input Characteristics should be No Subcategories 32(64%)
included in teaching methods
selected to teach based on course
outcome statements
Traditional Teaching No Subcategories 30(60%)
Teaching Using Groups No Subcategories 49(98%)
Teaching using computers No Subcategories 41(82%)
Process Teaching methods processing Teaching by grouping 37(74%)
according to learning outcomes in
each stage of the lesson inside the Teaching using computer 33(66%)
classroom: lesson beginning,
during the lesson, and at the end
of the lesson
Outputs Teaching by grouping according No Subcategories 49(98%)
to learning outcomes in

©2020 The author and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.

 246

polynomial functions

Teaching using computers No Subcategories 41(82%)

according to learning outcomes in
polynomial functions
Domain Percentage 78%
Note. The percentage = (No. of narratives / 50)

Table 6: Thematic Content of Experts Narratives on Designing LOSA Model within

the Evaluation Methods Domain
No. of
Category Subcategories
narratives
Input Characteristics should be included No Subcategories 41(82%)
in evaluation methods selected to
evaluate based on course outcome
statements
Initial Evaluation evaluate student in the 40(80%)
Prerequisites
Formative Evaluation evaluate student in each 48(96%)
Course outcome
statements
Summative evaluation evaluate the overall 50(100%)
achievement student after
learning all course
outcome statements
Process before the 33(66%)
Evaluation methods processing to teaching/learning process
determine the students’ capability during the 39(78%)
to achieve the learning outcomes teaching/learning process
after the teaching/learning 36(72%)
process
Outputs Prerequisites of Course outcome No Subcategories 38(76%)
statements test in polynomial
functions
Achievement report of course No Subcategories 49(98%)
outcome statements according to
observation
Course outcome statements test in No Subcategories 50(100%)
polynomial functions
Domain Percentage 85%
Note. The percentage = (No. of narratives / 50)

©2020 The author and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.

 247

Table 7: Thematic Content of Experts Narratives on Designing LOSA Model within

the Students Domain
No. of
Category Subcategories
narratives
Input choosing the right level of the students No Subcategories 42(84%)
to be fit with the input of mathematical
content domain
High school-level student s who will No Subcategories 48(96%)
take the College Algebra course
Process Identifying the training axes which will using the supporting 31(62%)
be given to the selected students electronic course
(ECLO SYSTEM)
Preparing the details of the (ECLO No Subcategories 31(62%)
SYSTEM) training Which Will be given to
the selected students
The mechanism for training students in No Subcategories 31(62%)
the supporting electronic course on
Blackboard
Outputs The supporting 36(72%)
Trained students in electronic course on
Blackboard
Domain Percentage 73%
Note. The percentage = (No. of narratives / 50)

Table 8: Thematic Content of Experts narratives on Designing LOSA Model within

the Teachers Domain
No. of
Category Subcategories
narratives
Input High school teacher level who will teach No Subcategories 48(96%)
college algebra course
choosing the teachers with the right No Subcategories 42(84%)
level of experience to fit the input of
mathematical content domain
Process Teaching material 38(76%)
Electronic course 30(60%)
based on learning
Mechanisms of training workshop to
outcomes in
train teachers on
polynomial functions
Teaching Methods 33(66%)
Evaluation Methods 48(96%)
Outputs Teaching material 38(76%)
using Electronic 30(60%)
course based on
Trained teacher in learning outcomes in
polynomial functions
Teaching Methods 33(66%)
Evaluation Methods 48(96%)
Domain Percentage 78%
Note. The percentage = (No. of narratives / 50)

©2020 The author and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.

 248

As shown in the tables above, the total number of responses was 2318 out of
2900 which means that the total percentage of responses was 80%, indicating the
validity of these themes to be constituents of a teaching model based on the
system approach. The domains of the model achieved significant percentages of
responses ranging 73-85 %, with the domain of evaluation methods achieving the
highest percentage while the student’s domain achieved the lowest percentage.

Table 9: The Responses to Ordering the LOSA Model Domains

No. of responses in each order (out of 50)

Domain
First Second Third Fourth Fifth Sixth

Mathematical
32 6 4 0 6 2
content

Teachers 5 6 4 6 4 25

Evaluation
6 5 1 24 2 12
Methods

Equipment 1 33 9 2 3 2

Student 1 0 4 12 31 2

Teaching methods 5 0 28 6 4 7

Note. Number of responses in each order (out of 50)

Table 9 above indicates that the mathematical content domain ranked first whereas
the equipment; the teaching methods; the evaluation methods; the students; and the
teachers came in second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth respectively.

7.2 Quantitative Results

Table 10 below shows the average for the responses of forty-three education
technology specialists to a questionnaire evaluating the electronic guide of the
teaching model. The eight-item, 0-10-rating questionnaire was created based on
the standards for evaluating electronic resources of Singh (2003).

Table 10: Means and Standard Deviation of Evaluator of Electronic Procedural Guide
for the LOSA Model

Dimension Mean Std. Deviation Variance

Purpose 7.98 1.83 3.36

Authority 7.85 1.23 1.52
Accuracy and Currency 8.14 0.73 0.54
Objectivity 8.43 1.11 1.22
Reliability 8.42 0.89 0.79

©2020 The author and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.

 249

Coverage 7.92 1.05 1.10

Format and Presentation 8.14 0.68 0.46

Special features 8.24 0.85 0.73

Overall 8.16 0.32 0.10

The results in Table 10 above show that the overall average of the responses to
evaluating the electronic guide was 8.16. The guide scored 7.85-8.43 in all
evaluation fields with the (authority) filed getting the highest score while the
(objectivity) filed scoring lowest. These scores corroborate the electronic
procedural guide’s suitability to be used.

8. Discussion
Characteristics of the LOSA Model: It is worth noting that the model is inclusive of
all elements of the learning/teaching process (Tan, 2017), throughout its six
domains, covering the pre-teaching, during teaching, and post-teaching stages.
In addition, the model consists of several systems that integrate and interact to
yield the outputs. On the one hand, there is an internal system of inputs
functioning within the overall system of the model. On the other hand, there is
an interactive relation between the constituents of each domain (inputs,
processes, and outputs) and between the domains themselves. Flexibility is
another trait of the model as it allows the improvement and modification of the
preliminary outputs in order to reach the targeted final outputs.

Responses to the Supporting Electronic Course on Blackboard: As for the designing of

the model, the responses of the experts were lowest when it came to the
supporting electronic course on Blackboard under the mathematical content, the
students, and the teacher’s domains, ranging from 60-62%. This was due to the
small number of information technology specialists within the study sample
compared to the other participants. This lower ranking of the electronic course
prevented it from being the main and alternative learning resource. Instead, it
was employed as a technological solution serving two purposes: offering
additional learning opportunities for the students who did not achieve the
learning outcome(s) in the classroom (Singh, 2003) as well as providing forums
on Blackboard for students to exchange knowledge whereby the students who
failed to achieve a certain outcome(s) can communicate with their outcome-
achieving classmates.

Responses to the Equipment Domain: In the equipment domain, responses to the

traditional classroom/lab as an input were at a low 60%. This is understandable
as it shows the experts’ conviction that the traditional classroom/lab is
unsuitable as Viji & Raja (2017) said, and has to be specially prepared, for
learning and teaching outcomes. After processing the classrooms/labs into
usable outputs, the responses were at a maximum 100%.

©2020 The author and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.

 250

Responses to the Teaching Methods Domain: The domain of the teaching methods had
the highest percentage of responses, 98%, in the field of ‘teaching using groups’,
whether as inputs or outputs. This fit with the believes of Gupta (2013) that
teaching outcomes based on the system approach depends greatly on students
themselves working together to exchange and bridge any gaps in knowledge.
On the other hand, in the teacher’s domain, the responses to the field of ‘teaching
methods training’ were lower at 66%. Seemingly contradictory, this is because
the responses related to teaching methods as processes and outputs were not
limited to ‘teaching using groups;’ rather, they also covered ‘traditional
teaching’ and ‘teaching using the electronic course,’ and because these two fields
had low responses, they affected the overall percentage.

Responses to Initial Evaluation: The lowest percentage of 66% was that of the
initial evaluation. This reflects the experts’ point of view that designing the
mathematical content with exercises on the prerequisites of each outcome is
almost sufficient enough to bridge any gaps in the prerequisites (Lallemand,
2018). However, the initial evaluation remains significant in assessing each
student’s knowledge of the prerequisites; it saves effort and enables the students
to help each other based on the outcome(s) they did or did not achieve (National
Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM, 2000).

Responses to the LOSA Model as a Whole Structure: After analyzing the responses
to the model as a whole structure with inputs, processes, and outputs, it can be
seen that the lowest responses were to the processes stage with 70-80 %. This can
be attributed to the numerous details involved in the processes as it is the stage
that handles the procedures. As a result, the responses were varying and
unfocused, and this was one of the main reasons that led the researcher to
design the model by identifying the procedural mechanisms and transforming
them into an electronic procedural guide that facilitates using the model in the
classroom.

Responses to the Evaluation of the Electronic Procedural Guide: The responses of the
education technology experts to the evaluative form designed by Singh (2003)
for the electronic procedural guide were very good because the guide was
already tested by information technology specialists whose feedback was
utilized in making the necessary modifications. Furthermore, the evaluators
thought that the guide was essential in making the model practical and user-
friendly.

9. Conclusion and Suggestions

This study provides a model for teaching the learning outcomes of polynomial
functions, consisting of six domains: the mathematical content; the equipment;
the teaching methods; the evaluation methods; the students; and the teachers. In
each domain, the inputs were processed to produce the required outputs
through a procedural method based on the system approach. In addition, the
study provides an electronic procedural guide that shows precisely how to use
each and every constituent of the model. It also provides the outputs of the
model which are its usable tools as a teaching model. These outputs are the

©2020 The author and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.

 251

learning outcomes and their prerequisites; the mathematical content of

polynomial functions; the supporting electronic content on Blackboard; the
initial, formative, and summative evaluation tools; the mechanisms for
preparing the equipment; the teaching methods; and the training methods that
qualify the students and teachers to work with the model. It is worth noting that
in the second part of this project, the researcher applied the model to a sample of
students to verify its effectiveness in helping the learners acquire the standards
for the mathematical content of polynomial functions according to NCTM (2000)

10. Recommendations
The researcher recommends the following:
1- Redesigning all units of the College Algebra course according to the model.
2- Expanding the model to be suitable for broader areas such as academic
programs and courses.
3-Conducting studies that seek creating mechanisms and standards for
classifying students according to their achievement of learning outcomes at all
levels: textbook unit, course, or academic program.

11. Limitations
Geographical Limitations: The University of Jordan, Middle East University, and
Amman Arab University according to the official approvals that were attained to
implement the study.

Time Limitations: the study was implemented during the 2018-2019 academic
year.

Content Limitations: the mathematical content chosen for the model was the
polynomial functions unit of the College Algebra course taught for high school-
level / pre-university students.

Conflict of Interest: No Conflict of interest has been declared by the author.

Acknowledgements: The author is grateful to the Middle East University,

Amman, Jordan for the financial support granted to cover the publication fee of
this research article.

References
Ackoff, R. L. (1971). Towards a system of systems concepts. Management science, 17(11),
661-671.
Adam, S. (2006). An introduction to learning outcomes: A consideration of the nature,
function and position of learning outcomes in the creation of the European
Higher Education Area. Article B. 2.3-1. EUA Bologna Handbook.
Alexandrov, N., & Sancho, M.-R. (2017). Learning outcomes based evaluation of HPC
professional training. Procedia Computer Science, 108, 2141-2150.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2017.05.135
Amalia, E., Surya, E., & Syahputra, E. (2017). The effectiveness of using problem based
learning (PBL) in mathematics problem solving ability for junior high school

©2020 The author and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.

 252

students. International Journal of Advance Research and Innovative Ideas in

Education, 3(2). http://doi.org/16.0415/IJARIIE-4659
Barkley, E. F., & Major, C. H. (2020). Student engagement techniques: A handbook for college
faculty: John Wiley & Sons.
Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives, handbook I: the cognitive
domain. New York: David McKay Co: Inc.
Clements, D. H., Fuson, K. C., & Sarama, J. (2017). The research-based balance in early
childhood mathematics: A response to Common Core criticisms. Early
Childhood Research Quarterly, 40, 150-162.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2017.03.005
Curto Prieto, M., Orcos Palma, L., Blázquez Tobías, P. J., & León, F. J. M. (2019). Student
assessment of the use of Kahoot in the learning process of science and
mathematics. Education Sciences, 9(1), 55.
http://doi.org/10.3390/educsci9010055
Darling-Hammond, L. (2017). Teacher education around the world: What can we learn
from international practice? European Journal of Teacher Education, 40(3), 291-309.
http://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2017.1315399
DuPlass, J. A. (2006). Middle and high school teaching: Methods, standards, and best practices.
Houghton Mifflin Company Boston.
Eviyanti, C. Y., Surya, E., Syahputra, E., & Simbolon, M. (2017). Improving the students’
mathematical problem solving ability by applying problem based learning
model in VII grade at SMPN 1 Banda Aceh Indonesia. International Journal of
Novel Research in Education and Learning, 4(2), 138-144.
Gudeva, L. K., Dimova, V., Daskalovska, N., & Trajkova, F. (2012). Designing descriptors
of learning outcomes for Higher Education qualification. Procedia-Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 46, 1306-1311. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.05.292
Gupta, S., & Gupta, A. (2013). The systems approach in education. International Journal of
Management, 1(1), 52-55.
Hasibuan, A. M., Saragih, S., & Amry, Z. (2018). Development of learning materials
based on realistic mathematics education to improve problem solving ability
and student learning independence. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics
Education, 14(1), 243-252. http://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/4000
Hofer, M., & Harris, J. (2019). Topics & Sequences in Experienced Teachers’ Instructional
Planning for Technology Integration. Research Highlights in Technology and
Teacher Education 2019, 35.
Isdale, K., Reddy, V., Juan, A., & Arends, F. (2018). TIMSS 2015 Grade 5 national report:
Understanding mathematics achievement amongst Grade 5 learners in South
Africa: Nurturing green shoots.
Kitchen, R., & Berk, S. (2016). Educational technology: An equity challenge to the
Common Core. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 47(1), 3-16.
http://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.47.1.0003
Kizilcec, R. F., Pérez-Sanagustín, M., & Maldonado, J. J. (2017). Self-regulated learning
strategies predict learner behavior and goal attainment in Massive Open Online
Courses. Computers & education, 104, 18-33.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.10.001
Korhonen, A. M., Ruhalahti, S., & Veermans, M. (2019). The online learning process and
scaffolding in student teachers’ personal learning environments. Education and
Information Technologies, 24(1), 755-779. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-018-9793-
4

©2020 The author and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.

 253

Lallemand, C. (2018). Conciliating scientific requirements and relevance to practice: why

is it such a dilemma for the development of UX design and evaluation methods?
UK: University of Nottingham.
Lamb, R. L., Annetta, L., Firestone, J., & Etopio, E. (2018). A meta-analysis with
examination of moderators of student cognition, affect, and learning outcomes
while using serious educational games, serious games, and simulations.
Computers in Human Behavior, 80, 158-167.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.10.040
Mat, S., Yassin, R. M., Ishak, N., Mohammad, N., & Pandaragan, S. L. (2012). Model of
problem-based learning using systems approach. Procedia-Social and Behavioral
Sciences, 60, 541-545. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.09.420
Murtonen, M., Gruber, H., & Lehtinen, E. (2017). The return of behaviourist
epistemology: A review of learning outcomes studies. Educational Research
Review, 22, 114-128. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2017.08.001
Naja, A. R. (2018). Analysis of students’ creative thinking level in problem solving based on
national council of teachers of mathematics. Paper presented at the Journal of
Physics: Conference Series.
Oudman, S., van de Pol, J., Bakker, A., Moerbeek, M., & van Gog, T. (2018). Effects of
different cue types on the accuracy of primary school teachers' judgments of
students' mathematical understanding. Teaching and Teacher Education, 76, 214-
226. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2018.02.007
Rodríguez, G., Pérez, J., Cueva, S., & Torres, R. (2017). A framework for improving web
accessibility and usability of Open Course Ware sites. Computers & education,
109, 197-215. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.02.013
Ross, J. G., Bruderle, E., & Meakim, C. (2015). Integration of deliberate practice and peer
mentoring to enhance students’ mastery and retention of essential skills. Journal
of Nursing Education. 54(3), 52-54. http://doi.org/10.3928/01484834-20150218-20
Rothaermel, F. T. (2016). Strategic management: concepts (Vol. 2). McGraw-Hill Education.
Sari, N., & Surya, E. (2017). Analysis effectiveness of using problem posing model in
mathematical learning. International Journal of Sciences: Basic and Applied Research
(IJSBAR), 33(3), 13-21.
Singh, S. (2003). Evaluation of electronic reference sources. DESIDOC Journal of Library &
Information Technology, 23(2).
Sinha, S. (2018). Fundamentals of Education. Lulu.com.
Stelmach, B., Adams, P., & Brandon, J. (2019). A Literature Synthesis: Optimum Learning
for All Students--Implementation of Alberta’s 2018 Professional Practice
Standards.
Tan, P. (2017). Advancing Inclusive Mathematics Education: Strategies and Resources for
Effective IEP Practices. International Journal of Whole Schooling, 13(3), 28-38.
Taylor, R. D., Oberle, E., Durlak, J. A., & Weissberg, R. P. (2017). Promoting positive
youth development through school‐based social and emotional learning
interventions: A meta‐analysis of follow‐up effects. Child development, 88(4),
1156-1171. http://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12864
Tractenberg, R. E., Lindvall, J. M., Attwood, T., & Via, A. (2020). Guidelines for
curriculum and course development in higher education and training.
http://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/7qeht
Viji, B., & Raja, B. W. D. (2017). Preparing Teachers for Multisensory Teaching Strategy
to Improve the Learning Outcomes of Students with Reading Disabilities. The
Journal, 58.

©2020 The author and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.

 254

Webb, S., Massey, D., Goggans, M., & Flajole, K. (2019). Thirty‐five years of the gradual
release of responsibility: scaffolding toward complex and responsive teaching.
The Reading Teacher, 73(1), 75-83. http://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1799
Wilson, J. (2020). Reflections on Mathematics Education Research: 1970-1982. Journal for
Research in Mathematics Education, 51(1), 3-11.
http://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.2019.0004

©2020 The author and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.