Designing a Contextual AI-Based Deep Learning Model Grounded in Melayu Deli Tradition to Improve Fifth Grade Elementary School Students' Creative Literary Literacy
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.37630/bijee.v4i2.5065Keywords:
contextual AI, creative literary literacy, deep learning, elementary education, Melayu Deli traditionAbstract
Creative literary literacy among Indonesian elementary school students remains low, particularly in the appreciation of local cultural texts, because literary instruction is rarely connected to the cultural heritage that children experience in daily life. This study therefore designed and tested a Contextual AI-Based Deep Learning (CAIDL) model grounded in Melayu Deli tradition to improve the creative literary literacy of fifth-grade students. Following the five-stage Plomp research and development model, the study involved seven expert validators, 12 students in a small-group trial, three teachers, and 60 fifth-grade students at SDN Medan Deli assigned to an experimental group (n = 30) and a control group (n = 30). Data were collected through expert validation sheets, practicality questionnaires, and a 24-item creative literary literacy test (Cronbach's α = .91). The CAIDL model was rated very valid (88.80%), very feasible (87.08%), and very practical (89.37%). On the posttest, the experimental group significantly outperformed the control group, t(58) = 8.31, p < .001, Cohen's d = 2.14, with a mean N-Gain of 0.582 (medium category); the largest indicator-level effects were found for creative fluency (d = 1.71) and symbolic interpretation (d = 1.68). These findings indicate that integrating Melayu Deli cultural context, Socratic AI scaffolding, and deep learning pedagogy strengthens both the appreciative and the creative dimensions of elementary students' literary literacy and offers a replicable model for culturally grounded literacy instruction.
References
Aiken, L. R. (1985). Three coefficients for analyzing the reliability and validity of ratings. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 45(1), 131–142. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164485451012
Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context: Update to the social psychology of creativity. Westview Press.
Beghetto, R. A. (2014). Creative mortification: An initial exploration. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 8(3), 266–276. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036618
Beghetto, R. A., & Kaufman, J. C. (2007). Toward a broader conception of creativity: A case for "mini-c" creativity. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 1(2), 73–79. https://doi.org/10.1037/1931-3896.1.2.73
Biggs, J. B. (1987). Student approaches to learning and studying. Australian Council for Educational Research.
Castles, A., Rastle, K., & Nation, K. (2018). Ending the reading wars: Reading acquisition from novice to expert. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 19(1), 5–51. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100618772271
Cheung, A. C. K., & Slavin, R. E. (2013). The effectiveness of educational technology applications for enhancing reading achievement in K–12 classrooms: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 9, 88–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2013.01.001
Chiu, T. K. F., Xia, Q., Zhou, X., Chai, C. S., & Cheng, M. (2024). Systematic literature review on opportunities, challenges, and future research recommendations of artificial intelligence in education. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 6, 100118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2023.100118
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Craft, A. (2003). The limits to creativity in education: Dilemmas for the educator. British Journal of Educational Studies, 51(2), 113–127. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8527.t01-1-00229
Crawford, M. L. (2001). Teaching contextually: Research, rationale, and techniques for improving student motivation and achievement in mathematics and science. CCI Publishing.
Cremin, T., & Chappell, K. (2021). Creative pedagogies: A systematic review. Research Papers in Education, 36(3), 299–331. https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2019.1677757
Cremin, T., Mottram, M., Collins, F., Powell, S., & Safford, K. (2014). Building communities of engaged readers: Reading for pleasure. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315772585
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Cropley, A. (2006). In praise of convergent thinking. Creativity Research Journal, 18(3), 391–404. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326934crj1803_13
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. Harper Collins.
Dubinsky, E. (1991). Reflective abstraction in advanced mathematical thinking. In D. Tall (Ed.), Advanced mathematical thinking (pp. 95–126). Kluwer Academic Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-306-47203-1_7
Fauzi, A., & Pradipta, R. F. (2018). Research methods and data analysis techniques in education articles published by Indonesian biology educational journals. JPBI (Jurnal Pendidikan Biologi Indonesia), 4(2), 123–134. https://doi.org/10.22219/jpbi.v4i2.5889
Fullan, M., & Langworthy, M. (2014). A rich seam: How new pedagogies find deep learning. Pearson.
Hake, R. R. (1998). Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics, 66(1), 64–74. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.18809
Holmes, W., & Tuomi, I. (2022). State of the art and practice in AI in education. European Journal of Education, 57(4), 542–570. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12533
Kasneci, E., Sessler, K., Küchemann, S., Bannert, M., Dementieva, D., Fischer, F., … Kasneci, G. (2023). ChatGPT for good? On opportunities and challenges of large language models for education. Learning and Individual Differences, 103, 102274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2023.102274
Kaufman, J. C., & Beghetto, R. A. (2009). Beyond big and little: The four C model of creativity. Review of General Psychology, 13(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013688
Kemendikbudristek. (2022). Kurikulum Merdeka: Kerangka dasar dan struktur kurikulum pendidikan dasar dan menengah [Merdeka Curriculum: Basic framework and structure of the primary and secondary education curriculum].
Lo, C. K. (2023). What is the impact of ChatGPT on education? A rapid review of the literature. Education Sciences, 13(4), 410. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13040410
Marton, F., & Säljö, R. (1976). On qualitative differences in learning: I. Outcome and process. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46(1), 4–11. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8279.1976.tb02980.x
Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Foy, P., & Hooper, M. (2017). PIRLS 2016 international results in reading. TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College.
OECD. (2023). PISA 2022 results (Volume I): The state of learning and equity in education. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/53f23881-en
Parmin, P., Sajidan, S., Ashadi, A., Sutikno, S., & Maretta, Y. A. (2016). Preparing prospective teachers in integrating science and local wisdom through practicing open inquiry. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 13(2), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.12973/tused.10163a
Parsons, S., Reid, A., & Belski, I. (2010). Engaging beginning readers in the formal study of literature through a play-based instructional approach. Reading Research Quarterly, 45(2), 156–179. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.45.2.2
Plomp, T. (2013). Educational design research: An introduction. In T. Plomp & N. Nieveen (Eds.), Educational design research, Part A: An introduction (pp. 10–51). SLO.
Plomp, T., & Nieveen, N. (Eds.). (2013). Educational design research, Part B: Illustrative cases. SLO.
Pratiwi, I., & Mahdiansyah. (2017). The impact of school environment on Indonesian student literacy achievement: Analysis of PISA 2015 data. Jurnal Penelitian dan Evaluasi Pendidikan, 21(2), 175–187. https://doi.org/10.21831/pep.v21i2.13851
Purnamasari, I., & Setiawan, A. (2017). Local wisdom-based learning material development in elementary schools. Journal of Education and Learning (EduLearn), 11(2), 199–207. https://doi.org/10.11591/edulearn.v11i2.5829
Rahmawati, Y., & Ridwan, A. (2017). Empowering students’ chemistry learning: The integration of ethnochemistry in culturally responsive teaching. Bulgarian Journal of Science and Education Policy, 11(2), 246–262. https://doi.org/10.36681/tused.2020.30
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2020). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation from a self-determination theory perspective: Definitions, theory, practices, and future directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 61, 101860. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101860
Sawilowsky, S. S. (2009). New effect size rules of thumb. Journal of Modern Applied Statistical Methods, 8(2), 597–599. https://doi.org/10.22237/jmasm/1257035100
Sawyer, R. K. (2012). Explaining creativity: The science of human innovation (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Houghton Mifflin.
Sinar, T. L. (2011). Sejarah Medan tempo doeloe [The history of old Medan] (10th ed.). Lembaga Penelitian dan Pengembangan Seni Budaya Melayu.
Sugiyono. (2019). Metode penelitian kuantitatif, kualitatif, dan R&D [Quantitative, qualitative, and R&D research methods] (26th ed.). Alfabeta.
Suryani, N., Sudiyanto, S., & Hartati, S. (2018). Local wisdom-based teaching materials and the effectiveness in improving students’ critical thinking. Cakrawala Pendidikan, 37(3), 411–423. https://doi.org/10.21831/cp.v38i3.21097
Sweller, J., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. (2019). Cognitive architecture and instructional design: 20 years later. Educational Psychology Review, 31(2), 261–292. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09465-5
Tlili, A., Shehata, B., Adarkwah, M. A., Bozkurt, A., Hickey, D. T., Huang, R., & Agyemang, B. (2023). What if the devil is my guardian angel: ChatGPT as a case study of using chatbots in education. Smart Learning Environments, 10(1), 15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-023-00237-x
Toivanen, T., Halkilahti, L., & Ruismäki, H. (2013). Creative pedagogy — Supporting children’s creativity through drama. The European Journal of Social & Behavioural Sciences, 7(4), 1168–1179. https://doi.org/10.15405/ejsbs.97
Vansteenkiste, M., Sierens, E., Soenens, B., Luyckx, K., & Lens, W. (2009). Motivational profiles from a self-determination perspective: The quality of motivation matters. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(3), 671–688. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015083
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
Wahyudin, D., Subkhan, E., Malik, A., Hakam, K. A., Sutarsih, C., Rusman, R., … Dewi, L. (2023). Curriculum reform in Indonesia: Moving from an era of competence to character education. Cakrawala Pendidikan, 42(3), 599–613. https://doi.org/10.21831/cp.v42i3.55326
Webb, N. M., Franke, M. L., Ing, M., Turrou, A. C., Johnson, N. C., & Zimmerman, J. (2019). Teacher practices that promote productive dialogue and learning in mathematics classrooms. International Journal of Educational Research, 97, 176–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2017.07.009
Yan, L., Sha, L., Zhao, L., Li, Y., Martinez-Maldonado, R., Chen, G., … Gašević, D. (2024). Practical and ethical challenges of large language models in education: A systematic scoping review. British Journal of Educational Technology, 55(1), 90–112. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13370
Zulaiha, S., Mulyono, H., & Ambarwati, E. K. (2020). Exploring junior high school EFL teachers’ training needs of assessment literacy. Cogent Education, 7(1), 1772943. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2020.1772943
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Dewi Sartika Panggabean, Yusi Tri Utari Panggabean, Zulvia Misykah, Perti Wahyuni Halawa, Anisa Ramadhani, Yuli Sutoto Nugroho
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
- Seluruh materi yang terdapat dalam situs ini dilindungi oleh undang-undang. Dilarang mengutip sebagian atau seluruh isi situs web ini untuk keperluan komersil tanpa persetujuan dewan penyunting jurnal ini.
- Apabila anda menemukan satu atau beberapa artikel yang terdapat dalam Bima Journal of Elementary Education yang melanggar atau berpotensi melanggar hak cipta yang anda miliki, silahkan laporkan kepada kami, melalui email pada Principle Contact.
- Aspek legal formal terhadap akses setiap informasi dan artikel yang tercantum dalam situs jurnal ini mengacu pada ketentuan lisensi Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).
- Semua Informasi yang terdapat di Bima Journal of Elementary Education bersifat akademik. Bima Journal of Elementary Education tidak bertanggung jawab terhadap kerugian yang terjadi karana penyalah gunaan informasi dari situs ini.
