Combining Active Learning Strategies: Performances and Experiences of Grade School Filipino Students
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.47134/ijsl.v2i1.85Keywords:
Predict-Observe-Explain, Computer Simulation, Active Learning ApproachAbstract
This study combined computer simulation and predict-observe-explain as a new strategy known as Computer Simulation Supported Predict-Observe-Explain (CSSPOE) to explore other ways to facilitate the teaching and learning in physics. This strategy was tested in determining the conceptual understanding and scientific reasoning among grade school Filipino students. A quasi-experimental method was used to gather quantitative data from 38 participants then a case study was used to acquire information from the students. After the CSSPOE intervention, post-test results showed that students had positive conceptual changes, and this increase was significant. The interview data showed that participants pointed out the affordances of CSSPOE, such as visualization, autonomy, recognition of alternative conceptions, and consequently accommodating the scientific notions, and noticing the departure of the strategy from the usual lecture method. The recommendation is to adapt CSSPOE in the K to 12 science curriculum or even in college Physics classes. Physics teachers should strive to utilize constructivist and active learning approaches like CSSPOE.
Downloads
References
Acido, M.B. (2010). High school students' reasoning skills and their study habits and attitude towards learning. Retrieved from http://journals.upd.edu.ph/index.php/ali/%20article/viewFile/1769/1685.
Adegoke, B. A., & Chukwunenye, N. (2013). Improving students' learning outcomes in practical physics, which is better? Computer simulated experiment or hands-on experiment? Journal of Research & Method in Education, 2(6), 18-26.
Adodo, S. O., & Gbore, L. O. (2012). Prediction of attitude and interest of science students of different abilities on their academic performance in basic science. International Journal of Psychology and Counseling, 4(6), 68-72.
Akdeniz, A. (2003). The implementation of a new secondary physics curriculum in Turkey: An exploration of teaching activities (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Southampton, UK.
Akpan, J. & Beard, L. (2016). Using constructivist teaching strategies to enhance academic outcomes of students with special needs. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 4(2), 392-398.
Akpan, J. (2001). Which comes first: computer simulation of dissection or a traditional laboratory practical method of dissection. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 6(4), 68-85.
Alarcon, M. C. (2007). Active learning in physics in developing countries (slides 3-7). Retrieved from http://portal.unesco.org/science/en/files/4093/10964472715AAPT-_Active_Learning_in_Physics_PDF.pdf/AAPT%2BActive%2BLearning%2Bin%2BPhysics_PDF.pdf.
Alimisis, D. (2007). Teacher education to promote constructivist use of ICT: Study of a logo-based project. Retrieved from http://www.di.unito.it/~barbara/MicRobot/AttiEuroLogo2007/proceedings/PAlimisis2.pdf.
Ashoorion, V., Liaghatdar, M.J., & Adibi, P. (2012). What variables can influence clinical reasoning? Journal of Research in Medical Sciences, 17(12), 1170-1175.
Asiksoy, G. & Hursen, C. (2015). The effect of simulation methods in teaching physics on students' academic success. Retrieved from http://sproc.org/ojs/index.php/wjet/article/view/26.
Ayvac?, ?.H. (2013). Investigating the effectiveness of predict-observe-explain strategy on teaching photo electricity topic. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 12(5), 548-564.
Baxter, S. (2005). What is scientifically based research? A guide for teachers. Retrieved from https://lincs.ed.gov/publications/html/science/stanovich.html.
Bilash, O. (2009). Lesson sequencing. Retrieved from https://sites.educ.ualberta.ca/staff/olenka.bilash/Best%20of%20Bilash/lesson%20sequencing.html.
Birks, M. & Mills, J. (2014). Grounded theory: A practical guide. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Blazar, D. & Kraft, M. (2016). Teacher and teaching effects on students' attitudes and behaviors. Education Evaluation Policy Analysis, 39(1), 146-170.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77-101.
Bruner, J. (1960). The process of education. Retrieved from http://edci770.pbworks.com/w/file/fetch/45494576/Bruner_Processes_of_Education.pdf.
Caday, S.P. (2004). Effectiveness of computer-simulated experiments (CSE) in teaching high school physics. Retrieved from http://www.fit-ed.org/ictcongress/paper/fullpapers/caday.pdf.
Caleon, I., & Subramaniam, R. (2010). Development and application of a three-tier diagnostic test to assess secondary students' understanding of waves. International Journal of Science Education, 32(7), 939-961. DOI: 10.1080/09500690902890130.
Cepni, S., Ozsevgec, T., & Cerrah, L. (2004). Turkish middle school students' cognitive development levels in science. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 5(1), 269-291.
Chang, K.E., Chen, Y.L., Lin, H.Y., & Sung, Y.T. (2008). Effects of learning support in simulation-based physics learning. Computers & Education, 51, 1486-1498.
Chang, W. (2005). Impact of constructivist teaching on students' beliefs about teaching and learning in introductory physics. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 5(1), 95-109.
Chiappetta, E.L. (1976). A review of Piagetian studies relevant to science instruction at the secondary and college level. Science Education, 60, 253-261.
Corpuz, B. & Salandanan, G. (2015). Principles of teaching (4th ed.). Manila, Philippines: Lorimar Publishing, Inc.
Cox, M. (2000). Information and communications technologies: Their role and value for science education. In M. Monk & J. Osborne (Eds.), Good practice in science teaching – what research has to say, (pp. 69-78). Buckingham, England: Open University Press.
Desbien, D., Hengesbach, J., Maloney, D., & O'Kuma, T. (2005). Instructional strategies in introductory physics (ISIP) workshop at Estrella Mountain Community College, Avondale, AZ. Retrieved from http://www.physicsworkshops.org/modeling.htm.
Dowd, J., Araujo, I., & Mazur, E. (2015). Making sense of confusion: Relating performance, confidence, and self-efficacy to expressions of confusion in introductory physics class. Physics Education Research, 11, 1-10.
Duke, B., Harper, G., & Johnston, M. (2013). Constructivism as a digital age learning theory. The International HETL Review, 4(2), 4-13.
Gaigher, E., Rogan, J.M. & Braun, M.W.H. (2007). Exploring the development of conceptual understanding through structured problem?solving in physics. International Journal of Science Education, 27(9), 1089-1110.
Gerber, B.L., Cavallo, A.M.L., & Marek, E.A. (2001). Relationship among informal learning environments, teaching procedures, and scientific reasoning abilities. International Journal of Science Education, 23(5), 535-549.
Giancarlo, C.A., & Facione, P.A. (2001). A look across four years at the disposition toward critical thinking among undergraduate students. Journal of General Education, 50(1), 29-55.
Gibson, J.J. (1977). The theory of affordances. In R. Shaw & J. Bransford (Eds.). Perceiving, acting, and knowing: Toward an ecological psychology (pp. 67-82). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Green, J.L., Camilli, G., Elmore, P.B. (2006). Handbook of complementary methods in educational research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Guido, R.M. (2013). Attitude and motivation towards learning physics. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ryan_Manuel_Guido/publication/305093419_Attitude_and_Motivation_towards_Learning_Physics/links/5781c6b008ae69ab88264559.pdf.
Hammond, D. (1997). Doing what matters most: Investing in quality teaching. New York, NY: National Commission on Teaching & America's Future.
Hazari, Z., Sonnert, G., Sadler, M., & Shanahan, C. (2010). Connecting high school physics experiences, outcome expectations, physics identity, and physics career choice: A gender study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47, 978-1003. doi:10.1002/tea.20363.
Hidi, S. & Harackiewicz, J.M. (2000). Motivating the academically unmotivated: A critical issue for the 21st century. Review of Educational Research, 70, 151-179.
Hilario, J. (2015). Use of Predict-Observe-Explain-Explore (POEE) as a new teaching strategy in a general chemistry laboratory. Retrieved from http://www.ijern.com/journal/2015/February-2015/04.pdf.
Jimoyiannis, A. & Komis, V. (2001). Computer simulations in teaching and learning physics: A case study concerning students' understanding of trajectory motion. Computers & Education, 36(2), 183-204.
Jong, T. & Joolingen, W. (1998). Scientific discovery learning with computer simulations of conceptual domains. Retrieved from http://tecfa.unige.ch/tecfa/teaching/aei/papiers/deJong.pdf.
Karamustafao?lu, S. & Mamlok, R. (2015). Understanding electrochemistry concepts using the predict-observe-explain strategy. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 11(5), 923-936.
Kearney, M. (2004). Classroom use of multimedia-supported predict–observe–explain tasks in a social constructivist learning environment. Research in Science Education, 34(4), 427-453. doi:10.1007/s11165-004-8795-y.
Kranjc, T. (2010). Simulations as a compliment and a motivation element in the teaching of physics. Metodicki Obzori, 12(2), 175-187.
Küçüközer, H. (2008). The effects of 3D computer modeling on conceptual change about seasons and phases of the moon. Journal of Physics Education, 43(6), 632-636. DOI: 0031-9120-43-6-011.
Lawson, A. (2000). Development and validation of the classroom test of formal reasoning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 15(1), 11-24.
Lefa, B. (2014). The Piaget theory of cognitive development: An educational implications. Educational Psychology, 1(1), 1-5.
Mabesa, E. Pacala, F.A.A, Eredia, N., & Daguinod, J.C.(2018). Scientific reasoning abilities and physics performance of high school students in a state university. International Journal of Multidisciplinary Approach & Studies, 5(5), 96-104.
Mills, K. & Kim, H. (2007). Teaching problem solving: Let students get 'stuck' and 'unstuck.' Retrieved from https://www.brookings.edu/blog/education-plus-development/2017/10/31/teaching-problem-solving-let-students-get-stuck-and-unstuck/.
Mirana, V. (2016). Effects of computer simulations and constructivist approaches on students' epistemological beliefs, motivation, and conceptual understanding of physics. Paper presented at the International Conference on Research in Social Sciences, Humanities, and Education, Cebu, Philippines.
Naylor, S. & Keogh, B. (1999). Constructivism in the Classroom: Theory into practice. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 10(2), 93-106.
Odo, C.R. & Odo, I. (2016). Effect of simulation on students' interest in the programming language in secondary schools in Enugu Education Zone of Nigeria. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 6(6), 477-480.
Pacala, FAA (2018). Development and validation of three-tier multiple-choice test for conceptual understanding in Momentum and Collision. International Journal of Multidisciplinary Approach & Studies, 5(2), 1-7.
Palmer, D. (2005). A motivational view of constructivist informed teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 27(15), 1853-1881.
Pesman, H. & Eryilmaz, A. (2010). Development of a three-tier test to assess misconceptions about simple and electric circuits. Journal of Educational Research, 103, 208-222.
Phanphech, P. & Tanitteerapan, T. (2017). Development of a model to promote, predict, observe, explain strategies for teaching about electrical circuits. Retrieved from https://papers.iafor.org/submission37170/.
Podolefsky, N.S., Perkins, K.K., & Adams, W. K. (2010). Computer simulations to classrooms: Tools for change. Retrieved from https://www.colorado.edu/physics/EducationIssues/papers/Podolefsky_etal/Podolefsky_invited_PERC_09_scales_revised.pdf.
Renner, J.W. & Stafford, D.G. (1972). Teaching science in secondary school. Harper and Row. New York: Harper and Row.
Rutherford, G. (2011). A model of assimilation and accommodation in the cognitive & cultural realms. Retrieved from http://dynapsyc.org/2011/Rutherford_2011.pdf.
Sales, P.A., Avilla, R., & Camacho, V. M. (2015). Predict-Explain-Observe-Explain (PEOE) approach: Tool in relating metacognition to achievement in chemistry. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 19(7), 1-21.
Saloma, C. (2010, March 18). Content learning and scientific reasoning. Philippine Star. Retrieved from https://www.philstar.com/business/science-and-environment/2010/03/18/558538/business.
Sansgiry, S., Bhosle, M., & Sai, K. (2011). Factors affecting study habits. Retrieved from http://www.studymode.com/essays/Factors-Affecting-Study-Habits-613790.html.
Swan, M. (2011). Improving reasoning: Analyzing alternative approaches. Retrieved from https://nrich.maths.org/7812.
Tanner, H. & Jones, S. (2000). Using ICT to support interactive teaching and learning on a secondary mathematics PGCE course. Paper presented at the 2000 Annual Conference of the Australian Association for Research in Education, Sydney. Retrieved from http://www.aare. edu.au/00pap/tan00226.
Tanner, K. (2012). Promoting student metacognition. CBE Life Science Education, 11(2), 113-120. Retrieved from DOI: 10.1187/cbe.12-03-0033.
Tomshaw, S.G (2006) An investigation of the use of microcomputer-based laboratory simulations in promoting conceptual understanding in secondary physics instruction. (Unpublished doctorate thesis). Drexel University, USA.
Weaver, J. (2013). The impact of video games on student GPA, study habits, and time management skills: What's the big deal? Issues in Information System, 14(1), 122-128.
Zimmer, H.D. (2008). Visual and spatial working memory: From boxes to networks. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 32, 1373-1395.
Zimmerman, C. (2005). The development of scientific reasoning skills: What psychologists contribute to an understanding of elementary science learning? Retrieved from http://sites.nationalacademies.org/cs/groups/ webpage/dbasse_080105.pdf.
