THE IMPACT OF INTERACTIVE SCIENCE SHOWS ON STUDENT’S LEARNING ACHIEVEMENT ON FIRE AND PRESSURE SCIENCE CONCEPT FOR 9 GRADER IN BRUNEI

Informal science learning (ISL) has shown a considerable amount of recognition to the enrichment of science learning. The purpose of this study is to investigate one form of ISL that is on-stage shows also known as science shows to enhance students’ achievement on fire and pressure science concepts and to investigate whether science shows could engage students in science learning. Two science shows were conducted in this study with demonstration characteristics identified as CHAMP merged with the science content development framework for science shows practised by OGDC. In the attempt to identify whether the students learning achievement on fire and pressure science concept were enhanced, experimental design research consisting of a quantitative approach using pretest and posttest achievement tests were utilized. It is followed by BERI protocol to measure the behavioral engagement of students on science show and qualitative approach using structured interviews to elicit students’ insights on the shows. Pretest and posttest scores of the participating students were obtained and analyzed using the Wilcoxon Signed Ranked test. The test revealed a statistically significant increase in scores following participation in the pressure and fire shows, Z= -3.562, p <.001, with a large effect size (r = 0.611) and Z= -3.624, p <.001, with a large effect size (r = 0.622) respectively. Structured interview transcripts (transcribed verbatim) were obtained from six selected students that participated in the experiment whereby two themes were derived, namely; knowledge gained by students and delivery of science show. The statistical and qualitative findings from the study indicated promising evidence that science shows do support students’ achievement on fire and pressure concepts as well as engaging them in learning science. © 2020 Science Education Study Program FMIPA UNNES Semarang


INTRODUCTION
Science learning takes place not only at school but also outside school such as at homes, in the museums and the science centres. There is a strong emphasis now on exploring informal science learning in promoting students' learning in science. Informal science learning has the potential in increasing students' interest, motivation and engagement in science (Lin & Schunn, 2016;Riedinger et al., 2011). Science show as one of the informal science learning can be used in in-creasing students' engagement in science. Engagement is widely researched in education (Burch et al., 2015;Lane & Harris, 2015;Sinatra et al., 2015). Engagement is proven to help in the contribution of favourable learning outcomes while in school and out of school (Sinatra et al., 2015). McDonald (2016) stated that that factors that influence students' engagement in STEM education include effective pedagogical practices to increase student interest and motivation, which leads to the development of 21st-century competencies and improve student achievement. Educators at science centres are typically called as 'explainer, interpreter, pilot, educator, presenter, interactor, host', although their roles are similar at different locations, however different science centres may define their roles differently (Kamolpattana et al., 2015). Educators at science centres are ensured to practice active learning approach in order to enhance engagement and interaction with the visitors, especially students. It is believed that active learning significantly improves students critical thinking skills and would trigger more interest and eagerness in learning (Hadibarata & Rubiyatno, 2019).
Science centres have been known to be established places for public learning over the past few decades. Science centres offer diverse programming and are usually offered to visitors of all ages (Falk et al., 2016). Science centres are often made accessible for people in innovative, engaging and enjoyable ways, hence carrying a critical role in supporting science learning.
Science centres and museums have grown to be relevant in the society in enriching science concepts covered in a classroom and engaging those who are no longer part of the education system. A study by the UK Association for Science and Discovery Centres (2011) reported that 25% of 3666 first-year university students said that science centres and museums were 'important or very important' in their decision to take STEM courses. Falk et al. (2016) have identified that individuals who are exposed to science centres had a significantly higher understanding, interest and curiosity, participation in free-choice leisure activities, and identity relative to science and technology than did individuals who did not.
This study relied on research that purports to explain the tools used by science centres to communicate science called science shows. Research on science shows indicated that science shows performed outside schools are conducted as a means to entertain audiences about science. When science shows are conducted in the science centres, the target audience is always on young children (Roche et al., 2016). Research studies such as those conducted by Peleg (2011) and Kerby et al. (2010) showed positive outcomes on primary school children's science learning and engagement. There is a need to conduct science shows not only focus on young children but also on secondary school students to ensure this group of students sustain their interest in pursuing science.
During the execution of science shows the science show presenter is tasked not only to deliver the science content effectively but also to ensure that the delivery of science can stimulate interest and prolonged participation of audience groups (Watermeyer, 2013). This active participation reflects the success of a science show. Watermeyer (2013) states that active participation also demands that the audience are kept inquisitive, engaged and involved. The researchers suggest that the learning theory that underpins this tool is the sociocultural theory. The critical assumption of sociocultural theory is that all higher-level human development is socially mediated (Lamb & Wedell, 2013). Social mediation and cognitive development are associated with the zone of proximal development (ZPD). Vygotsky (1978) defines the ZPD as 'the distance between actual developmental level as determined by independent problem solving and the level of potential development as determined through problemsolving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers. Learners do not learn in isolation; students or individuals learning is enhanced with the existence of a more knowledgeable other (MKO). Communication can help student's inner and egocentric speech and eventually personal cognitive activities. Lamb & Wedell (2013) emphasized that learning awakens a variety of internal development processes that can operate only when the child is in interaction with people in his environment and cooperation with his peers and these processes are internalized, they become part of the child's independent development achievement. A science show performer is the students' access to a more knowledgeable other. The presenters carry a persona at which students would be able to feel comfortable in interacting with them.
Numerous studies have also been focused on correlating sociocultural theory with the enhancement of teaching and learning. It includes studies trying to understand how tools can facilitate the enactment of a ZPD (Abtahi, 2018), the role of the teacher in developing learner autonomy that draws on two constructs, ZPD and imitation (Feryok, 2013) and classroom as a social plane for teachers to communicate science to students by drawing on the work and views of Vygotsky (Roslan, 2014).
This study will attempt the gap in the current research on the potential of using science shows in promoting secondary science students' knowledge and engagement in science learning. With the science show presenters as a more knowledgeable other and the type of interaction implemented during the execution of a science show, students attending the shows should be able to internalize the information learnt during a show and contributed to cognitive development amongst the students. Also, this is the first study that attempted to find out students' engagement on science shows using the BERI protocol (an instrument to measure behavioural engagement in the classroom).

Purpose of the Study
This study constitutes findings from a study conducted at a science centre called the Oil and Gas Discovery Centre (OGDC) in Brunei. The study focuses on finding the impact of conducting science shows for their student visitors of year nine (secondary science students age between 15-16 years old). As mentioned earlier, previous research conducted on science centres is often focussed on young children rather than this group of secondary school students. The motivation behind this study was the evident positive reactions that the researchers can see as students watch, participate or engage in a science show. From the observations made, the researcher decided to investigate further the impact that a science show has on students' understanding of science concept delivered and their engagement in learning those concepts. In this study, two science topics were chosen, the fire show and the pressure show. These two topics were chosen due to the notoriety of these topics being challenging for students to understand.
It has driven the researcher to develop two research questions, namely (1) do science shows enhance students' learning achievement on fire and pressure science concepts? (2) do science shows engage students in learning science?

Informal Science Learning in Promoting Students' Engagement
According to a review of informal science learning carried out by the Wellcome Trust in 2012 (Triyarat, 2017), informal science learning is non-compulsory or free-choice learning which takes place outside of the formal curriculum. However, informal science learning can reinforce formal education. The informal science learning can be referred to activities that occur outside of the school setting, not explicitly deployed for school use. It may include activities in the media (TV, radio, and film) in designed settings such as science centres and museums, zoos and aquariums, botanical gardens and nature centres, cyberlearning and gaming, youth community and out of school programs (Alabdulkareem, 2015;Stocklmayer et al., 2010) The informal experiences are also recognized as complementing and extending learning opportunities for young people beyond those available in school (Reiss et al., 2016;Russell et al., 2013). Informal science learning has been increasing in popularity as it allows a better understanding of scientific and natural phenomena as well as better retention as it engages the learner in personal experience (Battrawi & Muhtaseb, 2012).
Informal science learning is often divided into four activities in an informal setting, which include shows on stage, experiments or laboratories, hands-on exhibits and games (Triyarat, 2017). The focus of this study is the shows on stage which is also called science shows. Science show is one form of science communication that falls in the informal science learning (ISL) group where it uses performance inclusive of elements such as dramatic gestures, actions and demonstrations in order to engage with the audience; it is sometimes referred to as science theatre or lecture demonstrations (Walker, 2012).

Understanding Science Shows
Science shows started in the late 17th century at the Royal Society in London, whereby public lectures on Newtonian mechanics were delivered by John Keill (Taylor, 1988). More work on science shows was emphasized during the 19th Century of Sir Humphry Davy, and his successor at the Royal Institution, Michael Faraday. Science show presenters, also known as science communicators at different science centres, have a similar role to that of teachers with additional characters, such as the need to connect with students or audience, the use of demonstrations, the desire to motivate and most importantly to engage and enhanced students understanding. They are encouraged to interact with the student audience by frequently asking provoking questions during the shows as questioning may help in enhancing students' thinking and their understanding of a particular science concept (Roslan et al., 2018). By having the students answering to the questions of the science communicator it provides a twoway communication whereby at every attempt to answer a question asked during a show, science communicator can give immediate feedback to every response received. Feedback process provides students with opportunities to respond to the feedback content and engage in constructive dialogue with the educator, in this case, the science communicator (Abdurrahman et al., 2018).
The pedagogical approaches implemented by educators play a significant role in students' motivation in STEM engagement (Mcdonald, 2016). Science show is about communicating while showing. A science show cannot teach unless the science communicator can hold the attention of the audience; therefore, to be effective, it must also be entertaining (Kerby et al., 2010). In the views of Watermeyer (2013) science show is a series of interactions whereby it is not evident to the learner as learning or focused on the production of learning outcomes. However, it is a lear-ning process where learning is tactic and positive learning outcomes are unexpected, and the learner is not interrogated for the extent of his/her learning. Science shows aim to stimulate participants' interest in science and technology through emphasizing their importance, ensuring that the scientific phenomena are linked to everyday life, and experiments presented on stage are to excite and amaze the audience.

Science Show Demo Categories
Sadler (2017) recommended several demo categories that can be implemented in the delivery of a science show, as there is evidence that suggests different types of audience respond to different categories. These demo categories are curiosity, human, mechanics, analogy and phenomena (CHAMP). Human demo category uses volunteers to enhance audience interaction. Analogy demo category uses visual aids in order to represent something that is usually invisible to make the audience better understand. In contrast, the mechanics and phenomena demo category involve science application in real-life things, and a chance to see a scientific phenomenon happening to live that may make use of equipment not readily available. These demo categories were implemented during the execution of the science shows for this study. Another characteristic that makes a science show unique is the fact that they are often conducted by science communicators of various backgrounds, containing content which is mostly real-life application however interlinking with the school syllabus. Most shows would make use of self-made materials and demonstration items, which range from highly flammable materials to materials which can be easily found in the kitchen. The rationale behind the meticulous approach to communicating science in a science show is to ensure the emotional connection and engagement between the science communicator and the student audience.
The shows were developed under the framework developed by the centre itself that covers how the science is delivered in a science show to supplement the CHAMP demo categories. This framework aims to ensure that the science concept delivered in science shows would be well received by students experiencing the shows. The framework utilized in the science shows delivered by OGDC is, as stated in table 1 below.

Action Description
Short and simple The science explanations are made simple. The role of the science communicator is to communicate clearly and not communicate lots.
Step by step The science concepts are delivered in a stepwise logical way. New information is added to what the science communicator has already explained or what people already know.
Adding complexity Complexity is added following the audience's age group. The younger the audience, the simpler the science is made.
Reiterating key ideas Key ideas or science concepts in the shows are repeated regularly and at different angles in the demo.

Effective questioning
Reiterating key ideas above can be achieved through effective questioning, and this usually involves guiding questions.
Using analogies Analogies can be used to make an understanding of complicated terms or concepts easier.

Body Gestures
Body gestures can be utilized as visuals to explain the scientific concept that cannot be seen in demos (e.g. Particles getting squashed due to high pressure).
The combination of the two frameworks was predicted to be able to enhance the delivery of the science shows at the centre. These frameworks did not only consider how the demos were delivered, but how the science content was built. It gave a holistic approach to how science shows were developed at OGDC. The comprehensive approach aimed to be able to enhance students' understanding of the scientific concept delivered in the shows and ensuring that the students were fully engaged.

The Role of Engagement in Learning Science
Consistent engagement can lead to longterm involvement in schooling and is regarded as the key to address educational problems such as low achievement and increasing dropout rates (Sinatra et al., 2015). Learning science has been a significant challenge for students; science is perceived to be difficult and is minimally engaged in learning it (Ateh & Charpentier, 2014). Student engagement is enabled or supported by multiple factors (Godec et al., 2018). External factors include the nature of family and peer support (Bempechat & Shernoff, 2012) and the role of their educators and their teaching approach to interacting with students (Pianta et al., 2012;Roorda et al., 2011). According to Godec et al. (2018), understanding the importance of the roles played by the multiple factors are crucial as student engagement is a dynamic and cyclical process. It was implied that positive engagement experiences are likely to shape a learner's dispositions toward further engagement. Lawson & Lawson (2013) stated that negative engagement experiences or a lack of opportunities to engage altogether, on the other hand, are likely to have the opposite effect and deter students from engaging in the future.

METHODS
In order to achieve the solution to the research question one, an experimental design approach was conducted whereby the researcher applied the pre and posttest design. Creswell (2002) states that a pretest provides a measure on some attributes or characteristics that will be assessed for participants in an experiment before they receive treatment. Posttest is a measure on attributes or characteristic will be assessed for participants in an experiment after treatment. Whereas the solution for research question two was determined by conducting an observation tool called the BERI protocol followed by a student interview.

Participants of the Study
The participants of the study consisted of 17 students altogether, of which 10 of them were male students of year nine at a government school in the Belait District (one of the four districts in Brunei). Table 2 below contains the descriptive statistics of participating students. Majority of the students has Malay (the national language of Brunei) as their first language with mixed abilities. However, students in Brunei learn most of their significant subjects such as Math and Science in English. In this study, science shows were conducted in English. For this study, the researchers adhered to the process required before conducting the experiments on the students. Permission was first obtained from the Department of Schools, Ministry of Education. It is followed by a discussion with the principal of the participating school. The researchers provided the principal of the participating school detailed description of the procedure that took place in the study. It was so that the principal and teacher in charge would have full disclosure of the potential risk to the students and sites in the study (Creswell, 2002). Participants were ensured that pseudonyms were assigned to individuals and school names. Detailed program and duration of the time the students would spend on science shows were made clear with the school simultaneously, all test questions and interview questions were shared so that the principal and teacher in charge were aware of what the questions were and the sensitivity of the interview questions asked. Informed consent was also obtained from all participants. The execution of the science shows took place at the center of itself. The students were invited to the theatre of OGDC, where most science shows were conducted at the center.

Research Instrument
Pre-and posttest questions were given out to investigate students' understanding of the scientific concepts presented in the shows. It reflects the students learning achievement on fire and pressure science concepts. The questions to the pre and posttest were similar and contained scientific concepts which were found in the science shows. The test questions were divided into two sections; a set of multiple-choice questions and structured questions. The questions on pressure and fire comprised of 6 multiple choices and six structured questions and seven multiple choice and seven structured questions, respectively. The developed items matched with the learning objective identified in the Cambridge GCE O level, which is a renowned examination institution based in the United Kingdom. The test questions were also reviewed by another researcher for content validity.
Structured interviews were then conducted on six selected students that participated in the experiment, which were then transcribed verbatim. Two students were interviewed at a time. Students were selected based on the marks obtained from the test after the shows were conducted. The students consisted of two top, average and lowest scoring students, respectively. The interview served three purposes. First, it was to elicit the students' ideas or perceptions of using science show as a learning tool. Second, it was used to identify weathers science shows were engaging for the students. Third, the interview was used to validate and ensure the questions asked and the method used was relevant. To further support the findings from the interview, quantitative analysis using BERI protocol (Lane & Harris, 2015) was also implemented. Two observers were selected to do an observation on selected students as they witnessed the shows to enhance the validity of the data collected using the BERI protocol. Before the observation session, a briefing was done by one of the researchers with the observers to ensure that the process was transparent.

Data Collection
Upon approval, one of the researchers went into the school to run the data collection by first conducting the pretest. Both test questions lasted 30 minutes each. Two weeks after the pretest session, the students attended the science shows which took place at OGDC. Both pressure and fire shows were performed by one of the researchers who was an experienced science show presenter. Each show took approximately 45 minutes each. The pressure shows took place first as soon as the show ended, students were given 10 minutes to freshen up and get themselves ready to undergo the posttest. Soon after the pressure test was done, the students were given an hour break for lunch. The session then continued with the fire show followed by the posttest on fire.
While the shows were conducted the BERI protocol was also implemented. The main aim of the BERI protocol was to quantify the number of students who were engaged during the shows. During this study, the protocol was modified to suit the situation of the shows better. The BERI protocol can be used to provide timely feedback to instructors as to how they can improve student engagement in their classrooms and was initially designed for university student behavioural engagement which was defined as on-task behaviour in the classroom (Lane & Harris, 2015). Observation data within single class periods, within a single course over multiple class periods, and across multiple courses were conducted to ensure the validity of BERI (Lane & Harris, 2015). No study has been identified to date to use such protocol correctly for the study of behavioural impact from science shows. The observation protocol uses a simple coding system that would be quick and easy for observers to learn that could be easily presented to the instructor or lecturer. Behavioural reactions from shows were identified and agreed between the researchers and observers, who were science show performers themselves, to be defined as engaged and disengaged during a science show. Table 3 below contains the classification of student behaviours to indicate they are engaged. Coming to talk after the show to ask questions Table 4 below contains the classification of the student behaviours to indicate they are disengaged during the shows. Does not answer any questions asked These behaviours did not guarantee that a student was engaged or disengaged. However, these were a set of unusual behaviours, which were agreed between the observers and the researchers. The observers were first briefed on what were the shows that were going to be conducted. Later, notes containing the science content of the shows with the flow of the demonstrations were shared. At the beginning of the show, the observers were asked to fill in a cover sheet, which contained the following information, as shown in figure 1.

Figure 1. Sample of Coversheet Filled by One of the Observers
Once the show started, observation points were recorded directly onto the copy of the science show notes given during the first briefing between the researcher and observers, in the section corresponding to what was being performed. It is to ensure that the observers were able to relate engagement with what was happening during the show. An observation point was to be taken for every page of notes, for any significant change in activity or content, or at 2-minute intervals depending on which time interval was shorter (Lane & Harris, 2015). An adjustment was made to the intervals of observation during the observation session in this study to best suit the science show format. Changes in students' reactions were recorded during the change of each demonstration. Students' interactions with the performer were also observed, which included their behaviours and questions that were not pre-planned. For the BERI protocol observation, ten students participated in the experiment were chosen according to the scores on the pretest. The group of ten students were a mixture of low, average and highestscoring students. The two selected observers were seated at a location where they were able to see all ten students. Soon after the posttest on fire was completed, interviews with six selected students took place and were conducted by one of the researchers. From there, students' interviews were transcribed verbatim, and thematic analysis was used to discuss the students' responses. During this study students' interviews were analyzed manually using thematic analysis to elicit overarching patterns and themes.

Data Analysis
The first step to the analysis of the test scores was assessed for normality. Since the data were not normally distributed, the pretest and posttest scores were analyzed using the Wilcoxon Signed Ranked test. The Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test is designed for the use of repeated measures meaning participants are measured on two occasions (Pallant, 2013). Students' interviews were transcribed verbatim and thematic analysis was used to find the emerging themes of the study. Thematic analysis was implemented due to its flexibility. The flexibility of the thematic analysis can be used to answer almost any type of research question at which the themes can be identified in a data-driven, bottom-up way or identified in a more top-down fashion (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). The researchers had several familiar the- .000 .000 mes to look for during the thematic analysis and simultaneously kept an open mind for new emerging themes. Thematic analysis often combined two approaches in one analysis. The procedure in the thematic analysis for this study involved getting familiar with the data, coding, searching for themes, reviewing the themes, defining and naming the themes. Thorough peer examination involved asking a colleague to scan some of the raw data and assess whether the findings were plausible, based on the data (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). Through the implementation of the BERI protocol, the researchers were able to accumulate the total number of students that were engaged and disengaged when a demonstration was implemented during the observation session through the calculation indication made by the observers.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The data presented in Table 5 below are extracted from the pre and posttests conducted for the year nine students. Table 5 below carries the overall mean scores and standard deviation from the pre and posttests for the pressure and fire show. Before conducting the analysis, data were first checked for normality. Due to the existence of outliers and also have a sample of 17 students only, this further supports the usage of the Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test. From the test that was conducted, posttest ranks were statistically higher than the pretest ranks for both the pressure and fire show. Whereby Z= -3.562 and -3.626 respectively and P values for both shows is .000. as shown in Table 6 below.
As shown in Table 5, the posttest overall means a score of both shows is higher (7.91 for pressure show and 15.1 for fire show) compared to pretests overall mean score. The difference is 2.97 for the pressure show and 5.66 for the fire show. To find out whether the difference between the pre and post-tests overall mean scores are statistically significant, a Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test was performed using SPSS software version 21.
From the pretest and posttest quantitative analysis, it showed that there is a significant increase in improvement in students marks. It revealed that after the science show performance, students gained an understanding of the science concept that was performed by the researcher. Such result is consistent with previous findings by previous studies ( Peleg, 2011;Kerby et al., 2010) although the age group for this study were mainly focused on grade 9 students and the science concepts covered in the show were science topics which were known to be challenging for the students.

Findings from BERI Protocol
Through the utilization of the BERI protocol, the observers were able to identify whether students were engaged and at which occasion they were engaged the most. Using tables 3 and 4 to quantify the number of students' engagement, the observers recorded how many out of the ten students were engaged and disengaged. The observers were also able to identify in which category of behavioural description the students belonged. The results were written against the notes given to the observers compiled in tables 7 and 8 below. Table 7 below indicates the number of students engaged and which part of the behavioural engagement was shown during the pressure show.
The BERI protocol showed that during the majority of the demonstrations, all ten students were engaged, and the least number of engaged students was seven on average. Apart from this data, i.e. the number of students engaged, the researchers also observed that students' engagement could be sustained when science shows were not stretched to more than 45 minutes in duration. The limitation of this data was the fact that the time at which each demonstration and explanation took place was not recorded. Hence, the exact timing for the engaged and disengaged behaviours of students' occurrence was not recorded. The BERI protocol may not be able to identify cognitive interaction, just like what was stated in Lane & Harris (2015). However, this gap has been overcome through the qualitative findings obtained from the interview. It has shown that the triangulation approach has been proven to be a practical approach in achieving comprehensive analysis in obtaining reliable and plausible result in this study. Explanation comes after When an explanation was ongoing students were attentive, they seemed excited and were leaning towards the front Table 8 below indicates the number of students engaged and which part of the behavioural engagement was shown during the fire show. Collective Findings from Thematic Analysis For the qualitative data, two main themes emerged. The two identified themes were knowledge gained by students and delivery of science show. The main aim for qualitative data analysis was to enhance the quantitative findings further and further determine how the students were able to understand the science concept delivered in the shows simultaneously examining students' engagement during the shows. During the execution of the shows, it was ensured that the five science demonstration categories (CHAMP) identified by (Sadler, 2017) were implemented in the shows whenever appropriate. A study made by (Sadler, 2017) was mainly to identify how much the viewers of the science show were able to recall the demonstrations delivered. This study brings it a step further by identifying whether students were able to recall the scientific concepts delivered in the show potentially because the shows were engaging.

Theme 1: Knowledge Gained by Students
The shows performed seemed to teach the science concept presented during the shows. The interview questions asked investigated students' insights into the shows presented and the amount of information that they were able to recall from the show. The first theme that emerged from the students' responses to the interviews was knowledge gaining. This theme derived from the statements given by the students. When asked what do the students feel about the science show performances the year nine students said: Lan Knowledge was quickly gained since the content of the science shows were easy to understand. To ensure that the science concepts were easily understood during the shows, the science concept presented was made as simple as possible incorporated with exciting demonstrations. It goes back to the strategy mentioned in the framework practised by OGDC and merging it with the demo characteristics advocated by Sadler. Not only those demonstrations were proven to be able to make students understand better, but demonstrations were also found to be interesting for the students, and this was accumulated as well during the interview. It was also observed that the "bigger" the demonstrations the more the students found it interesting and exciting. It goes back to the step-by-step approach of the science content. The researcher further asked the students what made them like science shows. Lan, Qillah, Fatin and Amal, went straight to mention about the demonstration that they saw in the shows.  In contrast, Amal liked all the demonstrations in the fire show and highlighted his personal favourite demonstration from the pressure show was the OGDC cannon. From the data itself, it showed that students not only found the content of the shows easy, they remember which demonstration they liked the most, and they found the shows interesting. The hands-on fire seemed to be the most liked demonstration. From the title itself, it does automatically spark curiosity. It supports the findings from Sadler's study, whereby it was mentioned that curiosity type demo is proven to be universally accessible regardless of audience and was able to reflect high impact rate for short and long-term recall.

Researcher
The data showed that the demonstrations do play a significant role in science shows. From the open codes above the researcher concluded that after analytical coding, the knowledge-gaining category could be elicited and this finding is represented in Figure 2. This finding again supports research question 2. Do science shows enhance students understanding?  It was concluded from the analysis that key factors that engage the students during the shows were the fact that during the shows, students were excited, they were relaxed and there were times when the show itself turns playful and what kept them going was the fact that they were also interactive. Lan mentioned that the difference between a regular classroom lesson and a science show was that, while attending a science show they felt relax, it was less serious. It gave them a window of 'playtime' and his statements were supported by Sofian. The researcher has rephrased the word playtime in this context as able to interact or interactive. Fatin mentioned that they were focused, but they had fun too, and Amal added to Fatin's comment by saying that the science shows made her feel excited. The theme drawn out from the data is the delivery of a science show, and this finding is represented in Figure 3.

Theme 2: Delivery of science show
It was then asked during the interview why did they like the science shows in order to find out what were the students' perception towards the science show apart from just the data obtained above. With that, another category emerged from the analysis. The excerpt below contains some students' responses about their emotions, and the two science shows that were conducted.