The Impact of Interactive Science Shows on Student’s Learning Achievement on Fire and Pressure Science Concept for 9th Grader in Brunei

N. Karim, R. Roslan

Abstract

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.

Keywords

informal science learning; science show; engagement; science centers; science communicator

Full Text:

PDF

References

Abdurrahman, A., Saregar, A., & Umam, R. (2018). The effect of feedback as soft scaffolding on ongoing assessment toward the quantum physics concept mastery of the prospective physics teachers. Jurnal Pendidikan IPA Indonesia, 7(1), 34–40.

Abtahi, Y. (2018). Pupils, tools and the Zone of Proximal Development. Research in Mathematics Education, 20(1), 1-13.

Alabdulkareem, S. A. (2015). Exploring the use and the impacts of social media on teaching and learning science in Saudi. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 182, 213-224.

Ateh, C. M., & Charpentier, A. (2014). Sustaining student engagement in learning science. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 87(6), 259-263.

Battrawi, B., & Muhtaseb, R. (2012). The Use of Social Networks as a Tool to Increase Interest in Science and Science Literacy: A Case Study of Creative Minds’ Facebook.

Bempechat, J., & Shernoff, D. J. (2012). Parental influences on achievement motivation and student engagement. In Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 315-342). Springer, Boston, MA.

Burch, G. F., Heller, N. A., Burch, J. J., Freed, R., & Steed, S. A. (2015). Student engagement: Developing a conceptual framework and survey instrument. Journal of Education for Business, 90(4), 224-229.

Cambridge Assessment International Education. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.cambridgeinternational.org/programmes-and-qualifications/cambridge-o-level-physics-5054/

Cambridge Assessment International Education. (n.d.). Cambridge curriculum: Chemistry. Retrieved from https://www.cambridgeinternational.org/programmes-and qualifications/cambridge-o-level-chemistry-5070/

Carpineti, M., Cavinato, M., Giliberti, M. A. L., Ludwig, N. G., & Perini, L. (2011). Theatre to motivate the study of physics.

Creswell, J. W. (2002). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative (pp. 146-166). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Falk, J. H., Dierking, L. D., Swanger, L. P., Staus, N., Back, M., Barriault, C., ... & Falla, S. (2016). Correlating science center use with adult science literacy: An international, crossâ€institutional study. Science Education, 100(5), 849-876.

Feryok, A. (2013). Teaching for learner autonomy: The teacher’s role and sociocultural theory. Innovation in language learning and teaching, 7(3), 213-225.

Godec, S., King, H., Archer, L., Dawson, E., & Seakins, A. (2018). Examining Student Engagement with Science Through a Bourdieusian Notion of Field. Science & Education, 27(5-6), 501-521.

Hadibarata, T., & Rubiyatno, R. (2019). Active Learning Strategies in the Environmental Engineering Course: A Case Study at Curtin University Malaysia. Jurnal Pendidikan IPA Indonesia, 8(4), 456-463.

Kamolpattana, S., Chen, G., Sonchaeng, P., Wilkinson, C., Willey, N., & Bultitude, K. (2015). Thai visitors’ expectations and experiences of explainer interaction within a science museum context. Public Understanding of Science, 24(1), 69-85.

Kerby, H. W., Cantor, J., Weiland, M., Babiarz, C., & Kerby, A. W. (2010). Fusion science theater presents the amazing chemical circus: A new model of outreach that uses theater to engage children in learning. Journal of chemical education, 87(10), 1024-1030.

Lamb, M., & Wedell, M. (2013). Inspiring English teachers: a comparative study of learner perceptions of inspirational teaching. ELT Research Papers, 13(03).

Lane, E. S., & Harris, S. E. (2015). A new tool for measuring student behavioral engagement in large university classes. Journal of College Science Teaching, 44(6), 83-91.

Lawson, M. A., & Lawson, H. A. (2013). New conceptual frameworks for student engagement research, policy, and practice. Review of Educational Research, 83(3), 432-479.

Lin, P. Y., & Schunn, C. D. (2016). The dimensions and impact of informal science learning experiences on middle schoolers’ attitudes and abilities in science. International Journal of Science Education, 38(17), 2551-2572.

McDonald, C. V. (2016). STEM Education: A review of the contribution of the disciplines of science, technology, engineering and mathematics. Science Education International, 27(4), 530-569.

Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2015). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. John Wiley & Sons.

Ngabekti, S., Prasetyo, A. P. B., Hardianti, R. D., & Teampanpong, J. (2019). The development of stem mobile learning package ecosystem. Jurnal Pendidikan IPA Indonesia, 8(1), 81–88.

Pallant, J. (2013). SPSS survival manual. McGraw-Hill Education (UK).

Peleg, R., & Baram-Tsabari, A. (2011). Atom surprise: using theatre in primary science education. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 20(5), 508-524.

Pianta, R. C., Hamre, B. K., & Allen, J. P. (2012). Teacher-student relationships and engagement: Conceptualizing, measuring, and improving the capacity of classroom interactions. In Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 365-386). Springer, Boston, MA.

Reiss, M., Billingsley, B., Evans, E. M., Kissel, R. A., Lawrence, M., Munro, M., & Veall, D. (2016). The contribution of natural history museums to science education.

Riedinger, K., Marbach-Ad, G., McGinnis, J. R., Hestness, E., & Pease, R. (2011). Transforming Elementary Science Teacher Education by Bridging Formal and Informal Science Education in an Innovative Science Methods Course. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 20(1), 51–64.

Roche, J., Cullen, R., & Ball, S.-L. (2016). The Educational Opportunity of a Modern Science Show. The International Journal of Science in Society, 8(3), 21–30.

Roorda, D. L., Koomen, H. M. Y., Spilt, J. L., & Oort, F. J. (2011). The influence of affective teacherstudent relationships on students’ school engagement and achievement: A meta-analytic approach. Review of Educational Research, 81(4), 493–529.

Roslan, R. (2014). Primary Teachers’ Talk in the Bruneian Context: Representational Fluency and Consequences for Science Classrooms. The University of Queensland.

Roslan, R., Panjang, S. M., Yusof, N., & Shahrill, M. (2018). Teacher’s feedback in teaching science in a bilingual Bruneian primary classroom. On the Horizon, 26(2), 122–136.

Russell, J. L., Knutson, K., & Crowley, K. (2013). Informal learning organizations as part of an educational ecology: Lessons from collaboration across the formal-informal divide. Journal of Educational Change, 14(3), 259–281.

Sadler, W. (2017). Evaluating the long-term impact of live science demonstrations in an interactive science show. New Perspectives in Science Education: 6th Edition, 129–132.

Sinatra, G. M., Heddy, B. C., & Lombardi, D. (2015). The Challenges of Defining and Measuring Student Engagement in Science. Educational Psychologist, 50(1), 37–41.

Stocklmayer, S. M., Rennie, L. J., & Gilbert, J. K. (2010). The roles of the formal and informal sectors in the provision of effective science education. Studies in Science Education, 46(1), 1–44.

Taylor, C. A. (1988). The art and science of lecture demonstration. CRC Press.

Triyarat, W. (2017). Factors affecting engagement with informal science learning in Thailand: A regional perspective (Doctoral dissertation, University of the West of England).

UK Association for Science and Discovery Centres (2011). Summary of Evidence that Science Centres raise science grades and influence students to take science careers. Available from: http://www.sciencecentres.org.uk/pdfs/impact_on_attainment.pdf. [Accessed 24 June 2020].

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society (M. Cole, V. JohnSteiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman, Eds.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Watermeyer, R. (2013). The presentation of science in everyday life: The science show. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 8(3), 737–751.

Walker, G. J. (2012). Motivational features of science shows.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.15294/jpii.v9i3.23684

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Bookmark and Share