ARTICLE

SCIENCE LEARNING THROUGH INTERACTIVE TEACHING METHOD AN EXPERIMENTAL STUDY

  1. HOME
  2. ARTICLE

09 Pages : 77-87

http://dx.doi.org/10.31703/gesr.2020(V-IV).09      10.31703/gesr.2020(V-IV).09      Published : Dec 2020

Science Learning Through Interactive Teaching Method: An Experimental Study

Abstract

    An experimental study was conducted to find the impact of interactive teaching method on science learning. 70 students from seventh grade were selected to participate in this study. A control group with 35 randomly assigned students was taught by the traditional lecture method, and an experimental group with another 35 students was taught by an interactive teaching method. A pre-test was conducted prior to implementing the intervention to measure the baseline score, while a post-test was administered to measure the impact of the intervention. An ANCOVA (Analysis of Covariance) was used to find the significant difference in science achievement score of students between the traditional teaching method and interactive teaching method after controlling the effect of pretest scores. There was a significant difference in students' science achievement score between students in the traditional teaching group and students in the interactive teaching group, F(2, 67) = 153.47, p <.001n 2 = .82. It was concluded that the interactive teaching method significantly improves student science learning.

    Interactive Teaching, Science, Experiment Study

    (1) Sajid Ali Yousuf Zai
    Assistant Professor, Department of Education, National University of Modern Languages, Islamabad, Pakistan.
    (2) Fouzia Ajmal
    Assistant Professor, Department of Education, International Islamic University, Islamabad, Pakistan.
    (3) Saira Nudrat
    Assistant Professor, Department of Education, National University of Modern Languages, Islamabad, Pakistan.
Fulltext PDF

References

  • Abdulwahab N., Oyelekan, O. S., & Olorundare, A. S. (2016). Effects of Cooperative Instructional Strategy on Senior School Students' Achievement in Electrochemistry. Eurasian Journal of Physics and Chemistry Education, 8(2), 37-48
  • Abimbola, I. O. (2013). The misunderstood word in science: Towards a technology of perfect understanding for all. One hundred and twenty-third inaugural lecture delivered at the University of Ilorin. The library and publications committee University of Ilorin, Ilorin, Nigeria.
  • Ahmed, Z., & Mahmood, N. (2010). Effects of Cooperative Learning vs. Traditional Instruction on Prospective Teachers' Learning Experience and Achievement. Journal of Faculty of Educational Sciences, 43(1), 11-164. Retrieved from http://dergiler.ankara.edu.tr/dergiler/40/1342/15555.pdf
  • Ajaja, O. P. (2013). Which strategy best suits biology teaching? Lecturing, concept mapping, cooperative learning or learning cycle? Electronic Journal of Science Education, 17(1), 1-37
  • Al-Rawi, I. (2013). Teaching methodolgy and its effects on quality learning. Journal of Education and Practice, 4(6), 100-105.
  • Altun, S. (2015). The Effect of Cooperative Learning on students' achievement and vis on the science and technology course. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 7(3), 451-468.
  • Angell, C., Guttersrud, Ø., Henriksen, E. K., & Isnes, A. (2004). Physics: Frightful, But Fun Pupils' and Teachers' Views of Physics and Physics Teaching. Science Education, 88, 683- 706.
  • Atanasescu, C., Dumitru, F.(2020) Interactive teaching-learning methods in the interdisciplinary approach of natural sciences from the mentor-teacher's perspective. Available at: https://natsci.upit.ro/issues/2013/volume-2-issue-3/interactive-teaching-learning-methods-in- the-interdisciplinary-approach-of-natural-sciences-from-the-mentor-teacher-s-perspective
  • Bakker, J., Denessen, E., and Brus-Laeven, M. (2007). Socio-economic background, parental involvement and teacher perceptions of these in relation to pupil achievement, Educational Studies, 33 (2), 177-192.
  • Barclay, M. & Smith, C. (1999). The Capital Structure Puzzle: Another Look at the Evidence. Journal of Applied Corporate Finance. 12. 8-20. 10.1111/j.1745-6622.1999.tb00655.x.
  • Baxter, G, Bass, K, & Glaser, R. (2001), notebook writing in three fifth-grade science classrooms.. The Elementary School Journal, 102(2), 123-140.
  • Bennett, J. (2003). Teaching and Learning Science. A Guide to Recent Research and its Applications. London: Continuum.
  • Berry, W. (2008). Surviving lecture: A pedagogical alternative. College Teaching, 56(3), 149-153.
  • Blatchford, P., Bassett, P., Goldstein, H., and Martin. C. (2003) Are class size differences related to pupils' educational progress and classroom processes? Findings from the Institute of Education Class Size Study of children aged 5-7 Years. British Educational Research Journal, 29(5): 709-730.
  • Bok, D. (2006). Our Underachieving Colleges: A Candid Look at How Much Students Learn and Why They Should Be Learning More. Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ.
  • Byman, R. (2004). Attractiveness of science education in the Finnish comprehensive school. In A. Manninen, K. Miettinen & K. Kiviniemi (Eds.), Research findings on young people's perceptions of technology and science education: MIRROR results and good practises (pp. 5-30).
  • Crouch, C.H, Watkins, J., Fagen, A.P. & Manzur, C. (2007). Peer Instruction: Engaging students one-on- one, all at once. Research-Based Reform of University Physics.
  • Daniel, M. & Cajander, A. (2010). Constructive controversy as a way to create true collaboration in an open-ended group project setting. Proceeding of 12th Australasian Computing Education Conference (ACE 2010), Brisbane, Australia
  • Darling-Hammond, L., Newton, X., and Wei, R.C. (2010). Evaluating teacher education outcomes: a study of the Stanford teacher education programme. Journal of Education for Teaching, 36 (4), 369- 388.
  • Durik, A. M., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2007). Different strokes for different folks: How individual interest moderates the effects of situational factors on task interest. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 597-610.
  • Ebrahim, A. (2012). The effect of Cooperative learning strategies on elementary students' Science achievement and social skills in Kuwait. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 293-314.
  • Fagen, A.P., & Mazur, E. (2003). Assessing and enhancing the introductory science courses in physics and biology: Peer Instruction, classroom demonstration, and genetic vocabulary. (Doctoral thesis, Harvard University) Cambridge, Massachusetts.
  • Furner, J., & Kumar, D. (2007), The mathematics and science integration argument: A stand for teacher education. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 3(3), 185-189.
  • Gambari, A. I., Yusuf, M. O., & Thomas, D. A. (2015). Effects of computer-assisted STAD, LTM and ICI cooperative learning strategies on Nigerian secondary school students' achievement, gender and motivation in Physics. The Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 3(4), 11-26.
  • Goldenberg, L. B. (2011). What students really want in science class? The Science Teacher, 78(6), 52-55
  • Goldhaber, D.D., & Brewer, D.J. (2000). Does teacher certificate matter? High school teacher certification status and student achievement, Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 22 (2), 129-143.
  • Hake, R. (1997). Interactive engagement methods in introductory mechanics courses. http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~sdi/IEM-2b.pdf.
  • Hassan, & Ibrahim, A. (2018). The art of teaching science in secondary schools: A meta-analysis. The Turkish online journal of educational technology. 17(1).
  • Helland, H. (2007). How does social background affect the grades and grade careers of Norwegian economics students, British Journal of Sociology of Education, 28 (4), 489-504.
  • Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T. & Tjosvold, D. (2000). Constructive Controversy: The Value of Intellectual Opposition. In M. Deutsch and P. T. Coleman, eds., The Handbook of Conflict Resolution: Theory and Practice San Francisco: Jossey-Bas Publishers, pp. 65-85.
  • Juuti, K., Lavonen, J., Uitto, A., Byman, R., & Meisalo, V. (2010). Science Teaching Methods Preferred by Grade 9 Students in Finland. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education. 8. 611-632. 10.1007/s10763-009-9177-8
  • Karel M. S. (2000) Predicting the choice of physics in secondary education, International Journal of Science Education, 22:12, 1261-1283, DOI: 10.1080/095006900750036253
  • Kempa, R. (1991). Students Learning Difficulties in Science. Causes and Possible Remedies. Enseñanza de las Ciencias, 9(2), 119-128.
  • Kinchin, I. M. (2004). Investigating students' beliefs about their preferred role as learners. Educational Research, 46(3), 301-312. doi:10.1080/00131880420 0277359
  • Koballa, T. R., Jr., & Glynn, S. M. (2007). Attitudinal and motivational constructs in science learning. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum
  • Kozar, O. (2010). Towards better group work: Seeing the difference between cooperation and collaboration. English Teaching Forum, 2, 16-23.
  • Lozano, S. R. D., & Cardenas, M. (2002). Some Learning Problems Concerning the Use of Symbolic Language in Physics. Science & Education, 11, 589-599.
  • Mazur, E. (1997): Peer Instruction: A User's Manual. (Prentice Hall Series in Educational Innovation.) Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
  • McKee, E., Williamson, V. M., & Ruebush, L. E. (2007). Effects of a demonstration laboratory on student learning. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 16, 395-400.
  • Miles, R. (2015). Tutorial instruction in science education. Cypriot Journal of Educational Science, 10(2), 168-179
  • Milner-Bolotin, M., Kotlicki, A., Reiger, R. (2007). Can students learn from lecture demonstrations?: The role and place of interactive lecture experiments in large introductory science courses. Journal of College Science Teaching, 36(4), 45-49.
  • Nayyer, A.H. (2016). Science Education in Schools published in Dawn Newspaper
  • Nigerian Educational Research and Development Council (NERDC). (2009a). Senior secondary education curriculum: Biology curriculum for senior secondary schools1-3. Abuja: NERDC.
  • Ornek, F., Robinson, W. R., & Haugan, M. P. (2008). What makes physics difficult? International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 30(1), 30-34.
  • Reza, K, M., Abozar, H. R., Ali, E. N., & Akbar, H. (2013). The impact of cooperative learning on students' science academic achievement and test anxiety. Journal of Educational Innovations, 11(44), 83- 98.
  • Rivkin, S.G., Hanushek, E.A., & Kain, J.F., (2005). Teachers, Schools, and Academic Achievement, Econometrica, 73 (2), 417-458.
  • Rosenberg, J. L., Lorenzo, M., & Mazur, E. (2006). Peer instruction: making science engaging. In Handbook of college science teaching (pp. 77-85).
  • S.Candrasekaran., (2014),. Productive Methods of Teaching Middle School Science, International Journal of Humanities and Social Science Invention, 3(7), PP.15-25
  • Sherin, B. L. (2001). How Students Understand Physics Equations. Cognition And Instruction, 19(4), 479- 541
  • Slavin, R. E. (2015). Cooperative learning in elementary schools. Education. International Journal of Primary, Elementary and Early Years Education, 43(1), 3-13.
  • Smith, K.A. (2013). Introduction to Constructive Controversy: The Art of Arguing to Enhance Learning.
  • South Asia Forum for Educational Development, (2010). Annual Status of Education Report (ASER), http://www.safedafed.org/aser/document/aser/Aserpak2008.pdf
  • Tomasello, M. (2009). Why we cooperate. Cambridge: MA: The MIT Press.
  • Turpen, B., & Finkelstein, N.D. (2010). The construction of different classroom norms during Peer Instruction: Students perceives differences. Physics Education Research, 6. (020123), 1-22
  • Villani, A. (1992). Conceptual Change in Science and Science Education. Science Education, 76(2), 223- 237.
  • von-Rhöneck, C., Grob, K., Schnaitmann, G. W., & Völker, B. (2007). Learning in basic electricity: how do motivation, cognitive and classroom climate factors influence achievement in physics? International Journal of Science Education.
  • Wanbugu, P.W., Changeiywo, J.M.,& Ndiritu, F.G. (2013). Investigations of experimental cooperative concept mapping instructional approach on secondary school girls' achievement in physics.

Cite this article

APA

    APA : Zai, S. A. Y., Ajmal, F., & Nudrat, S. (2020). Science Learning Through Interactive Teaching Method: An Experimental Study. Global Educational Studies Review, V(IV), 77-87. https://doi.org/10.31703/gesr.2020(V-IV).09

CHICAGO

    CHICAGO : Zai, Sajid Ali Yousuf, Fouzia Ajmal, and Saira Nudrat. 2020. "Science Learning Through Interactive Teaching Method: An Experimental Study." Global Educational Studies Review, V (IV): 77-87 doi: 10.31703/gesr.2020(V-IV).09

HARVARD

    HARVARD : ZAI, S. A. Y., AJMAL, F. & NUDRAT, S. 2020. Science Learning Through Interactive Teaching Method: An Experimental Study. Global Educational Studies Review, V, 77-87.

MHRA

    MHRA : Zai, Sajid Ali Yousuf, Fouzia Ajmal, and Saira Nudrat. 2020. "Science Learning Through Interactive Teaching Method: An Experimental Study." Global Educational Studies Review, V: 77-87

MLA

    MLA : Zai, Sajid Ali Yousuf, Fouzia Ajmal, and Saira Nudrat. "Science Learning Through Interactive Teaching Method: An Experimental Study." Global Educational Studies Review, V.IV (2020): 77-87 Print.

OXFORD

    OXFORD : Zai, Sajid Ali Yousuf, Ajmal, Fouzia, and Nudrat, Saira (2020), "Science Learning Through Interactive Teaching Method: An Experimental Study", Global Educational Studies Review, V (IV), 77-87

TURABIAN

    TURABIAN : Zai, Sajid Ali Yousuf, Fouzia Ajmal, and Saira Nudrat. "Science Learning Through Interactive Teaching Method: An Experimental Study." Global Educational Studies Review V, no. IV (2020): 77-87. https://doi.org/10.31703/gesr.2020(V-IV).09