Published date: Apr 03 2024

Journal Title: KnE Social Sciences

Issue title: International Conference on Mathematics and Science Education (ICMScE 2022): Learning Materials and Modules

Pages: 651–659

DOI: 10.18502/kss.v9i8.15629

Anna Carmela B. Bonifacioanna_bonifacio@dlsu.edu.phDe La Salle University, Manila, Philippines

Voltaire M. MistadesDe La Salle University, Manila, Philippines

The major intention of this study is to design and validate manipulatives for homebased physics experiments. The Covid-19 pandemic has caused tremendous and rapid amendments to educational systems worldwide, immediately shifting from traditional on-the-ground teaching to virtual classroom instruction or modular learning approach to name a few. Similarly, it has made laboratory experiments problematic. Demonstrations are limited just to the four corners of the electronic gadget’s screen, while simulations can only do so much in terms of experiential learning; hence, the urgency of developing these low-cost laboratory kits for students’ use at home. The laboratory activities and kits went through thorough examination for validation by 3 experts in the field of Physics, all of them holding Masters-degree. The setup was found to be valid (overall mean of 4.67 from a 5-point Likert scale validation tool). The effectiveness, in terms of the performance of learners, was established using quasi-experimental methods involving 30 students (15 males and 15 females) in the control group and 30 learners (15 males and 15 females) in the experimental group. The control group was exposed to customary lectures via online classes with virtual simulations. The students in the experimental group attended the same online lectures and were provided with the home-based manipulative kit. The analysis and interpretation of data collected from the pretest-posttest scores of the student participants revealed that the laboratory manipulative kits are effective and highly acceptable. The normalized gain of the experimental group (g = 0.82, high gain) was significantly higher than that of the control group (g = 0.45, medium gain).

[1] Abd-El-Khalick F, Boujaoude S, Duschl R, Lederman NG, Mamlok-Naaman R, Hofstein A, et al. Inquiry in science education: international perspectives. Sci Educ. 2004;88(3):397–419.

[2] Hofstein A, Lunetta VN. The laboratory in science education: foundations for the twenty-first century. Sci Educ. 2004;88(1):28–54.

[3] Clough MP. “Using the laboratory to enhance student learning.,” Learning science and the science of learning. pp. 85–94, 2002.

[4] Feisel LD, Rosa AJ. The role of the laboratory in undergraduate engineering education. J Eng Educ. 2005;94(1):121–30.

[5] Fox MF, Hoehn JR, Werth A, Lewandowski HJ. Lab instruction during the COVID-19 pandemic: effects on student views about experimental physics in comparison withprevious years. Phys Rev Phys Educ Res. 2021;17(1):010148.

[6] Brinson JR. Learning outcome achievement in non-traditional (virtual and remote) versus traditional (hands-on) laboratories: A review of the empirical research. Comput Educ. 2015;87:218–37.

[7] Abdulwahed M, Nagy ZK. Applying Kolb’s experiential learning cycle for laboratory education. J Eng Educ. 2009;98(3):283–94.

[8] Kolb DA. Experience as the source of learning and development., 1984.

[9] Bhute VJ, Inguva P, Shah U, Brechtelsbauer C. Transforming traditional teaching laboratories for effective remote delivery—A review. Educ Chem Engineers. 2021;35:96–104.

[10] Molenda M. “Designing instructional systems.,” Training and development handbook. p. 1996.

[11] Hake RR. Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousandstudent survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. Am J Phys. 1998;66(1):64–74.

[12] Arabeta HH. “Integration of gamification in teaching grade 10 physics: Its effect on students motivation and performance.,” p. 2018.