AGHAMIC Action Approach (A3): Its Effects on the Pupils’ Conceptual Understanding on Matter

Abstract

We are now at the onset of Fourth Industrial Revolution, thus, Education 4.0 requires more innovative and more engaging pedagogical strategies to develop globally-competitive and functionally-literate learners. Teachers must continue to innovate strategies and approaches to make Science teaching more engaging, more fun and more collaborative. This two-group quasi-experimental action research seeks to explore the effects of the developed AGHAMIC Action Approach (A³) on the conceptual understanding on matter of Grade 6 pupils. The study involved 23 pupils in the control group taught using traditional method of instruction (TMI) and 24 pupils in the experimental group taught using the A³ in a public elementary school in Zambales, Philippines for the school year 2019-2020.  Pretest and posttest were administered before and after the application of the intervention. The study found out that use A³ and TMI improved the conceptual understanding of the pupils. However, pupils exposed to the use of A³ yielded a higher gain score compared to the use of the conventional approach of teaching.  Science teachers may utilize the AGHAMIC Action Approach to improve pupils’ conceptual understanding in science. 

Keywords

• action research,AGHAMIC action approach,conceptual understanding,elementary pupils,science teaching

References

1. Acar, B., & Tarhan, L. (2008). Effects of cooperative learning on students’ understanding of metallic bonding. Research in Science Education, 38(4), 401–420.
2. Acuña, L., Gutierrez, M.R., & Areta, G. (2015). Content Area Reading-Based Strategic Intervention Materials (CARB-SIMs) in Science VI. The Normal Lights, 9(2), 205 – 232.
3. Adami, A.F. (2004). Enhancing students’ learning through differentiated approaches to teaching and learning: A Maltese perspective. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 4(2), 91-97.
4. Bender, W.N. (2012). Differentiating instruction for students with learning disabilities: New best practices for general and special educators (3rd Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Crowin.
5. Cetin-Dindar, A., & Geban, O. (2017). Conceptual understanding of acids and bases concepts and motivation to learn chemistry. The Journal of Educational Research, 110(1), 85-97.
6. Chi, M. T. H. (2009). Active-constructive-interactive: A conceptual framework for differentiating learning activities. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1(1), 73–105.
7. Cohen, E. G. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups. Review of Educational Research, 64(1), 1–35.
8. Day, S.P. & Bryce, T.G.K. (2013). The benefits of cooperative learning to socio-scientific discussion in secondary school Science. International Journal of Science Education, 35(9), 1533-1560.

9. Gernale, J., Duad, D., & Arañes, F. (2015). The effects of Predict-Observe-Explain (POE) approach on the students’ achievement and attitudes towards science. The Normal Lights, 9(2), 1 – 23.
10. Hong, Z.R. (2010) Effects of a collaborative science intervention on high achieving students’ learning anxiety and attitudes toward Science. International Journal of Science Education, 32(15), 1971-1988.
11. Kaya, E. (2013) Argumentation Practices in Classroom: Pre-service teachers' conceptual understanding of chemical equilibrium, International Journal of Science Education, 35(7), 1139-1158.
12. Mokiwa, HO, & Agbenyeku, E. U. (2019). Impact of activity-based teaching strategy on gifted students: A case of selected junior secondary schools in Nigeria. Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists, 7(2), 421-434. http://dx.doi.org/10.17478/jegys.529919
13. Omari, D. & Chen, L. (2016). Conceptual understanding in science. Journal of Science Education, 8,(1), 13-16.
14. Qin, Z., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1995). Cooperative versus competitive efforts and problem solving. Review of Educational Research, 65(2), 129–143.
15. Rogayan, D.V., Jr. (2019). Biology Learning Station Strategy (BLISS): Its effects on science achievement and attitude towards biology. International Journal on Social and Education Sciences, 1(2), 78-89.
16. Sandoval, W. A., & Reiser, B. J. (2004). Explanation‐driven inquiry: Integrating conceptual and epistemic scaffolds for scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88(3), 345-372.
17. Schnotz, W. (2005). An integrated model of text and picture comprehension. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
18. Seufert, T. (2003). Supporting coherence formation in learning from multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 13, 227–237.
19. Sunga, D. L. & Hermosisima, M. V. C. (2016). Fostering better learning of Science concepts through creative visualization. The Normal Lights, Special Issue 2016, 50 – 63.
20. Wisetsat, C. & Nuangchalerm, P. (2019). Enhancing innovative thinking of Thai pre-service teachers through multi-educational innovations. Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists, 7(3), 409-419.
21. Woods-McConney, A., Wosnitza, M., & Sturrock, K. L. (2016). Inquiry and groups: Student interactions in cooperative inquiry-based science. International Journal of Science Education, 38(5), 842-860.
22. World Economic Forum (WEF). (2018). Global Competitiveness Report (2017-2018). Retrieved 18 October 2019 from http://www3.weforum.org/docs/GCR2017-2018/05FullReport/TheGlobalCompetitivenessReport2017%E2%80%932018.pdf