The effectiveness of video-based interaction on professional science teachers to improve elementary school students achievements

Abstract

The process of interaction as a follow-up package in the process of video-based tutorials effectively toward gifted teachers. This study aimed to analyze the effectiveness of VBI in Teacher Working Group (TWG) forums to improve elementary school students achievements. Interaction is the follow up phase of an effective teaching and learning activities using video by gifted teachers. This study analyzed the effectiveness of video-based interaction (VBI) in a teacher forum in improving elementary school students’ outcome in science learning. This study was carried out in the context of distance learning by applying the inquiry approach to support teachers’ pedagogical competence. The samples were 36 gifted teachers and 432 students who were purposively selected. This study used one group pretest - posttest quasi-experimental design. N-Gain was employed to analyze the learning process in improving students’ learning outcome. The results of the analysis indicated significant and consistent increases in students’ learning outcome of high, high, high and moderate scores for N-gain categories of memorizing, understanding, applying and analyzing respectively. Teacher professionalism also contributed to students' excellent learning outcomes. Positive teacher and student responses to the effectiveness of VBI helped teachers and students to improve competencies that have to be achieved by describing video-based interaction and inquiry-based learning in general.

Keywords

• video-based interaction
• gifted science teacher
• elementary school students’ achievements
• inquiry

Supporting Institution

Universitas Terbuka

Project Number

2814/UN31.2/DN/2016

Thanks

The writers would like to thank the Government of the Republic of Indonesia especially the Ministry of Finance and Universitas Terbuka Research Center. The writers also would like to extend our gratitude to several elementary schools in Tabanan, Bali and East Belitung, Bangka Belitung Islands, Indonesia for the support in the implementation of VBI in the context of distance learning. At last, the writers also thank validators who made this study can be carried out properly.

References

1. Akben, N. (2020). Effects of the problem-posing approach on students’ problem solving skills and metacognitive awareness in science education. Research in Science Education, 50(3), 1143-1165.
2. Aksakalli, A. (2018). The effects of science teaching based on critical pedagogy principles on the classroom climate. Science Education International, 29(4), 250-260.
3. Alodat, A. M., & Zumberg, M. F. (2018). Standardizing the cognitive abilities screening test (cogat 7) for identifying gifted and talented children in kindergarten and elementary schools in Jordan. Online Submission, 6(2), 1-13.
4. Annan, S. T., Adarkwah, F., Abaka-Yawson, A., Sarpong, P. A., & Santiago, P. K. (2019). Assessment of the inquiry teaching method on academic achievements of students in Biology education at Mawuko Girls School, Ho, Ghana. American Journal of Educational Research, 7(3), 219-223.
5. Appleton, K. (2002). Science activities that work: Perceptions of primary school teachers. Research in Science Education, 32(3), 393-410.
6. Bae, B. (2012). Children and teachers as partners in communication: Focus on spacious and narrow interactional patterns. International Journal of Early Childhood, 44(1), 53-69.
7. Boonsue, W., Jansem, A., & Srinaowaratt, S. (2015). Interactional patterns in face-to-face and synchronous computer-mediated communication in problem-based learning contexts. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 6(1), 99-110.
8. Brauer, H., & Wilde, M. (2018). Do science teachers distinguish between their own learning and the learning of their students? Research in Science Education, 48(1), 105-116.

9. Brophy, J. (2001). Teaching (Functional Practices series 1). Geneva and Brussels: International Bureau of Education and the International Academic of Education.
10. Brown, P., Friedrichsen, P., & Abell, S. (2013). The development of prospective secondary biology teachers PCK. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 24(1), 133-155.
11. Budiastra, A. K., Erlina, N., & Wicaksono, I. (2019a). The factors affecting teachers’ readiness in developing science concept assessment through inquiry-based learning process in elementary schools. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 6(9), 355-366.
12. Budiastra, A. K., Erlina, N., & Wicaksono, I. (2019b). Video-based interaction through teacher working group forum to increase elementary school teachers’ professionalism. New Educational Review, 57(3), 187-199.
13. Burgh, G., & Nichols, K. (2012). The parallels between philosophical inquiry and scientific inquiry: Implications for science education. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 44(10), 1045-1059.
14. Cairns, D. (2019). Investigating the relationship between instructional practices and science achievement in an inquiry-based learning environment. International Journal of science education, 41(15), 2113-2135.
15. Chisango, G., Marongwe, N., Mtsi, N., & Matyedi, T. E. (2020). Teachers’ perceptions of adopting information and communication technologies in teaching and learning at rural secondary schools in eastern cape, South Africa. Africa Education Review, 17(2), 1-19.
16. Davis III, R. J., Brestan-Knight, E., Gillis, J. M., & Travis, J. K. (2018). Improving parent-child relationships through the use of video technology. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement (TEST), 22(3), 161-181.
17. Debarger, A. H., Penuel, W. R., Moorthy, S., Beauvineau, Y., Kennedy, C. A., & Boscardin, C. K. (2017). Investigating purposeful science curriculum adaptation as a strategy to improve teaching and learning. Science Education, 101(1), 66-98.
18. Dieker, L. A., Lane, H. B., Allsopp, D. H., O'Brien, C., Butler, T. W., Kyger, M., . . . Fenty, N. S. (2009). Evaluating video models of evidence-based instructional practices to enhance teacher learning. Teacher Education and Special Education, 32(2), 180-196.
19. Dignath, C., Buettner, G., & Langfeldt, H.-P. (2008). How can primary school students learn self-regulated learning strategies most effectively?: A meta-analysis on self-regulation training programmes. Educational Research Review, 3(2), 101-129.
20. Dow, W. (2006). The need to change pedagogies in science and technology subjects: A European perspective. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 16(3), 307-321.
21. Dragoş, V., & Mih, V. (2015). Scientific literacy in school. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 20(9), 167-172.
22. Engeness, I. (2020). Teacher facilitating of group learning in science with digital technology and insights into students’ agency in learning to learn. Research in science & technological education, 38(1), 42-62.
23. Erlina, N., Susantini, E., & Wasis. (2018). Common false of student’s scientific reasoning in physics problems. JPhCS, 1108(1), 012016.
24. Erlina, N., Susantini, E., Wasis, W., & Pandiangan, P. (2018). The Effectiveness of evidence-based reasoning in inquiry-based physics teaching to increase students’ scientific reasoning. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 17(6), 972-985.
25. Erman, E. (2017). Factors contributing to students’ misconceptions in learning covalent bonds. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 54(4), 520-537.
26. Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (1993). How to design and evaluate research in education (Vol. 7): McGraw-Hill New York.
27. García-Carmona, A., Criado, A. M., & Cruz-Guzmán, M. (2017). Primary pre-service teachers’ skills in planning a guided scientific inquiry. Research in Science Education, 47(5), 989-1010.
28. Gnidovec, T., & Torkar, G. (2019). Primary school students’ conceptions about owls, experiences with owls and their sources of information. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 18(2), 255-263.
29. Guttman, L. (1944). A basis for scaling qualitative data. American sociological review, 9(2), 139-150.
30. Hake, R. R. (1998). Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American journal of Physics, 66(1), 64-74.
31. Hamid, A., Setyosari, P., Ulfa, S., & Kuswandi, D. (2020). The implementation of mobile seamless learning strategy in mastering students' concepts for elementary school. Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists, 7(4), 967-982.
32. Harlen, W. (2013). Assessment & Inquiry Based Science Education. Triestly Italy: Global Network of Science Academies (IAP) Science Education Program (SEP).
33. Hinduan, A. (2001). The development of teaching and learning science at primary school and primary school teacher education: Final Report URGE Project. Loan IBRD.
34. Hoisington, C. (2018). Addressing common questions about 21st-century science teaching. Science and Children, 56(1), 10-13.
35. Holbrook, J., & Rannikmae, M. (2007). The nature of science education for enhancing scientific literacy. International Journal of science education, 29(11), 1347-1362.
36. Jatmiko, B., Prahani, B. K., Munasir, S., Wicaksono, I., Erlina, N., & Pandiangan, P. (2018). The comparison of OR-IPA teaching model and problem based learning model effectiveness to improve critical thinking skills of pre-service physics teachers. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 17(2), 300-319.
37. Joyce, B., Weil, M., & Calhoun, E. (2003). Models of Teaching. USA: Pearson Education.
38. Kaya, S., & Kablan, Z. (2013). Assessing the relationship between learning strategies and science achievement at the primary school level. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 12(4), 525-534
39. King, D., & Henderson, S. (2018). Context-based learning in the middle years: achieving resonance between the real-world field and environmental science concepts. International Journal of science education, 40(10), 1221-1238.
40. Kleickmann, T., Richter, D., Kunter, M., Elsner, J., Besser, M., Krauss, S., & Baumert, J. (2013). Teachers’ content knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge: The role of structural differences in teacher education. Journal of teacher education, 64(1), 90-106.
41. Kurniawan, A., & Herman, T. (2020). Didactic Design Of Material Cubes and Beams Volume Elementary School Students Class V. Paper presented at the International Conference on Elementary Education.
42. Lämsä, J., Hämäläinen, R., Koskinen, P., & Viiri, J. (2018). Visualising the temporal aspects of collaborative inquiry-based learning processes in technology-enhanced physics learning. International Journal of science education, 40(14), 1697-1717.
43. Laverick, D. M., & Paquette, K. R. (2017). Service learning through a literacy tutoring program Service Learning as Pedagogy in Early Childhood Education (pp. 151-168): Springer.
44. Levine, J. (2019). Exceptions are the rule: An inquiry into methods in the social sciences: Routledge.
45. Maiese, M., & Hanna, R. (2019). Conclusion: Cognitive Walls, Cognitive-Affective Revolution, and Real-World Utopias The Mind-Body Politic (pp. 297-312): Springer.
46. Marušić, M., Zorica, I. M., & Pivac, S. (2012). Influence of learning physics by reading and learning physics by doing on the shift in level of scientific reasoning. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 9(1), 146-161.
47. McDermott, L. C., Shaffer, P. S., & Constantinou, C. P. (2000). Preparing teachers to teach physics and physical science by inquiry. Physics Education, 35(6), 411-416.
48. McNeill, K. L., Lizotte, D. J., Krajcik, J., & Marx, R. W. (2006). Supporting students' construction of scientific explanations by fading scaffolds in instructional materials. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(2), 153-191.
49. Moye, J. N. (2019). Differentiated curriculum', learning differentiated curriculum design in higher education. Bingley: Emerald Publishing Limited.
50. Ngaisah, F. N., Ramli, M., Nasri, N. F., & Halim, L. (2018). Science teachers' practical knowledge of inquiry-based learning. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 15(Special), 87-96.
51. Paquette, K. R., & Laverick, D. M. (2017). Enhancing preservice teachers' skillsets and professionalism through literacy tutoring experiences. Reading Improvement, 54(2), 56-66.
52. Pintrich, P. R. (2004). A conceptual framework for assessing motivation and self-regulated learning in college students. Educational psychology review, 16(4), 385-407.
53. Qadeer, A., Tahir, A., & Chishti, M. I. (2018). Beginning teachers’ professional self-image: reconciliation between teachers and head teachers. Journal of Educational Research, 21(1), 1027-9776.
54. Qasrawi, R., & BeniAbdelrahman, A. (2020). The Higher and Lower-Order Thinking Skills (HOTS and LOTS) in Unlock English Textbooks (1st and 2nd Editions) Based on Bloom's Taxonomy: An Analysis Study. International Online Journal of Education and Teaching, 7(3), 744-758.
55. Rogayan, J., D. V.,, & Macanas, G. A. (2020). AGHAMIC Action Approach (A3): Its effects on the pupils’ conceptual understanding on matter. Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists, 8(1), 223-240.
56. Santosa, E. B., Degeng, İ., Sulton, S., & Kuswandi, D. The effects of mobile computer supported collaborative learning to improve problem solving and achievements. Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists, 8(1), 325-342.
57. Shannag, Q. A., Tairab, H., Dodeen, H., & Abdel-Fattah, F. (2013). Linking teachers'quali ty and student achi evement in the kingdom of saudi Arabia and Singapore: the impact of teachers'background variables on student achievement. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 12(5), 652-665.
58. Slavin, R. E. (2019). Educational psychology: Theory and practice 9 th ed. New Jersey: Pearson Education Inc.
59. Smrečnik, I. D., Fošnarič, S., & Čagran, B. (2014). Environmental impact on learning outcomes in science education in slovenian primary schools through the analysis of material work conditions. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 13(4), 535-543.
60. Soysal, Y. (2018). A review of the assessment tools for the student-led cognitive outcomes/contributions in the sense of inquiry-based teaching. İlköğretim Online, 17(3), 1476-1495.
61. Strouse, G. A., Nyhout, A., & Ganea, P. A. (2018). The role of book features in young children's transfer of information from picture books to real-world contexts. Frontiers in psychology, 9(50), 33-89.
62. Szabó, J., & Révész, G. (2018). Eternal questions of gifted education from the aspect of university teachers. Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists, 6(1), 43-67.
63. Tortop, H. S. (2014). Examining the effectiveness of the in-service training program for the education of the academically gifted students in Turkey: A case study. Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists, 2(2), 67-86.
64. Valdmann, A., Holbrook, J., & Rannikmae, M. (2017). Determining the effectiveness of a design–based, continuous professional development programme for science teachers. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 16(4), 576-591.
65. Vartiainen, J., & Kumpulainen, K. (2020). Playing with science: manifestation of scientific play in early science inquiry. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 28(4), 490-503.
66. Weganofa, R., Pratiwi, N., Liskinasih, A., & Sulistyo, G. H. (2020). The effectiveness of pre-reading activities on gifted students: A case on low achievement students. Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists, 8(1), 501-513.
67. Wicaksono, I., Madlazim, & Wasis. (2017). The effectiveness of virtual science teaching model (VS-TM) to improve student’s scientific creativity and concept mastery on senior high school physics subject. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 16(4), 549-561.
68. Zorluoglu, S. L., & Güven, Ç. (2020). Analysis of 5th grade science learning outcomes and exam questions according to revised bloom taxonomy. Journal of Educational Issues, 6(1), 58-69.