Modelling the Interplay of K-12 Science Teachers’ Pedagogical Practices

Wilfredo B. Baniqued^{1, 2,} , Peter Paul S. Cagatao¹ and Romiro G. Bautista^{1, 3}

¹Graduate School, University of La Salette, Santiago City, Isabela, Philippines

²College of Engineering, Quirino State University, Cabarroguis, Quirino, Philppines

³International Relations Department, Quirino State University, Diffun, Quirino, Philippines

Cite this paper:
Wilfredo B. Baniqued, Peter Paul S. Cagatao and Romiro G. Bautista. Modelling the Interplay of K-12 Science Teachers’ Pedagogical Practices. American Journal of Educational Research. 2024; 12(11):420-426. doi: 10.12691/education-12-11-2

Abstract

This study investigates the interplay of various pedagogical strategies—Student-Centered Pedagogy, Hands-On Learning, Scaffolding, Assessment and Feedback, and Professional Development—and their impact on student outcomes in K-12 science education. Grounded in constructivist learning theory and Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development, the research employed Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling to analyze data from 250 K-12 educators. The findings demonstrate that Student-centered pedagogy and Hands-on learning significantly enhanced student engagement and learning when integrated with scaffolding and timely feedback. Scaffolding was found to be crucial in facilitating complex learning while ongoing formative assessment improved students' ability to self-regulate. Professional development emerged as an essential factor, though indirect, in ensuring teachers’ successful implementation of these pedagogical strategies. The study contributes to the growing body of literature advocating for an integrated, student-centered approach in science education. It provides actionable recommendations for educators, curriculum developers, and policymakers to improve teaching practices and foster deeper student learning in science classrooms.

Keywords:
Student-Centered Pedagogy Hands-On Learning Scaffolding Assessment and Feedback Professional Development K-12 Science Education PLS-SEM Constructivist Learning Theory

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

References:

[1]	Baniqued, W. & Bautista, R. (2024). Teachers’ preparedness on pedagogical practices in K-12 science education: Foundations for crafting an effective science program. American Journal of Educational Research, 12(8), 291-297.
[2]	Anoling, KM., Abella, CRG., Cagatao, PPS., & Bautista, RG. (2024). Critical perspectives, theoretical foundations, practical teaching, technology integration, assessment and feedback, and hands-on practices in science education. American Journal of Educational Research, 12(1), 20-27.
[3]	Guerrero, JS., & Bautista, RG. (2023). Inquiry-based teaching in secondary science. International Journal of Social Sciences & Humanities, 8(2), 146-154.
[4]	Michael, J. (2016). Where's the evidence that active learning works? Advances in Physiology Education, 40(4), 543-544.
[5]	Prince, M., & Felder, R. (2016). Inductive teaching and learning methods: Definitions, comparisons, and research bases. Journal of Engineering Education, 95(2), 123-138.
[6]	Supovitz, J. A., & Spillane, J. P. (2015). Challenging standards: Navigating conflict and building capacity in the era of the common core. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
[7]	Ligado, F., Guray, ND., & Bautista, RG. (2022). Pedagogical beliefs, techniques, and practices towards hands-on science. American Journal of Educational Research, 10(10), 584-591.
[8]	Vallerio, ZV., Tobias, JC., Tillay, JN., Dumangeng, AP., Pumihic, VT., & Bautista, RG. (2023). Science teaching and learning conceptions towards teachers’ sense of efficacy. American Journal of Educational Research, 11(12), 79-83.
[9]	Dagar, V., & Yadav, A. (2016). Constructivism: A paradigm for teaching and learning. Arts and Social Sciences Journal, 7(4), 200.
[10]	Swanson, E., & Williams, K. J. (2015). Learning and instruction within the zone of proximal development: A framework for research and practice. Educational Psychology Review, 27(3), 497-520.
[11]	Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2016). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Sage Publications.
[12]	Hair, J. F., Risher, J. J., Sarstedt, M., & Ringle, C. M. (2019). When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. European Business Review, 31(1), 2-24.
[13]	Abella, CRG., Anoling, KM., Cagatao, PPS., & Bautista, RG. (2024). Modelling the interplay of science teaching dimensions from the lenses of science educators. American Journal of Educational Research, 12 (4), 159-163.
[14]	Gefen, D., Rigdon, E. E., & Straub, D. W. (2011). An updated assessment of PLS research and directions for future research. In V. V. Venkatesh, J. Y. L. Thong, & X. H. Xu (Eds.), New perspectives in information systems and technology (Vol. 4, pp. 91-104). Springer.
[15]	Fearnley, M., & Amora, J. (2020). Learning management system adoption in higher education using the extended technology acceptance model. IAFOR Journal of Education, 8(2), 89-106.
[16]	Kock, N. (2020). Harman’s single factor test in PLS-SEM: Checking for common method bias. Data Analysis Perspectives Journal, 2, 1-6.
[17]	Kock, Ned. (2015). Common method bias in PLS-SEM: A full collinearity assessment approach. International Journal of e-Collaboration. 11. 1-10. 10.4018/ijec.2015100101.
[18]	Teo, T. (2010). Examining the Influence of Subjective Norm and Facilitating Conditions on the Intention to Use Technology among Pre-Service Teachers: A Structural Equation Modeling of an Extended Technology Acceptance Model. Asia Pacific Education Review, 11(2), 253-262. Retrieved September 30, 2024 from https://www.learntechlib.org/p/74599/.
[19]	Kennedy, M. M. (2016). How Does Professional Development Improve Teaching? Review of Educational Research, 86(4), 945-980.
[20]	Darling-Hammond, L., Hyler, M. E., & Gardner, M. (2017). Effective teacher professional development. Learning Policy Institute.
[21]	Kolb, D. A. (2015). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Pearson Education.
[22]	Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2018). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 100(2), 46-48.
[23]	Bruner, J. (2016). The culture of education. Harvard University Press.
[24]	Nicol, D. J., & Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2016). Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 199-218.
[25]	Discipulo, LG., & Bautista, RG. (2022). Students’ cognitive and metacognitive learning strategies towards hands-on science. International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education, 11(2), 658-664.
[26]	Bagay, MC., Ursua, RR., Abellera, MA., Baldovino, RJ., Concpecion, RA., Galapon, VS., & Bautista, RG. (2023). Problem-based learning in teaching science. Journal of Innovations in Teaching and Learning, 3(1), 7-14.
[27]	Guskey, T. R. (2016). Professional development and teacher change. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 22(6), 751-758.
[28]	Legaspi, JM., Perhiliana, CO., Camayang, JG., Garingan, EG., Velasco, MKGT., Ursua, JG., & Bautista, RG. (2020). Scientific learning motivations as predictors of pre-service elementary grade teachers’ authentic assessment practices in science. American Journal of Educational Research, 8(3), 150-154.
[29]	Shute, V. J. (2018). Formative and interim assessment in the service of learning. In J. Greeno, & S. Goldman (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching (5th ed., pp. 304-329). American Educational Research Association.