Design and Evaluation of Demonstration Tools for Newton’s Law of Motion

Cristy R. Malonzo¹ and Maria Teresa M. Fajardo^2,

¹Lapasan National High School, Cagayan de Oro City, Philippines

²Department of Science Education, University of Science and Technology of Southern Philippines

Cite this paper:
Cristy R. Malonzo and Maria Teresa M. Fajardo. Design and Evaluation of Demonstration Tools for Newton’s Law of Motion. American Journal of Educational Research. 2017; 5(2):155-160. doi: 10.12691/education-5-2-8

Abstract

In the absence of readily available teaching resources and laboratories, science teachers are often challenged to improvise instructional tools and materials. This study is aimed to design and evaluate indigenous toy carts intended for teaching Newton’s Law of Motion. Fifteen science teachers from two public high schools were asked to evaluate the developed indigenous toy carts using an evaluation form. A randomly selected intact class of Grade 8 students was also asked to perform a physics activity using the instructional tools developed by the researchers and evaluate the experience using an adopted Intrinsic Motivation Inventory. The demonstration tools were rated at most as acceptable by science teachers on constructional appearance and economy; ease of construction and scientific rigor and usability. Majority of the Grade 8 students found the activity with the indigenous carts interesting and enjoyable. It is recommended that science teachers be given more training and workshops on instructional tools and materials development to enhance the science experience of students.

Keywords:
instructional tools teaching aids group activity cooperative learning collaborative learning experiential learning physics activity

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]	Aschbacher, P. R., Li, E., & Roth, E. J. “Is science me? High school students' identities, participation and aspirations in science, engineering, and medicine”. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 2010, 47(5), 564-582.
[2]	Bryan, R. R., Glynn, S. M., & Kittleson, J. M. “Motivation, achievement, and advanced placement intent of high school students learning science”. Science Education, 2011, 95(6), 1049-1065.
[3]	SEI-DOST & UP NISMED, (2011). Science framework for Philippine basic education. Manila: SEI-DOST & UP.
[4]	Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development (Vol. 1). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
[5]	Lau, S. & Roeser, R. “Cognitive Abilities and Motivational Processes in High School Students’ Situational Engagement and Achievement in Science”. Educational Assessment, 2002, 8 (2), 139-162.
[6]	Holstermann, N., Grube, D. & Bögeholz, S. “Hands-on Activities and Their Influence on Students’ Interest”. Res Sci Educ (2010) 40: 743.
[7]	Hazari, Z., Sonnert, G, Sadler, P. & Shananan, M. “Connecting High School Physics Experiences, Outcome Expectations, Physics Identity, and Physics Career Choice: A Gender Study”. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 2010, 47 (8), 978-1003.
[8]	Rotgans, J.I., & Schmidt, H.G., “Situational interest and academic achievement in the active-learning classroom”, Learning and Instruction, 2010.
[9]	Windschitl, M. Thompson, J., Braaten, M. & Stroupe, D. “Proposing a Core Set of Instructional Practices and Tools for Teachers of Science”, 2012, 96 (8), 878-903.
[10]	Haak, D., HilleRislamber, J., Piter, E. & Freeman, S. “Increased Structure and Active Learning Reduce the Achievement Gap in Introductory Biology” Science, 2011, 332, 1213.
[11]	Khan, M. Muhammad, N. Ahmed, M. Saeed, F. & Khan, S. “Impact of Activity –based teaching on Students’ Academic Achievement in Physics at Secondary Level”. Academic Research International, 2012, 3 (1).
[12]	Stump, G., Hilpert, J., Husman, J, Chung, W. & Kim, W. “Collaborative Learning in Engineering Students: Gender and Achievement”, Journal of Engineering Education, 2011, 100 (3), 1-24.
[13]	Watkins, J. & Mazur, E. “Retaining Students in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) Majors.” Journal of College Science Teaching, 2013, 42(5).
[14]	Wang, M. , Eccles, J. & Kenny, S. “Not Lack of Ability but More Choice: Individual and Gender Differences in Choices of Careers in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics.” Psychological Science, 2013.
[15]	Crumb, C. Moore, C. & Ramos-Wada, A. “Who wants to have a Career in Science or math? Exploring Adolescents’ Future Aspirations by Gender and Race/Ethnicity”. Science Education, 2010 Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com).
[16]	Vedder-Weiss, D. & Fortus, D. “Adolescent’s Declining Motivation to Learn Science: inevitable or Not? “Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 2011, 48(2), 199-216.
[17]	Swarat, S., Ortony, A., & Revelle, W. (2012). “Activity matters: Understanding student interest in school science”. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(4), 515-537.
[18]	Krapp, A. & Prenzel, M. “Research on Interest in Science: Theories, Methods and Findings”. International Journal of Science Education, Taylor & Francis (Routledge), 2011, 33(01), pp.27-50.
[19]	Gerard, Ll. Varma, K., Corliss, S. & Linn, M. “Professional Development for Technology-Enhanced Inquiry Science.” Review of Educational Research. 2011, 81 (3), 408-448.
[20]	Ashar, A., Ellington, R., Rice, E. Johnson, F. & Prime, G. “Supporting STEM Education in Secondary Science Context”. The Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 2012, 6 (20), 85-125.