ACTIVE LEARNING THROUGH THE STEM PROCESS USING THE FRAMECOUNT APPLICATION TO INCREASE LEARNING ACHIEVEMENT IN FREE FALL MOTION
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
This research examined the integration of high-speed video analysis with the Framecount application to enhance Mathayomsuksa 4 students' understanding of free fall motion. Three objectives were pursued: 1) to study free fall motion using high-speed video analysis, 2) to develop supplementary learning activities based on this technique, and 3) to assess the impact of these activities on students' conceptual understanding and academic achievement. A high-speed video camera (using a smartphone at 60 fps) and the Framecount application were employed to record and analyze free fall experiments. The results demonstrated the feasibility of determining gravitational acceleration with an error of less than 5%. Furthermore, students who engaged in the developed learning activities exhibited significantly improved problem-solving skills and academic achievement compared to a control group (p < .05). This study highlights the potential of combining active learning strategies with technology-enhanced analysis to deepen students' conceptual understanding of physics.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
The owner of the article does not copy or violate any of its copyright. If any copyright infringement occurs or prosecution, in any case, the Editorial Board is not involved in all the rights to the owner of the article to be performed.
References
Allen, O. K. (1993). The relationship of interdisciplinary teaching to achievement and motivation in precalculus and physics [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Texas A&M University.
Apedoe, X. S., Reynolds, B., Ellefson, M. R., & Schunn, C. D. (2008). Bringing engineering design into high school science classrooms: The heating/cooling unit. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17(5), 454–465.
Becker, K., & Park, K. (2011). Effects of integrative approaches among science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) subjects on students’ learning: A preliminary meta-analysis. Journal of STEM Education, 12(5 & 6), 23–37.
Berlin, D. F., & Lee, H. (2005). Integrating science and mathematics education: Historical analysis. School Science and Mathematics, 105(1), 15–24.
Cajas, F. (2001). The science/technology interaction: Implications for science literacy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(7), 715–729.
Childress, V. W. (1996). Does integrating technology, science, and mathematics improve technological problem solving? A quasi-experiment. Journal of Technology Education, 8(1), 6–26.
Chuang, H. H. (2020). Enhancing high school students’ understanding of projectile motion using high-speed video analysis. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 18(1), 129–149.
Clark, A. C., & Ernst, J. V. (2007). A model for the integration of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. The Technology Teacher, 66(4), 24–26.
Dugger, J. C., & Meier, R. L. (1994). A comparison of second-year principles of technology and high school physics student achievement using a principles of technology achievement test. Journal of Technology Education, 5(2), 5–14.
Elliott, B., Oty, K., McArthur, J., & Clark, B. (2001). The effect of an interdisciplinary algebra/science course on students’ problem solving skills, critical thinking skills and attitudes towards mathematics. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 32(6), 811–816.
Everett, L. J., Imbrie, P. K., & Morgan, J. (2000). Integrated curricula: Purpose and design. Journal of Engineering Education, 89(2), 167–175.
Fortus, D., Krajcik, J., Dershimer, R. C., Marx, R. W., & Mamlok-Naaman, R. (2005). Design-based science and real-world problem solving. International Journal of Science Education, 27(7), 855–879.
Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(23), 8410–8415.
Hjalmarson, M. A., Moore, T. J., & Stohlmann, M. S. (2020). Models and modeling perspectives on STEM integration. In Integrated approaches to STEM education (pp. 21–42). Springer.
Hoban, G., Nielsen, W., & Shepherd, A. (2015). Student-generated slowmation to promote learning of science concepts. International Journal of Science Education, 37(1), 1–25.
Honey, M., Pearson, G., & Schweingruber, H. (2014). STEM integration in K–12 education: Status, prospects, and an agenda for research. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Hynes, M. M., & Santos, A. D. (2007). Effective teacher professional development: Middle school engineering content. International Journal of Engineering Education, 23(1), 24–29.
Judson, E., & Sawada, D. (2000). Examining the effects of a reformed junior high school science class on students’ math achievement. School Science and Mathematics, 100(8), 419–425.
Kelley, T. R., & Knowles, J. G. (2016). A conceptual framework for integrated STEM education. International Journal of STEM Education, 3(1), 1–11.
Kolodner, J. L., Camp, P. J., Crismond, D., Fasse, B., Gray, J., Holbrook, J., Puntambekar, S., & Ryan, M. (2003). Problem-based learning meets case-based reasoning in the middle-school science classroom. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(4), 495–547.
Kuenzi, J. J. (2008). Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education: Background, federal policy, and legislative action (CRS Report No. RL33434). Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service.
Li, Y., Asunda, P., & Baehr, E. (2019a). Integrative STEM learning and teaching in secondary education: A meta-synthesis. Journal of STEM Education, 20(1), 24–35.
Li, Y., Asunda, P., & Baehr, E. (2019b). Teaching STEM through real-world problems: Students' engagement and learning outcomes. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 78(5), 14–19.
McDermott, L. C. (1991). Millikan Lecture 1990: What we teach and what is learned—Closing the gap. American Journal of Physics, 59(4), 301–315.
Mehalik, M. M., Doppelt, Y., & Schunn, C. D. (2008). Middle-school science through design-based learning versus scripted inquiry. Journal of Engineering Education, 97(1), 71–85.
Michael, J. (2006). Where’s the evidence that active learning works? Advances in Physiology Education, 30(4), 159–167.
Ministry of Education. (2008). Basic education core curriculum B.E. 2551 (A.D. 2008). Thailand.
Norton, S. J. (2007). The use of design practice to teach mathematics and science. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 18, 19–44.
Office of the Education Council. (2017). National education plan 2017–2036. Bangkok: Ministry of Education, Thailand.
Pang, J. S., & Good, R. (2000). A review of the integration of science and mathematics: Implications for further research. School Science and Mathematics, 100(2), 73–82.
Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education, 93(3), 223–231.
Riskowski, J. L., Todd, C. D., Wee, B., Dark, M., & Harbor, J. (2009). Exploring the effectiveness of an interdisciplinary water resources engineering module in an eighth grade science course. International Journal of Engineering Education, 25(1), 181–195.
Sadler, P. M., Coyle, H. P., & Schwartz, M. (2000). Engineering competitions in the middle school classroom: Key elements in developing effective design challenges. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(3), 299–327.
