Research Article

The effectiveness of Electro Briefcase intervention in improving the test performance in Science V

Saireen May Tuando Nalagon 1 * , Disierie Mahinay 1 , Jocelyn Micabalo 1 , Hannah Danielle Monterde 1 , Jomelyn Napoto 1 , Angelika Eunice Naval 1 , Jyzle Shaine Anthonette Nebit 1 , Jovar Pantao 1
More Detail
1 GSC College of Education, Mindanao State University - General Santos City, General Santos, PHILIPPINES* Corresponding Author
Eurasian Journal of Science and Environmental Education, 5(2), December 2025, 33-42, https://doi.org/10.30935/ejsee/16903
Submitted: 21 September 2024, Published: 11 September 2025
OPEN ACCESS   57 Views   5 Downloads
Download Full Text (PDF)

ABSTRACT

The research aimed to improve the test performance in science of the Grade V - Einstein pupils of Dadiangas West Elementary School, particularly on the topic of electricity and circuits through the “Electro Briefcase” intervention, emphasizing the use of tangible learning materials and active learning strategies. A mixed method approach was employed. Data were collected through pre-tests, post-tests, and interviews, and analyzed using a t-test and thematic analysis. Results revealed a significant improvement in test scores—from a mean of 7.88 (low performance) to 26.09 (very high performance) post-intervention (p < 0.0001). Qualitative key findings indicate that tangible learning materials and active learning support conceptual understanding of abstract science topics. These results demonstrate that the Electro Briefcase intervention is effective in improving test performance in Science V. It is recommended that science teachers integrate tangible materials like the Electro Briefcase when teaching abstract concepts. Future researchers are encouraged to explore similar interventions across different science topics and grade levels to further validate its impact.
Keywords: test performance, tangible instructional material, active learning, Dadiangas West Central Elementary School

CITATION (APA)

Nalagon, S. M. T., Mahinay, D., Micabalo, J., Monterde, H. D., Napoto, J., Naval, A. E., Nebit, J. S. A., & Pantao, J. (2025). The effectiveness of Electro Briefcase intervention in improving the test performance in Science V. Eurasian Journal of Science and Environmental Education, 5(2), 33-42. https://doi.org/10.30935/ejsee/16903

REFERENCES

  1. Abdullahi, A. M., Hussein, H. A., Ahmed, M. Y., Hussein, O. A., & Warsame, A. A. (2024). The impact of education for sustainable development on university students’ sustainability behavior: A case study from undergraduate students in Somalia. Frontiers in Education, 9, Article 1413687. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2024.1413687
  2. Akbaşlı, S., & Yeşilce, İ. (2018). Use of tangible materials and computer in mathematics teaching: Opinions of school principals. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 14(6), 2523–2532. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/90087
  3. Alisoy Huseynoglu, H., & Babazade, Y. (2024). Transforming science education: The impact of active learning on student engagement and achievement. Excellencia: International Multi-Disciplinary Journal of Education, 2(4), 506–514.
  4. Avelino, J. (2022). 10 benefits of active learning. EdApp Microlearning Blog. https://www.edapp.com/blog/benefits-of-active-learning/
  5. Bernardo, A. B. I., Cordel, M. O., Calleja, M. O., Teves, J. M. M., Yap, S. A., & Chua, U. C. (2023). Profiling low-proficiency science students in the Philippines using machine learning. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 10(1). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01705-y
  6. Bureau of Elementary Education, Department of Education. (2002). Basic education curriculum handbook in science and health (grades III VI). Scribd. https://www.scribd.com/doc/25469093/RBEC-PELC-Science-and-Health
  7. Calleja, M. O., Cordell, M. O., II, Teves, J. M., Yap, S. A., Chua, U., & Bernardo, A. (2023, February). Addressing the poor science performance of Filipino learners: Beyond curricular and instructional interventions. De La Salle University, Angelo King Institute for Economic and Business Studies. https://animorepository.dlsu.edu.ph/context/res_aki/article/1087/viewcontent
  8. Carbonneau, K. J., Wong, R. M., & Borysenko, N. (2020). The influence of perceptually rich manipulatives and collaboration on mathematic problem-solving and perseverance. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 61, Article 101846. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101846
  9. Cheng, Y. W., Wang, Y., Cheng, Y. J., & Chen, N. S. (2024). The impact of learning support facilitated by a robot and IoT-based tangible objects on children’s game-based language learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 37(7), 2142–2173. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2022.2152053
  10. Chi, C. (2023). Philippines still lags behind world in math, reading and science–PISA 2022. Philstar.com. https://www.philstar.com/headlines/2023/12/06/2316732/philippines-still-lags-behind-world-math-reading-and-science-pisa-2022
  11. Deiparine, C. (2023, December 6). Philippines still lags behind world in math, reading, and science: PISA 2022. Philippine Star. https://www.philstar.com/headlines/2023/12/06/2316732/philippines-still-lags-behind-world-math-reading-and-science-pisa-2022
  12. Department of Education. (2013). K to 12 basic education curriculum. Department of Education. https://www.deped.gov.ph/k-to-12/about/k-to-12-basic-education-curriculum/
  13. Department of Education. (2019). Policy guidelines on the K to 12 basic education program (DepEd Order No. 21, s. 2019) [DepEd order]. Department of Education. https://www.deped.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/DO_s2019_021.pdf
  14. Department of Education. (2023). MATATAG K to 10 curriculum of the K to 12 program: Science (Grades 3–10) [Curriculum guide]. Department of Education. https://www.deped.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/MATATAG-Science-CG-Grade-4-and-7.pdf
  15. Detken, F. (2023). Young children’s ideas of energy compared with the scientific energy concept: Results of a video study with interviews about children’s own drawings. Frontiers in Education, 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.1035066
  16. Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. McMillan.
  17. Driessen, E. P., Knight, J. K., Smith, M. K., & Ballen, C. J. (2020). Demystifying the meaning of active learning in postsecondary biology education. CBE–Life Sciences Education, 19(4), Article ar52. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.20-04-0068
  18. Gullion, H. L. (2024). Virtual versus tangible math manipulatives: A quasi‑experimental study comparing the impact of different types on mathematical understanding [PhD thesis, Liberty University].
  19. Hale, J. (2023, October 13). Why scientific literacy matters. Center for Inquiry. https://centerforinquiry.org/blog/why-scientific-literacy-matters/
  20. Ipapo, R., Hipona, J., Balonzo Salvedia, R., & Aquino, J. (2021). The most commonly used manipulative materials and the degree to which they are used in mathematics by sped teachers. Cosmos, 10(2), 9–13.
  21. Johnson, E. (2021). Concrete resources explained for parents: How to use them with your child at home to create a maths master! Third Space Learning. https://thirdspacelearning.com/blog/concrete-resources-cpa-explained/
  22. Kuswiyanti, T., Achdiyat, I., Rosfiani, O., Hermawan, C., Batrisya, A., & Hermawan, I. (2023). The efficacy of the direct instruction approach for teaching English to fourth-grade students with ordinal numbers. In E. Kusnadi, S. Hidayat, & A. H. Pratama (Eds.), Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Education and Social Science Research (ICESRE 2022) (pp. 341–348). Atlantis Press. https://doi.org/10.2991/978-2-38476-078-7_35
  23. Lamon, S., Knowles, O., Hendy, A., Story, I., & Currey, J. (2020). Active learning to improve student learning experiences in an online postgraduate course. Frontiers in Education, 5. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2020.598560
  24. Li, Y., Liang, M., Preissing, J., Bachl, N., Dutoit, M., Weber, T., Mayer, S., & Hussmann, H. (2022). A meta-analysis of tangible learning studies from the TEI conference. In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction (pp. 17–33). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3490149.3501313
  25. McNeil, N. M., & Jarvin, L. (2007). When theories don’t add up: Disentangling the manipulatives debate. Theory Into Practice, 46(4), 309–316. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405840701593899
  26. Millar, G. C., Derek Van Berkel, Petrasova, A., Petras, V., Harmon, B., Mitasova, H., & Meetenmeyer, R. K. (2018). Tangible landscape: A hands-on method for teaching terrain analysis. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1–12). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3173954
  27. Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Foy, P., Kelly, D. L., & Fishbein, B. (2020). TIMSS 2019 international results in mathematics and science. TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College.
  28. OECD. (2019). PISA 2018 results (Volume I): What students know and can do. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/5f07c754-en
  29. OECD. (2023). PISA. OECD.org. https://www.oecd.org/pisa/
  30. Ojating, H., & Ojating, J. H. (2022). Incorporating tangible instructional materials in teaching and learning: Implications for educational assessment and evaluation. International Journal of Quantitative and Qualitative Research Methods, 10(1), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.37745/ijqqrm.13/vol10n116
  31. Omarbek, N., Kaymak, S., & Sydykov, B. (2022). The effect of active learning method on students’ academic success, motivation, and attitude towards mathematics. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 18(2), 701–713. http://www.jlls.org/index.php/jlls/article/view/246
  32. Osman, K., & Kan’an, A. (2015). The relationship between self-directed learning skills and science achievement among Qatari students. Creative Education, 6(8), 790–797. https://doi.org/10.4236/ce.2015.68082
  33. Page, M. (1990). Active learning: Historical and contemporary perspectives. ERIC. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED338389
  34. Patton, C. M. (2015). Employing active learning strategies to become the facilitator, not the authoritarian: A literature review. Journal of Instructional Research, 4, 134–141. https://doi.org/10.9743/JIR.2015.17
  35. Piaget, J. (1971). The theory of stages in cognitive development. In D. Green, M. P. Ford, & G. B. Flamer (Eds.), Measurement and Piaget (pp. 1–11). McGraw-Hill.
  36. Saeid, N., & Eslaminejad, T. (2017). Relationship between students’ self-directed learning readiness and academic self-efficacy and achievement motivation. International Education Studies, 10(1), 225–232. https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v10n1p225
  37. Sahito, Z. H., Khoso, F. J., & Phulpoto, J. (2025). The effectiveness of active learning strategies in enhancing student engagement and academic performance. Journal of Social Sciences Review, 5(1), 110–127. https://doi.org/10.62843/jssr.v5i1.471
  38. Sensory Edge Education. (2025, January 14). Tangible learning materials: A critical ingredient in a primary school classroom. Sensory Edge. https://blog.sensoryedge.com/tangible-learning-materials-a-critical-ingredient-in-a-primary-school-classroom/
  39. Sison, M. (2022). Philippine struggle to make the grade in STEM education. UNESCO. https://bangkok.unesco.org/content/philippine-struggle-make-grade-stem-education
  40. Stockard, J. (2021). Building a more effective, equitable, and compassionate educational system: The role of direct instruction. Perspectives on Behavior Science, 44(1), 147–167. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40614-021-00287-x
  41. Thompson, N. T. (2022, November 4). Ebel method of standard setting. Assessment Systems. https://assess.com/ebel-method-standard-setting/
  42. Wan Daud, W. A. A., Kamarulzaman, L. M., & Abdul Ghani, M. T. (2018). The effect of active learning strategies on students’ attitudes towards English: A study at Universiti Teknologi Petronas. INSANIAH: Online Journal of Language, Communication, and Humanities, 1(2), 1–8.