Effects of Active Learning Strategies in Teaching Physics

International Journal of Trend in Scientific Research and Development (IJTSRD)
Volume 6 Issue 7, November-December 2022 Available Online: www.ijtsrd.com e-ISSN: 2456 – 6470
@ IJTSRD | Unique Paper ID – IJTSRD52598 | Volume – 6 | Issue – 7 | November-December 2022 Page 1336
Effects of Active Learning Strategies in Teaching Physics
Nikko C. Catarina
High School Science Teacher, University of San Jose-Recoletos, Cebu, Philippines
ABSTRACT
The study utilized a quasi-experimental method of the pretest-posttest
design with the pre-selected groupings for the control and
experimental groups. The studyused validated researcher-constructed
pretest-posttest questionnaires, online distance learning plans,
attitude surveys, and focus group discussion questionnaires to
determine the students' performance. The study was conducted at a
private high school in Cebu City. Both experimental and control
groups underwent a pretest before implementing the proposed
interventions.
The study's findings showed the following results: (a) both control
and experimental groups manifested Above Average performance in
the pretest and posttest; (b) there was a significant mean
improvement in the student’s performance in Physics in both
experimental and control groups; (c) there was no significant
difference in the mean improvement in Physics between the
experimental and control groups, and (d) the experimental group
showed a very positive level of attitude towards the use of active
learning strategies in teaching Physics.
Based on the findings of the study, the integration of active learning
strategies to the group with less teacher presence (acts only as
facilitator) proved to be as effective as the group who received
explicit teaching from the teacher in teaching Physics. In addition, it
did not only enhance the students’ performance as manifested by
their comparable performance with the other group but was also
influential in developing a positive attitude that affected their
performance. The theories of Direct Instruction by Siegfried
Engelmann and Douglas Carnine believe that teacher-centered
teaching strategies are effective in teaching Physics since the teacher
explicitly teaches and helps the students understand the lessons.
Constructivism Learning by Jean Piaget states that involving the
students actively and exposing them to activities that will engage
them in the teaching and learning process by interacting with their
actual experiences were confirmed by this study's findings.
The study advises curriculum designers to provide several active
learning activities that encourage student engagement and
participation and apply dynamic teaching techniques in Physics
instruction. Additionally, to help them overcome the challenge,
students should be offered various learning methodologies, and future
researchers should conduct a comparative study on face-to-face
training.
How to cite this paper: Nikko C.
Catarina "Effects of Active Learning
Strategies in Teaching Physics"
Published in
International Journal
of Trend in
Scientific Research
and Development
(ijtsrd), ISSN: 2456-
6470, Volume-6 |
Issue-7, December
2022, pp.1336-1354, URL:
www.ijtsrd.com/papers/ijtsrd52598.pdf
Copyright © 2022 by author (s) and
International Journal of Trend in
Scientific Research and Development
Journal. This is an
Open Access article
distributed under the
terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution License (CC BY 4.0)
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)
KEYWORDS: active learning
strategies; physics teaching; work;
energy
IJTSRD52598

International Journal of Trend in Scientific Research and Development @ www.ijtsrd.com eISSN: 2456-6470
THE PROBLEM AND ITS SCOPE
Rationale
Since antiquity, Science has evolved in-depth and
breadth as a body of knowledge. One could argue that
science, along with our curiosity and desire for truth,
comes easily to people of all ages and backgrounds.
Science education is one of the most critical subjects
in school due to its relevance to students' lives and the
universally applicable problems it uses (Contant et
al., 2018). According to O'Keeffe (2018), physics is
one of the most fundamental natural sciences since it
aims to understand how nature employs mathematics.
It features a lot of abstract notions that are difficult
for students to fathom.
Although the subject covers real-world concepts,
many find the course content more difficult to
comprehend and understand since it includes most
theoretical concepts and rigid mathematical
calculations (Ekici, 2016). The content of the subject
matter, appropriate teaching methods and tactics
utilized in the learning materials, classroom
atmosphere, and teacher factor were all factors that
contributed to the difficulty in Physics, according to
Camaro et al. (2017). As a result, teachers should
employ a teaching method appropriate for the learner.
Science teachers face the challenge of employing
better methodologies and activities to make it more
interesting. Teaching Science, particularly in high
school, is difficult because of the more complicated
theories. Aside from it, experiments require careful
planning and preparation. Additionally, the COVID-
19 pandemic has forced Science teachers to become
more creative, resourceful, and innovative (Arrieta et
al., 2021). For such reasons, science education
teachers generally urge more innovative approaches
to teach and learning science. Without introducing
change and innovations and adopting the current
situation we are facing, our educational systems
cannot meet the challenges and solve the problems of
modern society (Olagunju et al. 2003).
Nowadays, the active learning strategy is one of the
most extensively employed teaching strategies in
academia today. Active learning is any teaching
method that involves students in meaningful activities
that reflect what they are learning in the teaching and
learning process (Bonwell & Eison, 1991). While this
concept may include traditional activities such as
homework, in practice, active learning encompasses
demonstrations, group work, and other activities
(Prince, 2004). In other words, the degree of student
involvement in the teaching process distinguishes
active learning from other types of learning.
Additionally, this teaching strategy improves students
learning, teaching, and communication skills (Kalem
and Fer, 2003), allows students to actively create and
construct knowledge (Carr et al., 2015), and develop
attitudes and values through immersive discovery
(Sivan et al., 2000; Suwondo dan Wulandari, 2013;
DeWitt, 2003).
Based on the data cited above, it seems that active
learning strategies could help improve and enhance
students’ performance and attitude, particularly in
teaching Physics. However, upon reviewing the
relevant literature, it was revealed that there are
limited literacy citations and knowledge of active
learning and its usefulness in teaching Physics
principles, particularly in the areas of work and
energy.
Thus, the researcher would like to investigate the
effectiveness of active learning strategies in teaching
work and energy Physics concepts.
The Problem
Statement of the Problem
This study determined the effectiveness of Active
Learning Strategies in teaching Physics among Grade
9 students. Specifically, this study aimed to answer
the following questions:
1. What is the pretest-posttest performance in
Physics of the Grade 9 students in the:
1.1. Control group (exposed to Online Distance
Learning Plan without active learning strategies)
and;
1.2. The experimental group (exposed to Online
Distance Learning Plan with active learning
strategies)?
2. Is there a significant mean improvement in
Physics performance from the pretest to the post-
test of Grade 9 students in the:
Learning Plan without active learning strategies)
and;
strategies)?
3. Is there a significant difference in the mean
improvement in Physics performance between the
control group and the experimental group?
4. What is the level of attitude of the experimental
group toward the use of active learning strategies
in teaching Physics?
Hypotheses of the Study
To answer the problems in the study, the following
null hypotheses were tested:
H01: There is no significant mean difference between
the hypothetical mean and the actual mean of the

Grade 9 students in the pretest and posttest results in
Physics of the:
1.1 control group (exposed to ODLP without active
learning strategies) and;
1.2 the experimental group (exposed to ODLP with
active learning strategies).
H02: There is no significant mean gain in the Physics
performance from the pretest to the post-test of the
Grade 9 students in the:
2.1 control group (exposed to ODLP without active
learning strategies) and;
2.2 the experimental group (exposed to ODLP with
active learning strategies).
H03: There is no significant difference in the mean
gain in Physics performance between the control
group and the experimental group.
Theoretical Background
Related Theories
The study is anchored on the Direct Instruction
Theory (Siegfried Engelmann and Douglas Carnine,
1980, 1999) and the Constructivism Learning
Theory (Piaget 1972) to support the claims presented.
Direct Instruction Theory by Siegfried Engelmann
and Douglas Carnine. (1982) believe that if a student
does not understand something, the teacher is not
teaching well. When it comes to direct education, this
is a common occurrence: the teacher is always the
source of knowledge within the four walls of the
classroom. Through practical lessons, corrective
feedback, and practice opportunities, this instructional
technique, also known as explicit teaching, requires
the teacher to keep the students engaged in class.
According to Adams and Carnine (2003), the teacher
is in charge of the students' education; he or she must
always keep the students' attention focused on him or
her. Teacher-directed or teacher-led instruction
describes a theory or teaching approach in which the
teacher is in charge of all instructional decisions.
However, as time goes by, the idea of this theory has
evolved, Magliaro et al. (2005) emphasize that this
form of instruction is suitable for the design of
technology-enhanced and technology-based
instruction because it has a clear framework and the
capacity to provide learners with opportunities for
practice and immediate feedback.
Furthermore, according to Freiberg & Driscoll
(2000), it is an instructional approach that focuses
primarily on the teaching and learning process, with
time and control being the two most essential
advantages; hence, in this study, this is used as an
anchor for the ODLP without integration of active
learning strategies which will be applied to the
control group.
Meanwhile, one of the most utilized teaching methods
is the active learning strategy, which allows students
to participate in meaningful and reflective activities
(Bonwell and Eison, 1991). Thus, this active learning
strategy is aligned with the Constructivism Learning
Theory.
Constructivism Learning Theory by Piaget (1972)
proposes that humans produce knowledge by
interacting with their experiences and ideas, and the
individual is at the heart of the knowledge generation
and acquisition process. On the other hand, Mascolo
and Fisher (2005) explain that this theory believes
that knowledge is best gained through active mental
construction and involvement, making knowledge an
intersubjective interpretation. As a result, to take
responsibility for their actions, students must be
taught to broaden their perspectives and express their
points of view (Andanga and Purwarno, 2018).
According to Fernando and Marikar (2017), this
theory must emphasize three ideas during the
teaching and learning process: 1) learning is an active
experience; 2) students' ideas about the subject and
topic being taught will be a part of their learning
experience, and 3) learning is rooted in social and
cultural contexts. Bransford et al. (1999) believe that
teachers should design learning activities that allow
students to confront misconceptions, allowing them to
reconstruct their mental models based on more
accurate understanding. As a result, this theory
supports the notion that teachers should use a variety
of active learning tactics in the classroom to
encourage students' active learning participation and
aid in the acquisition of new knowledge; hence, in
this study, this is used as an anchor for the ODLP
with active learning strategies which will be applied
to the experimental group.
Related Literatures
Teaching education is a process wherein a teacher
plans and organizes for students to learn more
effectively by choosing a teaching approach or
method appropriate for the lesson's subject (Ahmed,
R. 2004). In recent years, education experts in the
academe have undertaken innovations such as new
teaching approaches and techniques, focusing on
developing 21st-century students’ vital skills and
abilities. (Partnership for 21st Century Skills, 2008).
Science and technology are essential contributors to
our country's progress, making us realize how crucial
it is to grasp how it works and how it should be taught
to students. Because scientific education comprises
numerous abstract concepts that students might
acquire through various methods, Driver et al. (1994)
feel that teachers should adopt an appropriate
teaching strategy to ensure that effective teaching

occurs. Within the past years since the pandemic, it
has been challenging to adapt an online instructional
strategy that is more in line with the intensity of a
face-to-face classroom approach since the science
standards encourage an inquiry-based approach
(Miller, 2008).
Nowadays, it is evident that teaching Physics
education is facing a significant challenge in finding
the appropriate learning strategies and methodologies
that can be used in the teaching and learning process
due to the pandemic we are experiencing today.
Despite calls for a suspension of classes due to the
coronavirus outbreak, the Department of Education
feels that education should not be harmed. The
government used this to develop an online distance-
learning strategy. The term "online distance learning"
refers to a teaching approach in which students and
teachers are physically separated. The learning
process occurs entirely on a computer or other device
that can access the internet (Western Cooperative for
Educational Telecommunications, 2004).
Synchronous sessions, in which students participate
in real-time learning, such as a web conference or a
student-to-student chat room, are examples of online
distance learning. Asynchronous online distance
learning, on the other hand, allows students to process
information at their own pace and digest their
knowledge independently of others and at their own
pace. Blended learning is when traditional classroom
learning is combined with online or e-learning
(Browne, Jenkins & Walker, 2006).
In teaching Physics in an online setting, we can
arguably say that one of the essential topics that need
to be covered are energy and work, which is the focus
of this study, wherein some of the students find it
intriguing and challenging to understand even though
it is one of the most basics topics in Physics
education. Warren (1991) argues that students have
difficulty understanding work and energy from the
perspective of physics and their daily activities and
that energy is an abstract mathematical concept.
Today, almost every educator can relate to the fact
that students do not pay attention during a
presentation during this pandemic (Bunce et al.,
2010). In light of this notion, teachers must be able to
keep students interested for extended periods,
especially in an online learning environment, to make
the topics more enjoyable and deliver them with
clarity, enthusiasm, and occasional cognitive breaks
(Bligh, 2000).
Active learning strategies can be any pedagogy that
encourages students to actively participate in class
activities such as answering questions, resolving
problems, and discussing solutions with peers.
(Weiman, 2014). On the other hand, Felder et al.
(2009) explain that it consists of a short course-
related individual or small-group activities that all
students in a class are required to complete, alternated
with instructor-led intervals in which student
responses are processed, and new information is
presented.
According to the National Survey of Student
Engagement (NSSE) and the Australasian Survey of
Student Engagement (AUSSE), active learning can be
defined as "students' efforts to construct their
knowledge actively." The AUSSE attempts to
measure active learning by developing the students'
efforts to construct their knowledge by working with
other students on projects in class, making a
presentation, asking questions or contributing to
discussions, and participating in a community-based
interaction (reported in Carr et al., 2015).
Additionally, Livingstone and Lynch (2003) believe
that in the active learning process, students shift from
passive recipients of knowledge to active participants
in activities involving analysis, synthesis, and
scientific assessment while also developing skills,
values, and attitudes. On the other hand, Kalem and
Fer (2003) explain that discussions conducted
utilizing active learning approaches benefit learning,
teaching, and communication.
As a result, "active learning" is commonly used to
describe the practices students engage in to improve
their understanding of the subject. The tasks vary, but
they all require students to think at a higher level of
abstraction. Even if it is not often explicitly
acknowledged, metacognition, or how pupils think
about their learning, is a critical component that
connects action and learning.
Johnson & McCoy (2011) believes that instead of
passively acquiring information through a lecture
format, students can use the active learning process to
uncover concepts on their own and develop
frameworks with a more long-term structure.
Additionally, one reason that active learning is
thought to be so successful in improvements for
student achievement and knowledge is that it
increases metacognition. Metacognition is awareness
of one's thought processes or the learning process. If
students are cognizant of what they are learning, they
are engaged in higher-ordered thinking and will make
better connections between old material and new
material.
On the other hand, Suwondo dan Wulandari (2013)
adds that active learning methods of teaching can
improve students' attitude toward school and learning

in general because they allow them to improve their
scientific attitude, cultivate the fundamentals of
scientific thinking in students, and generate their
creativity in solving problems.
Furthermore, Price (2004) points out that students'
attitudes and understanding increase due to active
learning because the goal is to create a balance
between lecturing and active learning approaches
rather than never lecturing again. Both of these
methods allow teachers to go over what they need to
in order for their students to fully comprehend what
they are learning while also addressing fundamental
misconceptions, as it allows misconceptions to arise
naturally during the learning process and able to
recognize and correct their mistakes, resulting in
better retention of information and a deeper
understanding.
As cited by DeWitt (2003), students can explain
science topics in simple terms if they use active
online resources or actively participate in the class.
These principles align with the active learning
method employed in the classroom, demonstrating
that it can engage students and change their attitudes
about science and learning. Consequently, there are
numerous advantages to using active learning
methodologies, such as small-group learning.
Students can develop ideas, use language, learn from
each other, and recognize that their opinions and
experiences are valued and necessary for new
learning when they work in groups (Bartley &
Milner, 2011).
Related Studies
The following pertinent studies were reviewed to give
the study more depth.
The impact of direct instruction in boosting non-
native student achievement in English classes was
investigated by Al-Shammari et al. (2008). In this
study, one group was exposed to direct instruction,
while the other did not get any direct instruction.
Direct instruction is a realistic way to teach English
as a foreign language, as seen by the results. In
addition, the author addressed how direct education
saves time in the classroom and how it is a viable
alternative to traditional teaching methods.
Furthermore, the usefulness of Direct Instruction in
reading comprehension programs for pupils was
discussed in research by Flores and Ganz (2007).
According to the study's findings, there was a
significant and immediate improvement in student
performance between the baseline and treatment
groups. On the other hand, the author modified the DI
strategy by adding visual signals to the mix.
Botts et al. (2014) compared activity-based
intervention and embedded direct instruction.
Preschoolers, particularly those in the phonological
class, were the study subjects. In order to acquire
phonological awareness abilities, it was more
effective and efficient to use direct training
incorporated in the classroom. The structure needed
to facilitate effective and efficient skill acquisition,
generalization, and learning retention was given by
embedded direct instruction.
In a 1992 study, Bay et al. investigated the efficacy of
two instructional modalities (direct instruction and
exploration) on the student's science accomplishment.
According to the study's results, an initial posttest,
pupils in both groups learned at the same rate.
Regarding the retention exam administered two
weeks following the posttest, students who took the
discovery strategy outperformed those who took the
direct instruction approach. As a result, in the science
curriculum, direct instruction may not be as effective
as it may be.
On the other hand, this study will also cover some
relevant research on using Constructivism Learning
Theory to integrate active learning strategies in the
learning and teaching process.
In a study by Nuez et al. (2021), active learning
strategies and methodological tools such as
collaborative work was used to assess the impact of
the intervention on students' disciplinary knowledge.
It was discovered that using active learning strategies
in the field of physics has a positive impact on the
student's disciplinary knowledge, as they can learn
and reinforce it while having the opportunity to
acquire new knowledge and understanding.
The effectiveness of an active learning experience for
the conceptual learning of kinematics of students
taking the subject of physics in an elementary and
middle school was determined in a study by
Hernandez et al. (2021), which showed that the
intervention supported by active strategies, especially
group work, favored participation in all phases of the
project and allowed significant learning in the
students under study.
The impact of active learning methodologies on the
difference in male and female performance in
introductory physics classes was also explored by
Lorenzo, Crouch, and Mazur (2006). They discovered
that including active engagement tactics helped all
students, but it had the most considerable influence
on the performance of female students. The gender
gap was closed when they used a "heavy dose" of
active learning methodologies. This finding backs up

previous research that suggests active learning
benefits women (Laws et al., 1999; Schneider, 2001).
On the other hand, student performance in
undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics (STEM) courses under traditional
lecturing versus active learning improved by about
6% in active learning sections. On the other hand,
students in traditional lecturing classes were 1.5 times
more likely to fail than students in active learning
classes, according to a study by Freeman et al. (2014).
The active learning method also appears to boost
students' scores on concept inventory more than on
course exams, and it works well in all class sizes,
according to the research.
Haak et al. (2011) also investigated the effects of
active learning on students in the University of
Washington's Educational Opportunity Program
(EOP). The latter were enrolled in an introductory
biology course and discovered that all students
benefited when active learning strategies were
incorporated into the introductory biology course.
However, students in the EOP benefited
disproportionately, lowering the achievement gap to
roughly a quarter of the starting level. These results
provided another compelling reason to incorporate
active learning approaches into the course design.
Furthermore, Ruiz-Primo et al. (2011) found that
when comparing the effects of an innovation (i.e.,
active learning approaches) to traditional instruction
that did not include the innovation, the effect size was
more prominent. Overall, they discovered that using
active learning methods improved student
performance; however, there are several important
considerations to keep in mind.
A study by LoPresto et al. (2016) showed that the
majority of students believed that the activities that
are active and collaborative helped them learn
introductory astronomy solar system topics through a
combination of collaborative learning activities and
that the majority of students believed that the
activities that are active and collaborative nature
helped them learn. Students reported that they learned
more by being given challenges, forced to think
critically, and encouraged to participate in group
activities. This demonstrates that students believe that
doing things independently rather than having them
explained to them and cooperating with others rather
than working alone would help them learn. Teachers
who implement active learning should consequently
see increased student accomplishment and better
student attitudes.
However, Karamustafaoglu (2009) discovered that
while most teachers concur that active learning
strategies are better for long-term learning and more
effective, some teachers contend that active learning
cannot be used to teach Physics because it is a
numerical subject. Teachers still choose conventional
teaching strategies like problem-solving, expression,
and question-answering, believing that the more
questions they solve, the more successful their
students will be on the exam.
To illustrate further how the theories, concepts, and
literature are integrated into the study, the theoretical–
conceptual framework is provided in Figure 1.
Theoretical-Conceptual Framework of the Study
The theoretical-conceptual framework of the study is
presented in Figure 1.

Figure 1 Theoretical-Conceptual Framework of the Study in Schematic Diagram
Figure 1 depicts the study's theoretical-conceptual
framework. The approach was based on Piaget’s
Constructivism Learning Theory and Direct
Instruction Theory by Siegfried Engelmann and
Douglas Carnine.
To see if integrating active learning strategies in
teaching Physics is beneficial or not in eliciting
students' conceptual knowledge and problem-solving
skills on notions of work and energy, two
homogenous Grade 9 classes from a private school in
Cebu City were divided into two groups. One group
was exposed entirely to an ODLP having activities
without integration of active learning strategies in the
online teaching and learning process. At the same
time, the other used the same ODLP but with the
integration of active learning strategies in the
activities within the online teaching and learning
process.
The pretest and posttest that were administered were
the same for each group. After then, test results were
compared to see if there was a substantial difference
between the two groups. Following the posttest, the
experimental group answered a 4-point Likert Scale
to assess their attitude towards using active learning
strategies in teaching Physics work and energy. The
findings were analyzed to come up with a sound and
complete conclusion and specific recommendations.
Significance of the Study
The result of the study would benefit the following:
the curriculum developers could be provided with
data on the effectiveness of using the active learning
strategies in the teaching and learning process and
could make them aware of the importance of active
learning and its components in teaching Physics
concepts such as work and energy;
• Posttest on Work and Energy
• Attitude toward the use of
Active Learning Strategy in
Teaching Physics
Posttest on Work and Energy
Grade 9 Students
from a Private School
in Cebu
Experimental Group
Control Group
Pretest on Work and Energy
ODLP on Work and Energy –
Conventional Online Lecture
(Control Group)
ODLP on Work and Energy
Integrated with Active
Learning Strategies
(Experimental Group)
Constructivism Learning Theory
by Piaget (1972)
Direct Instruction Theory
by Siegfried Engelmann and
Douglas Carnine (1982)
Conclusion and Recommendations
Analysis of Results

the Science teachers could be guided in planning
online activities in the lesson that could attend to the
needs of the students, especially in learning the
subject, thus, improving their student’s understanding
and facilitating the learning of advanced knowledge;
the students could be aided in overcoming their
difficulties in understanding the concepts of work and
energy by incorporating several active learning
strategies into the lesson, and their comprehension of
these ideas as one of the fundamental ideas that shape
our universe will also help them cultivate a scientific
mindset that will enable them to appreciate the beauty
of the universe; and
the future researchers could be given information in
such a way that they could use the results of the study
when conducting other research with the same
concepts of the effectiveness of active learning
strategies in the teaching process. Also, this study
could tell them the things needed to improve to
enhance students’ learning in Physics.
Scope and Delimitation of the Study
The study aimed to determine the effectiveness of
active learning strategies in teaching Physics online
classes. Additionally, the topics that were used in the
study were the following: (1) Energy and (2) Work
which are part of the lessons in the given subject of
the students based on the Adaptive Curriculum of the
school and following the Most Essential Learning
Competencies (MELCS) provided by the Department
of Education.
The researcher conducted the study in the Fourth
Quarter of the Academic Year 2021-2022, from
March to April 2021-2022. The study subjects were
the Grade 9 students of a private high school in Cebu
City. Two sections of students were involved in the
study; one was for the control group, and the other
one was for the experimental group. The control
group was exposed to the conventional lecture
method without integrating active learning strategies.
On the other hand, the experimental group was
exposed to the integration of active learning
strategies. A 4-Likert Scale questionnaire was given
to the experimental group to address students'
attitudes toward using active learning strategies in
teaching Physics. Both control and experimental
groups were given a focus group discussion to gather
ideas about students’ experiences during the
intervention process.
Definition of Terms
The following terms were defined according to their
use in the study:
Active Learning Strategies. These teaching strategies
integrated into teaching Physics engage students
actively in learning, using activities such as reading,
writing, discussion, or problem-solving, which
promote analysis, synthesis, and evaluation of class
content.
Online Distance Learning Plan (ODLP). This refers
to the learning plans used in the study and is made up
of a different set of activities that will be applied in
the teaching and learning process.
ODLP on Work and Energy. A validated researcher-
made online distance learning plan (ODLP) that has
the following parts: (a) an identical standardized
pretest and posttest are given through the Aralinks
LMS online; (b) a syllabus that contains the overview
and timeframe of the lesson; (c) activities on Work
and Energy with conceptual and problem-solving
exercises in the learning plan.
ODLP on Work and Energy with Active Learning
Strategies. A validated researcher-made online
distance learning plan (ODLP) that has the following
parts: (a) an identical standardized pretest and posttest
are given through the Aralinks LMS online; (b) a
syllabus that contains the overview and timeframe of
the lesson; (c) activities on Work and Energy
integrated with active learning strategies with
conceptual and problem-solving exercises in the
learning plan.
2. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This chapter presents the study's research
methodology, including the research design, research
environment, research subjects, data gathering
procedure, pedagogical approach, research
instrument, research ethics consideration, data
management plan, and statistical data treatment.
Research Design
The quasi-experimental method was used in this
study, with a two-group pretest-posttest design.
Furthermore, the active learning strategies were
included in the learning plan, which was modified.
Quantitative comparison was performed in the
analysis to assess the significant difference between
the control and experimental groups.
Below is the diagram of the research design:
G1 O1 - O2
G2 O3 X O4
Where:
G1 = is the control group that utilized the ODLP
without active learning strategies through
conventional online lectures,
G2= is the experimental group that utilized the ODLP
with active learning strategies,
X = online distance learning approach using the
learning plan with the integration of active learning
strategies,

O1 = is the pretest of the control group,
O2 = is the posttest of the control group,
O3 = is the pretest of the experimental group, and
O4 = is the posttest of the experimental group.
Research Environment
This study took place in one of Cebu City's private
schools. The Commission on Higher Education
(CHED) has given the school an autonomous status.
It is recognized by the Philippine Accrediting
Association of Schools, Colleges, and Universities
(PAASCU) as a learning institution with the most
accredited programs after seventy-five years of
quality education.
Due to the current pandemic, the school offers both
synchronous and asynchronous homogeneous and
heterogeneous classes. To achieve educational
excellence and generate success-oriented students, it
uses Understanding by Design (UBD) and Project-
Based Learning (PBL) in its curriculum. There are
five sections for the Grade 7-year level, 6 for the
Grade 8-year level, 9 for the Grade 9-year level, and
11 for the Grade 10-year level. The total population
of the Junior High School Department students is
1,162, and the total population of the faculty is 57
teaching staff.
Research Subjects
The research's subjects were 69 students from two
homogeneous Grade 9 classes in the Academic Year
2021–2022. Before the experimental procedure, each
homogeneous class was assigned to one of the two
groups: control or experimental. Through a verified
researcher-made online distance learning plan, the
control group was exposed to the ODLP in teaching
Physics without integrating the active learning
strategies in the lesson. On the other hand, the
experimental group was exposed to teaching Physics
concepts of work and energy while incorporating
active learning strategies.
Data Gathering Procedure
The following stages were included in this study: (a)
research approval, (b) pretest administration, (c)
experimentation, (d) posttest administration, (e) a 4-
point Likert Scale attitude survey questionnaire about
the use of Active Learning Strategies in Physics
teaching (experimental group only), and (f) focus
group discussion both control and experimental
groups.
The Office of the Vice-President of Academic Affairs
and the school principal of the chosen private school
in Cebu City received a transmittal letter (See
Appendix A). The school's research committee may
hold a research proposal hearing to determine
whether the researcher's work meets the school's
requirements. Following approval, consent forms for
research participation were distributed to the students
and parents asking for permission to use the students
as research participants, with the assurance that the
study strictly adhered to the Data Privacy Act and
Child Protection Policy (See Appendix B).
This study was conducted during the Fourth Quarter
of the Academic Year, from March to April 2021-
2022. The researcher gave both control and
experimental groups a validated pretest. Two sets of
questionnaires for the selected physics concepts of
work and energy would cover the Department of
Education's Most Essential Learning Competencies.
The two groups were comparable, as shown by their
pretest results.
The experiment was carried out in synchronous
classes, with the control group exposed to the ODLP
without the active learning strategies integration and
the experimental group exposed to the ODLP with the
active learning strategies integration. Following that,
a posttest was then given.
After completing the pretest-posttest of the prescribed
topics, the experimental group answered a 4-point
Likert Scale attitude survey about using active
learning strategies in teaching Physics. The attitude
survey questionnaire was answered via Google
Forms, and focus group discussions were conducted
with control and experimental groups to enrich and
validate the outcomes. The data were used to solve
the study's problems.
Pedagogical Approach
Two pedagogies were used in this study to teach the
fundamental principles of selected topics in Grade 9
Physics, namely work, and energy. The control group
was taught with the ODLP and no active learning
strategies, while the experimental group was taught
with the OLDP and active learning strategies.
Control Group
The control group subjects answered a pretest using a
validated questionnaire created by the researcher
before beginning the experimentation procedure. On
the selected topics in Physics, notably, work and
energy, the group was taught using the ODLP without
including active learning strategies in conventional
direct instruction online (See Appendices I and J for
ODLP). During synchronous classes, the teacher
discussed the topic utilizing an online platform and a
PPT presentation without integrating any active
learning strategies. After all the lessons discussed, the
student answered the post-test using a researcher-
made validated questionnaire.

Experimental Group
Subjects in the experimental group, like those in the
control group, answered a pretest before undergoing
the experimental intervention. On the same topics, the
group was exposed to online lectures via an online
platform utilizing the ODLP, as well as active
learning strategies such as inquiry learning, think-
pair-share, active review session, grab a volunteer
peer review, and active self-assessments (See
Appendices K and L for ODLP). The teacher was
responsible for conducting the online lecture using
the experimental intervention and making the most of
the upgraded online lecture material. The students
answered a post-test after the topics had been
covered. The group was asked to complete a 4-point
Likert Scale attitude survey, and a Google forms
survey about using active learning strategies in
teaching Physics. Finally, all control and
experimental group students were asked to participate
in a focus group discussion using the video
conferencing app, where they answered a series of
questions and shared their perspectives on the
intervention.
Research Instruments
The instruments used in this study were the
following: (a) the researcher-made pretest and
posttest questionnaire - a 20-item multiple choice test
that measured students' conceptual understanding and
problem-solving in Physics which covered the topics
work and energy (See Appendix D and E). There
were two sets of pretest and posttest questionnaires-
one for the topic work and the other for the topic
energy. The researcher made a 4-point Likert Scale
attitude survey questionnaire for the experimental
group used only to identify the level of attitude of the
students on the use of active learning strategies in
teaching physics - work and energy concepts (See
Appendix G). Finally, a researcher-made
questionnaire for the focus group discussion in both
the control and experimental group (See Appendix
H).
The researcher consulted experts in Physics teaching
to determine the validity of all study instruments that
will be utilized in teaching Physics concept work and
energy for both the control and experimental groups.
Validators rated the pretest-posttest (See Appendix
F), the two ODLP, the 4-point Likert Scale attitude
survey questionnaire, and the focus group discussion
questionnaire using the content validity test and
readability test concerning the learning competencies.
These are adopted from the Most Essential Learning
Competencies of Grade 9 Physics course syllabus to
check common errors like double-barreled, confusing,
and leading questions before administering them to
the assigned group in the study. Suggestions from the
validators were implemented to improve all the said
research instruments. Furthermore, the pretest-
posttest questionnaire has been pilot-tested and
undergone a reliability test using the split-half type
analysis using the Spearman-Brown formula.
Research Ethics Consideration
A letter was sent to the selected institution's vice
president for academics to see whether they would
allow the study to be conducted with students. The
vice president approved the identification of potential
students for academics.
The tested students were informed about the study
and requested to sign an informed consent form (See
Appendix B) if they agreed to participate. The
students' scores were maintained with strict
confidentiality, and their identities were obscured
when the data were processed and interpreted.
Data Management Plan
The collected data could be held in public access for
five years to be used for research revisions,
publishing, or as a reference in case of questions or
inquiries about the study. The researcher produced an
electronic copy of the data and saved it on the hard
drive to ensure its longevity. All data collected were
anonymized to protect the respondents'
confidentiality. To ensure data confidentiality, the
remaining questionnaires and answers, as well as the
electronic documents, were erased after processing
and interpreting the data following the Data Privacy
Act of 2012.
Statistical Treatment of Data
The study employed the following statistical
techniques:
1. One sample z-test was used to determine the
pretest and post-test performance of the students
in both the control group and experimental group,
as shown below:
Where:
z = computed t-test value,
AM = actual mean,
HM = hypothetical mean (60 % of the total score),
SD = standard deviation, and
n = sample size.
2. A paired sample t-test was used to determine the
significance (mean gain) of the students’
performance from the pretest to the posttest of
both the control and experimental groups as
shown below:

Where:
t = computed t-test,
= mean of differences,
Sd = standard deviation of the difference, and
n = sample size.
3. The t-test of independent samples was utilized to
determine the significant the difference in the
mean gains between the control and experimental
groups is shown below:
Where:
t = computed t-test value,
x
̅ 1 = mean gain of the experimental group,
x
̅ 2 = mean gain of the control group,
SD1 = standard deviation of the difference of the
experimental group,
SD2 = standard deviation of the difference of the
control group,
n1 = sample size of the experimental group, and
n2 = sample size of the control group.
4. The weighted mean will be utilized to determine
the attitude of Grade 9 students toward the use of
active learning strategies in teaching physics,
specifically concepts of work and energy as
shown below:
Where:
WM = weighted mean,
x = each of the item value,
W = weight of each item, and
“Σ” = the sum of.
All tests were done at 5% level of significance.
3. PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS, AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA
This chapter presents the results, analysis, and interpretation of data on the performance of the Grade 9 students
in teaching Physics who were exposed to different learning plans.
Performance Level of the Grade 9 Students in Physics
Table 1 reveals the pretest performance level of Grade 9 students in Physics.
Table 1 Pretest Performance Level of the Grade 9 Students in Physics
Group n HM AM SD
Test Statistic Qualitative
Description
Computed z-value p-value
Control
(Without Active
Learning Strategies)
34 14.40 17.68 2.61 7.33
<
.00001*
Above
Average
Experimental (With
Active Learning
Strategies)
35 14.40 17.71 2.40 8.16
<
.00001*
Above
Average
Note. HM = 60% of the total number of items; based on the passing standard of the school where the
research was conducted
*significant at α = 0.05 (two-tailed test)
Table 1 shows that the actual mean (AM) of the control group is 17.68 (SD=2.61), and the actual mean of the
experimental group is 17.71 (SD= 2.40). The scores of both groups in the pretest were higher than the
hypothetical mean (HM), z= 7.33 and 8.16, respectively, p < .00001. These values were significant; thus, HO1
was rejected. This means that there were significant differences between the hypothetical mean and the actual
mean of the experimental and control groups. Their performance in the pretest was Above Average. Both
groups were way above the hypothetical mean (HM) of 60%, the passing standard criterion set by the school
where the study was conducted. This above-average performance of both groups could be attributed to the
assumption that the topics were familiar to them already since they had acquired ideas about these given
concepts during their lower years since the teachers were following the Department of Education spiral
curriculum of teaching in Science subject.
Table 2 presents the post-test performance level of Grade 9 students in Physics.

Table 2 Posttest Performance Level of the Grade 9 Students in Physics
Group n HM AM SD
Test Statistic Qualitative
Description
Computed z-value p –value
Control (Without Active
34 14.40 19.74 2.48 12.56 < .00001*
Above
Average
Experimental (With Active
35 14.40 20.34 1.59 22.10 < .00001*
Above
Average
Note. HM = 60% of the total number of items; based on the passing standard of the school where the
research was conducted
*significant at α = 0.05 (two-tailed test)
Table 2 reveals that during the posttest, the control group had an actual mean (AM) of 19.74 (SD= 2.48), while
the experimental group had an actual mean of 20.34 (SD= 1.59). The posttest performance of both groups
yielded significant results, as shown by their z values of 12.56 and 22.10 for the control and experimental
groups, p < .00001. HO1 was rejected, meaning there were significant differences between the hypothetical and
actual means of the control and experimental groups. The performance of the students in the post-test was
Above Average. This suggests that the control and experimental groups obtained an actual mean higher than the
hypothetical mean (HM) of 60%, which is the passing standard criterion set by the school where the study was
conducted. This may imply that students probably have acquired more understanding of the concepts related to
energy and work with or without using the different active learning strategies integrated with the learning plans
within three weeks of learning through online distance learning.
The findings of this study supported the study of Mascolo and Fisher (2005), who believed that knowledge is an
intersubjective interpretation that is best acquired through a process of interaction of experiences and ideas. This
means that the learners must take into account the material being taught and create an interpretation based on
their prior knowledge. Students acquired understanding since some topics were already introduced during their
lower years, supported by the findings of this present study.
Mean Improvement of the Grade 9 Students in Physics from the Pretest to the Posttest
Table 3 shows the mean improvements of the control and experimental groups in their performance in Physics.
Table 3 Mean Improvements of the Control and Experimental Group in Physics
Group n
Pretest
Mean
Posttest
Mean
Test Statistic
Computed t-value p-value
34 17.68 19.74 2.06 3.16 3.801* .00059*
35 17.71 20.34 2.63 2.79 5.577* < .00001*
*significant at α = 0.05 (two-tailed test).
As indicated in Table 3, the control group, which was exposed to an online learning plan without integrating
active learning strategies, had a mean gain of 2.06 (Sd = 3.16). This showed a significant mean improvement in
the posttest (M= 19.74) from the pretest (M=17.68), t (33) = 3.801, p = .00059. For the experimental group,
which was exposed to active learning strategies, a mean gain of 2. 63 (Sd = 2.79) was obtained. Significant
improvement was shown in the posttest (M=20.34) from the pretest (M=17.71), t (34) = 5.577, p = <.00001. In
both cases, HO2 was rejected. This means that the students performed well in the posttest with or without the
integration of active learning strategies. This would mean that both interventions effectively enhanced students'
physics performance.
This may imply that students who were exposed to lessons without integration of active learning strategies still
acquired an understanding of the concepts of energy and work in Physics because, during the teaching and
learning process, the teacher was the primary source of knowledge and the one in charge in discussing the entire
lesson while the students were just merely the recipient of knowledge. Furthermore, the teacher’s way of
delivering the lesson utilized the idea of the direct instruction method wherein thorough discussions were made
by presenting the different learning objectives, asking the students questions from time to time to check their
understanding and comprehension, and giving different examples of real-life application of the concepts
discussed in the lesson. Even though the students were not so involved in the different activities to acquire
knowledge in the learning process, they were still able to grasp and understand the lesson because of the

presence of the teacher, who discussed the lesson well. These were supported by the following statements from
the subjects in the focus group discussion:
“Such method is standard for how lessons are conveyed. Since it is the teacher centered, it is much
comfortable and somewhat a navigated area.” - Student 23
“The activities integrated in the lesson was useful because it helped me understood the lesson and
improves my understanding about the lesson.” - Student 25
“The way the teacher delivered the lessons in the process helped me learn different laws and
applications that can be used in our daily life.” - Student 31
“The activities helped me gain and acquire deep knowledge. The way the teacher explained made the
lesson easier to understand.” - Student 34
This study's findings supported the study bySiegfried Engelmann and Douglas Carnine. (1982),which believed
that the teacher is always the source of knowledge within the four walls of the classroom. Through practical
lessons, corrective feedback, and practice opportunities, this instructional technique, also known as explicit
teaching, requires the teacher to keep the students engaged in class. Other studies that corroborated the findings
of this study were Magliaro et al. (2005), who emphasized that this formofinstruction is suitable becauseit has a
clear framework and the capacity to provide learners with opportunities for practice and immediate feedback.
Botts et al. (2014) pointed out that giving direct instruction in the teaching and learning process is more effective
and efficient since it promotes direct training incorporated in the classroom.
On the other hand, the improvement in the experimental group's performance may imply that the different active
learning strategies made the lesson more manageable and convenient and increased the active involvement of the
students in the teaching and learning process. Moreover, the activities with active learning strategies in the
learning plan could have promoted students’ engagement by catering to all their different learning styles and
intelligence. Furthermore, this indicates that integrating active learning strategies could improve students’
performance since it encourages students to participate in discussions actively and boosts learning within the
classroom/meeting (online arrangement), and undoubtedly aids students learning and comprehension of the
topics, which helped them to grasp concepts quickly and could apply them in real-life situations. These were
supported by the following statements from the subjects in the focus group discussion:
“To be honest, I truly liked the active learning strategy because it helped me become more involved in
the discussion and it made everything a bit more productive.” - Student 1
“Active learning activities did not only enhance my knowledge but also honed my communication skills
which enabled me to share ideas and collaborate more effectively.”- Student 21
“This active learning helped me understand the lessons better and interact with my classmates by
sharing our thoughts and what we knew about the topic.” - Student 33
“On my end, the active learning activities were useful for me to understand the topics in Physics well,
since after we do the activities, the teacher would explain the lesson further and give more examples.
Furthermore, such activities also enabled me to understand the concepts easily.” - Student 37
The findings of this study supported the following studies: Nuez et al. (2003) pointed out that the use of active
learning strategies in teaching Physics has a positive impact on students’ disciplinary knowledge as they are to
learn and reinforce it while having the opportunity. Additionally, active learning strategies can make students
shift from passive recipients of knowledge to active participants in activities that involve analysis, synthesis, and
scientific assessment while also developing skills, values, and attitudes (Livingstone & Lynch, 2003).
Furthermore, Kalem & Fer (2003) pointed out that utilizing active learning approaches have beneficial effects on
learning, teaching, and communication, while Sivan et al. (1991) pointed out also that the active learning
approaches developed and improved the overall growth of students' communication and problem-solving skills,
as well as their critical thinking abilities.
However, this study negated Karamustafaoglu (2009), who explained that although most teachers believe that
active learning approaches are beneficial for long-term learning and are more effective, some teachers argue that
active learning cannot be implemented in teaching Physics because it is a numerical subject.
Comparison of the Mean Improvements in Physics of the Control and Experimental Groups
The mean improvement in Physics of the experimental and control groups is shown in Table 4.

Table 4 Comparison of the Control and Experimental Group in Terms of Their Mean Improvement
in Physics
Group n
Mean
Gains
Difference
Between Means
Test Statistic
Computed t-value p-value
34 2.06 3.16
0.79 1.996 0.432 ns
35 2.63 2.79
Note. **not significant at α = 0.05.
As shown in Table 4, a mean difference of 0.79 was obtained in favor of the experimental group. However, the
result was insignificant, t (67) = 1.996, p = 0.432. This failed to reject HO3, meaning no significant difference in
mean gain in Physics performance existed between the control and experimental groups. Both groups had
comparable performance in the subject quantitatively and qualitatively, as mentioned in the previous tables.
Looking closely into the interventions, for the control group, who were just passive receivers of knowledge,
much of the student's learning could be attributed to the teacher, who was the direct source of the knowledge and
information through explicit teaching. These were supported by the following statements from the subjects in the
focus group discussion:
“The activities in the lesson were adequate. Enough to keep me engaged and not too much that it
overwhelms me. The activities provided a background for me to understand the given topic with the
supervision of the teacher in the process.” - Student 19
“Some of activities are quite challenging yet they can be understood and can be learned in some ways
with the helped of the teacher. The most helpful feature is that there is a mentor along this unique
learning experience.” - Student 23
“It helped me understand the lesson with the guidance of the teacher during discussion.”- Student 30
The findings of this study were in agreement with the study by Adams and Carnine, (2003), which said that the
teacher is in charge of the student'seducation; he or she must always keep the students' attention focused in order
for them to acquire new knowledge and understand the given idea presented fully. The structure needed to
facilitate effective and efficient skill acquisition, generalization, and learning retention was given by embedded
direct instruction, according to the study of Botts et al. (2014). The Direct Instruction Theory by Siegfried
Engelmann and Douglas Carnine states that when it comes to direct education, this is a common occurrence: the
teacher is the source of knowledge and asks different process questions to the students. The study's findings
affirmed that learners are just passive recipients of information and are not usually actively involved in the
process.
On the contrary, despite less teacher presence in the experimental group who acted only as a facilitator, learning
the concepts was primarily due to the student's active involvement using the different active learning strategies.
Still, their performance was more or less similar to that of the control group. This may imply that with the
integration of the active learning strategies in the lesson, students were still able to grasp understanding and to
learn similarly with the control group (teacher-dominated) the given concepts, such as energy and work, with
less teacher supervision. These were supported by the following statements of the subjects in the focus group
discussion:
“I really enjoyed the experience throughout the lessons. I find them very effective and efficient in
learning these topics especially in the new way of learning.” - Student 7
“The active learning activities were effective for me because it did help in guiding me for things to be
understood in an easier way.”- Student 8
“I can say that the active learning activities really helped me a lot to be motivated especially that tasks
like this doesn't need a lot of time to make. Hence, it pushed me to be on time and avoid procrastinating.
Moreover, student like me can also learn and understand the lessons easier through this method.” -
Student 20
“These active learning strategies helped me understand the lessons better and interact with my
classmates by sharing our thoughts and what we knew about the topic.” - Student 36

The findings of this study supported the study of Bartley and Milner (2011), which pointed out that students can
develop ideas, use language, learn from each other, and recognize that their opinions and experiences are valued
and necessary for new learning. Additionally, active strategies, especially group work, favored participation in
all phases of the project and allowed significant learning in the students under study (Hernandez et al.,2021),
while DeWitt (2003) pointed out that the active learning method that is employed in the classroom,
demonstrating that it can engage students and change their attitudes about science and learning. The
Constructivism Learning Theory by Jean Piaget states that humans produce knowledge byinteracting with their
experiences and ideas, and the individual is at the heart of the knowledge generation and acquisition process was
confirmed by the findings of this study.
Levels of Attitude of the Experimental Group Towards the Use of the Active Learning Strategies in
Physics
Figure 2 presents the level of attitude of the experimental group toward the use of active learning strategies in
Physics
Figure 2 The Level of Attitude of the Experimental Group toward the Use of the Active Learning
Strategies in Physics
Figure 2 reveals that most of the students, 31 (88.6%)
in the experimental group, exhibited a Very Positive
attitude towards using active learning strategies in
Physics. These students had a mean of 3.77 (SD =
0.24), categorized as Very Positive. This may imply
that integrating the different active learning strategies
in the lesson was helpful for them to understand the
topics in Physics since probably students find it
convenient because of how their productivity
increased compared to before.
This implies that the active learning techniques used
in the course enabled the students to identify new
avenues to learn that may improve attitude and value
comfortably. The various simulations, interactive
activities, and presentations used in the learning
process might have improved students' performance
in learning the given topics. This positive attitude
encourages the students to participate in discussions
actively and grasp concepts smoothly to apply them
in real-life settings. Integrating active learning
strategies help students enjoy and improve their
attitude toward school and learning. Furthermore,
such strategies also allow scientific attitude
improvement, cultivate fundamental scientific
thinking fundamentals, and generate creativity in
solving problems.
The findings of this study validated the study of
Suwondo dan Wulandari (2013), who elucidated that
the addition of active learning methods of teaching
can improve students' attitudes toward school and
learning in general because they allow them to
improve their scientific attitudes cultivate the
fundamentals of scientific thinking in students, and
generate their creativity in solving problems.

Furthermore, Price (2004) pointed out that students'
attitudes and understanding increase due to active
learning application in the learning and teaching
process because the goal is to create a balance
between lecturing and active learning approaches was
also affirmed by the results of this study.
4. SUMMARY, CONCLUSION, AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
This chapter presents the study's summary, findings,
conclusions, and recommendations.
Summary
This study employed the quasi-experimental method
with a pretest-posttest control group design that
aimed to determine the effects of using active
learning strategies in teaching Physics using the
researcher-made online distance learning plan.
Specifically, this study sought to answer the
following questions:
1. What is the pretest-posttest performance in
Physics of the Grade 9 students in the:
Learning Plan without active learning
strategies) and;
strategies)?
2. Is there significant mean improvement in Physics
performance from the pretest to the post-test of
the Grade 9 students in the:
Learning Plan without active learning
strategies) and;
strategies)?
3. Is there a significant difference in the mean
improvement in Physics performance between the
control group and the experimental group?
4. What is the level of attitude of the experimental
group toward the use of active learning strategies
in teaching Physics?
Findings of the Study
After the analyses of the data, this study obtained the
following results:
1. Both control and experimental groups manifested
Above Average performance in the pretest and
the posttest.
2. There were significant mean improvements in
the student’s performance in Physics from the
pretest to the posttest in both experimental and
control groups.
3. There was no significant difference in the mean
improvement in Physics between the
experimental and control groups.
4. The experimental group exhibited a Very
Positive attitude toward using active learning
strategies in Physics.
Conclusion
Online distance learning can be done in various ways
using different online platforms. It utilizes different
teaching methods and strategies to help students
actively participate and engage them in the teaching
and learning process, such as integrating different
active learning strategies.
Based on the findings of the study, the integration of
active learning strategies to the group with less
teacher presence (acts only as facilitator) proved to be
as effective as the group who received explicit
teaching from the teacher in teaching Physics. In
addition, it did not only enhance the student's
performance as manifested by their comparable
performance with the other group but was also
influential in developing a positive attitude that
affected the student's performance. Then it would
allow us to conclude that exposing the student to
various activities using active learning strategies,
even when there is less teacher supervision, would
undoubtedly help them improve their performance in
class and increase the possibility of acquiring a
positive attitude towards the subject they are learning.
With this optimistic attitude, students strive to exceed
what is required by established criteria in the subject
they are learning.
The theories of Direct Instruction by Siegfried
Engelmann and Douglas Carnine believe that teacher-
centered teaching strategies are effective in teaching
Physics since the teacher does the explicit teaching
directly to the students with less active participation
and involvement in the process, discussing the
concepts thoroughly with the use of different process
questions to help the students in acquiring an
understanding of the lessons. Constructivism
Learning Theory by Jean Piaget states that involving
the students actively and exposing them to a set of
activities that will engage them in the teaching and
learning process can help them enhance their
performance and attitude since they acquire learning
by interacting with their actual experiences in the
process, were both confirmed by the findings of this
study.
Recommendation
In light of the findings, the following
recommendations are suggested:
1. curriculum developers include different active
learning tasks that would enable students to
involve and engage in the lesson;
2. science teachers include active learning strategies
in the teaching of Physics;

3. students should be given different learning
strategies in the teaching and learning process to
overcome the difficulty in Physics; and
4. future researchers will conduct a similar study on
a face-to-face mode of instruction.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
[1] Adams, G., & Carnine, D. (2003). Direct
instruction. Handbook of learning disabilities,
403-416.
[2] Ahmed, R. (2004). Active Teaching and its
Influence on Student Academic Achievement:
The Case of Grade Three (Doctoral
dissertation, Addis Ababa University).
[3] Al-Shammari, Z., Al-Sharoufi, H., & Yawkey,
T. D. (2008). The Effectiveness of Direct
Instruction in Teaching English in Elementary
Public Education Schools inKuwait: A
Research Case Study. Education, 129(1).
[4] Ancheta, R., & Ancheta, H. (2020). The new
normal in education: A challenge to the private
basic education institutions in the Philippines.
International Journal of Educational
Management and Development Studies, 1(1).
[5] Andang Suhendi and Purwarno, (2018),
“Constructivist Learning Theory: The
Contribution to Foreign Language Learning and
Teaching” in The 1st Annual International
Conference on Language and Literature, KnE
Social Sciences,pages 87–95. DOI
10.18502/kss.v3i4.1921
[6] Bartley, G., & Milner, J. (2011). Group work
and attitude. Studies in Teaching 2011
Research Digest: Wake Forest University, 7-12.
[7] Baser, M. (2006). Promoting conceptual change
through active learning using open source
software for physics simulations. Australasian
Journal of Educational Technology, 22(3).
[8] Bay, M., Staver, J. R., Bryan, T., & Hale, J. B.
(1992). Science instruction for the mildly
handicapped: Direct instruction versus
discovery teaching. Journal of research in
science teaching, 29(6), 555-570.
[9] Bligh, D. A. (2000). What’s the use of lectures?
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
[10] Bonwell, C. C., & Eison, J. A. (1991). Active
learning: Creating excitement in the classroom.
1991 ASHE-ERIC higher education reports.
ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education, The
George Washington University, One Dupont
Circle, Suite 630, Washington, DC 20036-
1183.
[11] Botts, D. C., Losardo, A. S., Tillery, C. Y., &
Werts, M. G. (2014). A comparison of activity-
based intervention and embedded direct
instruction when teaching emergent literacy
skills. The Journal of Special Education, 48(2),
120-134.
[12] Bransford, J.D., Brown, A.L., and Cocking,
R.R. (Eds.) (1999). How people learn: Brain,
mind, experience, and school. Washington,
D.C.: National Academy Press.
[13] Brigati, Jennifer (2018). Student Attitudes
toward Active Learning vs. Lecture in Cell
Biology Instruction. The American Biology
Teacher, 80(8), 584–591.
[14] Browne, T., Jenkins, M. & Walker, R. (2006).
A longitudinal perspective regarding the use of
VLEs by higher education institutions in the
United Kingdom. InteractiveLearning
Environments, 14, pp. 177-192.
[15] Bunce, D. M., Flens, E. A., & Neiles, K. Y.
(2010). How long can students pay attention in
class? A study of student attention decline
using clickers. Journal of Chemical Education,
87(12), 1438-1443.
[16] Camarao, M. K. G., & Nava, F. J. G. (2017).
High school students’ difficulties in physics. In
Proceeding of National Conference on
Research in Teacher Education.
[17] Carr, R., Palmer, S., and Hagel, P. (2015).
Active learning: the importance of developing a
comprehensive measure. Active Learning in
Higher Education 16, 173-186.
[18] Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Scott, P., &
Mortimer, E. (1994). Constructing scientific
knowledge in the classroom. Educational
Researcher, 23(7), 5–12.
[19] Ekici, E. (2016). “Why Do I Slog through the
Physics?" Understanding High School Students'
Difficulties in Learning Physics. Journal of
Education and Practice, 7(7), 95-107.
[20] Engelmann, S., & Carnine, D. (1982). Theory
of instruction: Principles and applications. New
York: Irvington Publishers.
[21] Farrer, N. J., Monk, N., Heron, J., Lough, J. A.,
& Sadler, P. J. (2010). (RSC) 2: chemistry,
performance, and pedagogy–an interactive
approach to periodic trends. Chemistry
Education Research and Practice, 11(4), 308-
313.

[22] Felder, R. M., & Brent, R. (2009). Active
learning: An introduction. ASQ higher
education brief, 2(4), 1-5.
[23] Fernando, S. Y., & Marikar, F. M. (2017).
Constructivist Teaching/Learning Theory and
Participatory Teaching Methods. Journal of
Curriculum and Teaching, 6(1), 110-122.
[24] Flores, M. M., & Ganz, J. B. (2007).
Effectiveness of direct instruction for teaching
statement inference, use of facts, and analogies
to students with developmental disabilities and
reading delays. Focus on autism and other
developmental disabilities, 22(4), 244-251.
[25] 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.
[26] Frieberg, H. J., & Driscoll, A. (2000).
Universal teaching strategies (3rd ed.). Boston:
Allyn & Bacon.
[27] Handelsman, J., Miller, S., and Pfund, C.
(2007). Scientific teaching. New York: W.H.
Freeman.
[28] Hernández, C. A., Núñez, R. P., & Gamboa, A.
A. (2021). Gains in active learning of physics: a
measurement applying the test of understanding
graphs of kinematics. In Journal of Physics:
Conference Series (Vol. 2073, No. 1, p.
012003).
[29] Haak, D.C., HilleRisLambers, J., Pitre, E., and
Freeman, S. (2011). Increased structure and
active learning reduce the achievement gap in
introductory
[30] Johnson, C., & McCoy, L. P. (2011). Guided
discovery learning with collaborative discourse.
Studies in Teaching 2011 Research Digest:
Wake Forest University, 41-48.
[31] Kalem S, & Fer S. (2003). The effects of the
active learning model on students’ learning,
teaching and communication. Educ. Sci.
Theory Practice, pages 455-461.
[32] Karamustafaoglu, O. (2009). Active learning
strategies in physics teaching. Online
Submission, 1(1), 27-50.
[33] Limón, M. (2001). On the cognitive conflict as
an instructional strategy for conceptual change:
A critical appraisal. Learning and instruction,
11(4-5), 357-380.
[34] Livingstone, D., & Lynch, K. (2002). Group
project work and student-centered active
learning: Two different experiences. Journal of
Geography in Higher Education, 26(2), 217-
237.
[35] LoPresto, M. C., & Slater, T. F. (2016). A new
comparison of active learning strategies to
traditional lectures for teaching college
astronomy. Journal of Astronomy & Earth
Sciences Education (JAESE), 3(1), 59-76.
[36] Lorenzo, M., Crouch, C.H., Mazur, E. (2006).
Reducing the gender gap in the physics
classroom. American Journal of Physics 74,
118–122.
[37] Magliaro, S. G., Lockee, B. B., & Burton, J. K.
(2005). Direct instruction revisited: A key
model for instructional technology. Educational
technology research and development, 53(4),
41-55.
[38] Mascolo, M. F., & Fischer, K. W. (2005).
Constructivist theories. Cambridge
Encyclopedia of Child Development (pp. 49-
63). Cambridge, England: Cambridge
University Press.
[39] Miller, K. W. (2008). Teaching Science
Methods Online: Myths about Inquiry-Based
Online Learning. Science Educator, 17(2), 80-
86.
[40] Nuñez, R. P., Hernández, C. A., & Gamboa, A.
A. (2021, July). Active learning and knowledge
in physics: a reading from classroom work. In
Journal of Physics: Conference Series (Vol.
1981, No. 1, p. 012007).
[41] Omelicheva, M. Y., & Avdeyeva, O. (2008).
Teaching with lecture or debate? Testing the
effectiveness of traditional versus active
learning methods of instruction. PS: Political
Science and Politics, 41(3), 603-607.
[42] Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2008). 21st
Century Skills: How can you prepare students
for the new Global Economy. Retrieved from
https://www.oecd.org/site/educeri21st/4075690
8.pdf
[43] Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work?
A review of the research. Journal of
engineering education, 93(3), 223-231.
[44] Ruiz-Primo, M.A., Briggs, D., Iverson, H.,
Talbot, R., Shepard, L.A. (2011). Impact of
undergraduate science courses innovations on
learning. Science 331, 1269–1270.

[45] Sivan, A., Leung, R. W., Gow, L., & Kember,
D. (1991). Towards more active forms of
teaching and learning in hospitality studies.
International Journal of Hospitality
Management, 10(4), 369-379.
[46] Sivan, A., Leung, R. W., Woon, C. C., &
Kember, D. (2000). An implementation of
active learning and its effect on the quality of
student learning. Innovations in education and
training international, 37(4), 381-389.
[47] Suwondo dan Wulandari. (2013). Inquiry-
Based Active Learning: The Enhancement of
Attitude and Understanding of the Concept of
Experimental Design in Biostatics Course.
Asian Social Science; Vol. 9, No. 12 Tahun
2013. Canadian Center of Science and
Education.
[48] Warren, J. W. (1991). The teaching of energy.
Physics Education, 26(1), 8–9.
[49] Western Cooperative for Educational
Telecommunications, (2004). Distance
education: A consumer's guide. Western
Cooperative for Educational
Telecommunications, Retrieved May 15, 2006:
http://www.wcet.info/ Resourc
es/publications/conguide/
[50] Wieman, C. (2014). Stop lecturing me.
Scientific American, 311(2), 70-71.

Effects of Active Learning Strategies in Teaching Physics

More Related Content

Similar to Effects of Active Learning Strategies in Teaching Physics (20)

More from ijtsrd (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Effects of Active Learning Strategies in Teaching Physics