Current Science Research Bulletin

The creativity, critical thinking, and informed decision-making that science education cultivates shape a nation's future. In the Philippines, students continue to struggle to comprehend scientific concepts and raise their grades in spite of the Department of Education's attempts. This study examined how students at La Libertad National High School, La Libertad, Zamboanga del Norte, performed in Science 8 during the 2024–2025 academic year in relation to the Interactive Science Toolkit. The quasi-experimental research design used in this study used pretest-posttest nonequivalent groups. The study's two groups were an experimental group instructed using the Interactive Science Toolkit and a control group given traditional lecture-based instruction. To statistically evaluate the results, the researcher created a test that gathered data, and mean calculations, standard deviations, z-tests, and t-tests were employed. The findings show that the two groups' pretest scores were comparable and that their knowledge levels did not differ significantly. But more significantly, the experimental group's scores improved from the pretest to the posttest, indicating that the toolkit enhanced their engagement with the science curriculum and their understanding of scientific concepts. They also performed noticeably better on the posttest than the control group. Research has demonstrated that the implementation of interactive scientific toolkits in the classroom significantly enhances students' academic performance. We recommend educators use these kinds of resources to enhance learning, boost student motivation, and facilitate comprehension. Studies on the all-encompassing effects of interactive tools on conceptual mastery and knowledge retention could be carried out.

Experimental, Interactive Science Toolkit, Post-Test, Pre-Test, Students’ Performance

1. Ahakiri, A. (2022). Students' academic performance and engagement in science in a web-based interactive learning environment. International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Development, 10(6), 25-30. 
2. Anggraini, S. D., Ramli, M., &Permanasari, A. (2020). Science textbook based on socio-scientific issues for environmental pollution to increase student science literacy in junior high school. Journal of Science Learning, 3(2), 109-119.
3. Altaftazani, M., et al. (2020). Application of the constructivism approach to improve students’ understanding of multiplication material.
4. Alzahrani, K. S. (2021). The effectiveness of using interactive learning strategies on students' academic achievement and motivation in science education. Journal of Education and Learning, 10(2), 145–154.
5. Alzahrani, K. S. (2021). The impact of teaching methods on students’ achievement in science: A case study of Saudi Arabia. International Journal of Instruction, 14(1), 851–868. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2021.14151a. 
6. Asif, M., Bashir, M., & Hussain, S. (2023). Enhancing student learning through interactive digital tools: A case for science education. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 20(1), 23. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-023-00402-z. 
7. Asif, Hussain, Shaik., M, Ananth, Prabhu., Shaik, Mazhar, Hussain., Kiran, Kumar, Poloju. (2023). An Interactive Design Tool for Assessing Student understanding in Digital Environments. SHS web of conferences, doi: 10.1051/shsconf/202315609004.
8. Baimakhanova, G, M.,Maimuna, Begum, Kali. (2023). Improving the effectiveness of the educational process using interactive methods.   doi: 10.58937/2023-2-7
9. Baimakhanova, D., Smagulova, L., & Ibragimova, A. (2023). The impact of interactive technologies on students’ cognitive engagement and motivation in science education. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 20(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-023-00391-9.
10. Baimakhanova, M., Nugumanova, S., Seitkhalilov, S., &Kunanbayeva, S. (2023). The impact of interactive digital tools on student motivation and academic achievement in science education. International Journal of Instruction, 16(1), 145–162.
11. Chen, L., & Wang, X. (2018). The impact of instructional interventions on students' statistical reasoning skills: A comparative study. Journal of Educational Research, 111(4), 523-538.
12. Chen, Y., Yang, C., & Hwang, G. (2020). An interactive concept map approach to supporting mobile learning and inquiry-based science education. Interactive Learning Environments, 28(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2018.1495658.
13. Fajardo, M. T., et al. (2020). The effects of Interactive Science Notebook on student teachers' physics achievement levels. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 16(1), 62-76.   
14. Gregor, A., & Underwood, G. (2020). The role of interactive learning in enhancing biology education. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 29(4), 245-256.
15. Hadzigeorgiou Y. and Schulz R. M. (2019) Engaging Students in Science: The Potential Role of “Narrative Thinking” and “Romantic Understanding”. Front. Educ. 4:38. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2019.00038. 
16. Hamari, J., Koivisto, J., & Sarsa, H. (2019). Does gamification work? A literature review of empirical studies on gamification. Proceedings of the Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 47, 3025-3034.
17. HWA. (2021, August). 31 Reasons Students Get an F Grade. Help With Assignment. Retrieved from https://www.helpwithassignment.com/blog/bad-grades-college/. Ipfling, H. Et Al. (2021, May 1). Education. Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved from https://www.britannica.com/topic/education.
18. Jeffrey, Aborot., Michelle, P., Neverida., John, Kevin, C., Abonita., Vanesa, O., Osiana. (2022). Gul.ai: AI- and IoT-enabled Plant-growing System for Boosting STEM Education in the Philippines.   doi: 10.1109/ICTKE55848.2022.9983122.
19. Johnson, D., & Smith, K. (2022). Impact of Bioman Biology on student learning outcomes
20. Johnson, L., Adams Becker, S., Estrada, V., & Freeman, A. (2019). The NMC Horizon Report: 2019 Higher Education Edition. New Media Consortium. Retrieved from https://www.nmc.org/publication/nmc-horizon-report-2019-higher-education-edition/
21. Kopylova, N. (2022). The impact of digital learning tools on student engagement and performance in secondary science classrooms. Education and Information Technologies, 27, 3145–3162. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10715-w.
22. Kopylova. N., A., (2022). The Use of Interactive Educational Forms in a Technical University.   doi: 10.1109/ELEKTRO53996.2022.9803378.
23. Kujawa, B. (2023, February 1). Samelane. What is the cognitive learning theory? Benefits, strategies, and usage examples. Retrieved from https://samelane.com/blog/cognitive-learning-theory/. 
24. Kumar, P., & Mariappan, M. (2023). Journal of Scientific Temper.  doi: 10.56042/jst.v11i1.65458.
25. Laguatan, R. P. (2020). SCIENCE TEACHER’S QUALITIES: BASIS FOR FACULTY SUSTAINABLE PROGRAM . International Social Science Review, 2(1). Retrieved from http://ejournals.ph/form/cite.php?id=15815.
26. Luguatan, R. P. & Abad, B. D. (2019). Science Teacher’s Quality: The Basis for a Faculty Sustainability Program. International Journal of Innovation, Creativity and Change. Volume 8, Issue 7.
27. Main, P (2022, December 09). Cognitivism Learning Theories: A teachers guide. Retrieved from https://www.structural-learning.com/post/cognitivism-learning-theories.
28. Miller, C., & Anderson, P. (2021). Digital tools in education: Evaluating the usability and accessibility of Sheppard Software. Education Technology Review, 38(2), 150-168.
29. Naftaliev, E. (2018). Prospective Teachers’ Interactions with Interactive Diagrams: Semiotic Tools, Challenges and Well-Trodden Paths.   doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-73253-4_14
30. Neri, N., C., Guill, K., &Retelsdorf, J. (2021). Language in science performance: do good readers perform better?. European Journal of Psychology of Education,  doi: 10.1007/S10212-019-00453-5.
31. Neri, N., C., Guill, K., &Retelsdorf, J. (2021). Language in science performance: do good readers perform better?. European Journal of Psychology of Education,  doi: 10.1007/S10212-019-00453-5.
32. OECD. (2019). PISA 2018 results (Volume I): What students know and can do. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/5f07c754-en.
33. Ordu, E., U., (2021, June). ERIC. The Role of Teaching and Learning Aids/Methods in a Changing World. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED613989.
34. Ordu, S. (2021). The role of culture and context in modern science education reforms. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 30(4), 567–578. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-021-09910-7Ordu, S. (2021). The role of culture and context in modern science education reforms. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 30(4), 567–578. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-021-09910-7.
35. Prastiti, T. D., Putri, R. I. I., &Zulkardi. (2020). HOTS problem on function and probability: Does it impact students’ mathematical literacy in Universitas Terbuka? Journal on Mathematics Education, 11(3), 453-468.
36. Price, P., Jangiani, R., & Chiang, I. (2021). RESEARCH METHODS IN PSYCHOLOGY – 2ND CANADIAN EDITION. Quasi-Experimental Research. Retrieved from https://opentextbc.ca/researchmethods/chapter/quasi-experimental-research/.
37. Quirido, D., Yazon, A., Maniag, K., Tamban, V., & Sapin, S., (2023). Effectiveness of Interactive Classroom Tool: A Quasi-Experiment in Assessing Students’ Engagement and Performance in Mathematics 10 using ClassPoint. Applied Quantitative Analysis,  doi: 10.31098/quant.1601.
38. Poulovassilis, A. (2019). Awareness Tools for Teachers to Support Students’ Exploratory Learning: Challenges and Design.   doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-15130-0_14.
39. Rahmat, N. H., Yusof, N. M., & Ismail, N. S. (2020). Investigating students’ learning challenges in science subjects. Asian Journal of University Education, 16(3), 137–147. https://doi.org/10.24191/ajue.v16i3.11088. 
40. Refugio, C., Galleto, P., & Torres, R. (2019). Competence Landscape of Grade 9 Mathematics Teachers: Basis for an Enhancement Program. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1222086.
41. Rahmat, N. H., Ahmadi, S. M., & Ismail, S. A. (2020). Factors causing students’ poor performance in science subjects. Asian Journal of University Education, 16(3), 174–183. https://doi.org/10.24191/ajue.v16i3.11097.
42. Ruth, Aston., Terrence, D., Mulhern., Rinske, Ginsberg., Sarah, French. (2018). The Performing Sciences.   
43. Siemens, G. (2018). The Impact of Learning Technologies on the Future of Education. Educational Technology, 58(5), 36-40.
44. SERC (Science Education Resource Center). (n.d.). PhET Interactive Simulations: What are they? Retrieved from http://serc.carleton.edu/sp/library/phet/what.html
45. Smyrnaiou, Z., &Georgakopoulou , E. (2023, January 02). Reflecting on Performance and the Audience: Lessons from Practice. Contributions from science education research,  doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-17350-9_11.
46. Susanti, D., Fauziah, P. Y., &Hastuti, D. (2019). Effectiveness of digital science modules in improving student achievement in biology. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1170(1), 012008.
47. Tran, M., & Nguyen, H. (2021). Exploring collaborative learning in digital education environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 69(3), 785-802.
48. Wei, Xu. (2022). The Use of Interactive Educational Forms in a Technical University.   doi: 10.1109/elektro53996.2022.9803378
49. Wei, L. (2022). The effects of integrating interactive digital tools on students’ critical thinking and learning motivation. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 31(1), 45–62.
50. Zhang, Y., Li, L., & Wang, J. (2019). The impact of multimedia learning on students' academic performance and engagement. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 22(4), 153-166.