Effect of Eco-Friendly Wind Turbine Teaching Aids on Elementary Students’ Energy Conceptual Understanding
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.37680/basica.v6i1.9246Abstract
This study examines the effect of environmentally friendly science teaching aids in the form of a windmill integrated into experimental learning on third-grade students’ conceptual understanding of energy in Madrasah Ibtidaiyah. A quantitative quasi-experimental method with a nonequivalent control group design was employed. The sample consisted of 46 students selected through purposive sampling, including 24 in the experimental group and 22 in the control group. The experimental group received experimental learning supported by windmill-based teaching aids made from recycled materials, while the control group received experimental learning without teaching aids. Data were collected using a validated multiple-choice test measuring conceptual understanding across cognitive levels C1–C4. The instrument demonstrated acceptable reliability (Cronbach’s α ≥ 0.70). Data analysis included descriptive statistics, Shapiro–Wilk normality test, Levene’s homogeneity test, independent samples t-test, and N-Gain analysis. The results showed no significant difference in pretest scores, indicating equivalent baseline understanding. However, posttest results revealed a significant difference favoring the experimental group. The normalized gain was higher in the experimental group (59.21%, moderate–high) compared to the control group (11.22%, low). The effect size was very large (Cohen’s d = 3.47), indicating a strong practical impact. These findings demonstrate that integrating environmentally friendly windmill-based teaching aids into experimental learning significantly improves students’ conceptual understanding of energy.
References
Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives: complete edition. Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage Publications.
Fitriana, N., & Prayogi, S. (2023). Recycled-based science teaching aids and their impact on elementary students’ conceptual understanding. Jurnal Pendidikan IPA Indonesia, 12(2), 145–156. https://doi.org/10.15294/jpii.v12i2.XXXX
Fitriana silvana, S. prayogi. (2023). Pemanfaatan Bahan Bekas sebagai Alat Peraga IPA Ramah Lingkungan. Jurnal Inovasi Dan Penerapan Ipteks, 11, 217–226.
Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2019). How to design and evaluate research in education. McGraw-Hill.
Hake, R. R. (1998). Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data. American Journal of Physics, 66(1), 64–74. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.18809
Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. Routledge.
Kang, H., & Keinonen, T. (2018). The effect of inquiry-based learning experiences on adolescents’ science-related career aspiration. International Journal of Science Education, 40(9), 1032–1057. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2018.1455321
Kuhlthau, C. C., Maniotes, L. K., & Caspari, A. K. (2015). Guided inquiry: Learning in the 21st century. Libraries Unlimited.
Lestari, D., & Widodo, A. (2022). Experimental learning to improve conceptual understanding in elementary science. https://doi.org/10.15294/jpii.v11i3.34521
Nisa, K., & Sudarmin. (2016). The effectiveness of contextual teaching and learning to improve students’ science literacy. Jurnal Pendidikan IPA Indonesia, 5(2), 178–184. https://doi.org/10.15294/jpii.v5i2.6006
Ormrod, J. E. (2020). Educational psychology: Developing learners. Pearson.
Piaget, J. (1972). The psychology of the child. Basic Books.
Sari, R., & Sumarni, W. (2022). The effectiveness of science teaching aids on students’ conceptual understanding. https://doi.org/10.24815/jpsi.v10i3.24689
Savery, J. R. (2015). Overview of problem-based learning: Definitions and distinctions. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 1(1), 9–20. https://doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1002
Slavin, R. E. (2018). Educational psychology: Theory and practice. Pearson.
Suryawati, E., Osman, K., & Meerah, T. S. M. (2010). The effectiveness of contextual teaching and learning approach in science instruction. Jurnal Pendidikan IPA Indonesia, 9(1), 120–127. https://doi.org/10.15294/jpii.v9i1.XXXX
Susi Subella, Lukman Hakim, R. R. (2023). Pengaruh Metode Demonstrasi Berbantuan Alat Peraga Terhadap Pemahaman IPA Siswa. Jurnal of Education Research, 4(2), 759–762.
Türkmen, H. (2006). What technology plays supporting role in learning cycle approach for science education. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 2(2), 71–79. https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/75400
Uno, H. B. (2016). Teori motivasi dan pengukurannya. Bumi Aksara.
Widodo, A., & Riandi. (2013). Dual-mode teaching strategy and conceptual change in science learning. International Journal of Instruction, 6(2), 77–94.
Wieman, C., & Perkins, K. (2005). Transforming physics education. Physics Today, 58(11), 36–41. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.2155756
Yager, R. E. (2000). The constructivist learning model. The Science Teacher, 67(1), 44–45.
Yuliani, H., & Saragih, S. (2015). The effect of experimental learning on students’ critical thinking skills. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 14(3), 320–331.
Zacharia, Z. C., & Olympiou, G. (2011). Physical versus virtual manipulative experimentation in physics learning. Learning and Instruction, 21(3), 317–331. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2010.03.001
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Aisyah Rahmah Ummi Kurnilasari, Risalul Ummah
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
