HANDS ON PEDAGOGY IN MALAYSIA’S STEM EDUCATION:

A CRITICAL REVIEW

HANDS ON PEDAGOGY AND MALAYSIAN STRATEGIES TO STEM

EDUCATION: A REVIEW

Contents

1.0 Introduction …………………………………………………………………………

2.0 Understanding Hands-On Pedagogy and STEM Education …………………………

3.0 Education, Theory and Philosophies behind Hands-On Pedagogy ………………….

4.0 Hands-On Learning Characteristics and Features ……………………………………

4.1 Peer interaction through cooperative learning ……………………………….

4.2 Object-mediated learning …………………………………………………….

4.3 Embodied experience …………………………………………………………

5.0 Advantages and Disadvantages of Hands-On Learning ……………………………..

6.0 Malaysia’s Reality ……………………………………………………………………

6.1 Present’s Situation ……………………………………………………………

6.2 STEM Education Challenges …………………………………………………

7.0 Conclusions …………………………………………………………………………...

References …………………………………………………………………………………
1.0 Introduction

In the 21st century, effective teaching and learning for students has been a major educational

goal. With the phenomenal advances in information and communication technologies, the

interconnectedness of people and places are greatly increased. People all over the world from

east to west, and north to south can find the latest news, information and knowledge within

seconds including students regardless of age and places, as long as they have internet access.

For that reason, the traditional methods based on lecture-based and teacher-centered approach

should be directed to student-centered as students nowadays are more advance compared to

last century. Eventually, educators and teachers should have the skilled pedagogies and critical

thinking skills to create an exciting and active-learning for student’s engagement in a classroom.

Although it is critically challenging for teachers especially in science, technology, engineering

and mathematics (STEM) related subjects, continuous changing efforts in educating students

should always been embedded.

In an age when the growth of science and technology is overwhelming, the teachers today are

expected to teach students in a way that they learn concepts without leaving the need to acquire

process skills, positive values and attitudes and problem solving skills. Recently, a variety of

instructional method and learning styles have been advocated by teachers to their students. A

vast amount of research has been studied in instructional method area and hands-on pedagogy

is one of the effective strategies implemented by teachers in STEM education.

“Tell me and I forget, teach me and I may remember, involve me and I learn.”

This famous saying holds true today where hands-on pedagogy or hands-on learning is

implemented in education of all ages and all stages of learning development. Hands-on learning

is grounded in the belief that learning by doing and real-world application is an effective

approach for students engagement in classroom. The experiential value of this type of learning
in STEM education triggers the students’ motivation to learn and enhances their understanding,

creativity and logic. Consequently, the skills learn during hands-on learning can be implied in

everyday lives.

Although hands-on learning has been implemented in many areas from preschool to higher

education, and the study on its effectiveness has long been studied, yet a critically and

scrutinized review had yet been studied. Thus, this study would discuss and analyse critically

among the research literature on hands-on learning as a teaching method are explored.

2.0 Understanding Hands-On Pedagogy and STEM Education

Hands-on pedagogy or hands-on learning is defined as educational experience involving

engaging investigations with objects, materials, natural phenomena, and ideas to gain

knowledge and understanding. 1 ’ 2 Other terms for this are materials-centered learning,

manipulative learning and practical learning.3

Hands-on learning commonly uses physical materials to teach students especially in engaging

scientific methodologies. However, when the educational technologies are gaining more

attention, virtual laboratories also raises an interest towards educators and students to utilize it

instead of using physical materials. However, much still needs to be learned about the

influences of different instructional materials on student learning.4

Over the past century, hands-on learning has played a crucial role for science related education

in engaging students besides other types of pedagogical techniques that has been introduced by

the educational psychological expert. After the ‘integrative STEM education’ was introduced,

more hands-on and real world experiences are implemented by utilizing teaching and learning

approaches such as problem-based, project-based, inquiry-based and design-based learning.5

As introduction, STEM is an acronym for science, technology, engineering and mathematics.

While STEM education can be simply defined as a curriculum built on the idea of educating

students in the four areas stated without having an interaction with each other. At first, in 1990s,

the ‘STEM’ term was used as ‘SMET’ by the National Science Foundation (NSF). Until an

NSF program officer complained about the ‘SMET’ term, at last the ‘STEM’ acronym was

born. 6

Although the STEM acronym had been familiarized nearly by everyone, it remains a source of

scarcity. The ‘STEM education’ term itself had been confused by many, including teachers and

educators involved in this field. On a STEM perception survey, most respondents involved

relate the acronym to ‘stem cell research’ or plants.7 Not only that, STEM is usually interpreted

just as science or math without referring to technology or engineering. 8 Other misconceptions

also was the thought that when only one of the disciplines are used in teaching and learning, it

brings new and exciting approached. Well, apparently it’s not based on the definition that has

been stated. Hence, a new term ‘integrative STEM education’ was introduced intended to

include two or more of the STEM disciplines and causing interaction between the

stakeholders.9 Previous studies showed that the integrated STEM learning promote the 21st

century workforce skills,10 11 enhanced student’s learning experience and achievement12’13.

In an age when science and technology innovation plays a vital role to the human’s life and

earth’s sustainability, high quality of STEM education is a powerful component as the first step

towards generation today. Increasingly changing global industry landscape for the last few

years cause many new concepts emerged such as the Fourth Industrial Revolution (4.0 IR) that

focuses on the integration between the physical world and technologies through real-time

communication with cyber-physical systems (CPSs), Internet of Things (IoT) and cloud

computing. 14 ’ 15 Rising global problems such as climate change, agricultural production,

diseases, declining energy and water sources besides other issues give higher pressure on
developing science and technology. To change the world is to change the people. To change

the people is by changing the education. Thus, STEM education and STEM career is a major

emphasis to attribute a change in the economic sector and job creation towards a more peace-

sustainability world.

3.0 Education, Theory and Philosophies behind Hands-On Pedagogy

Constructivism theory describes that during the teaching and learning process, each individual

will actively build their own knowledge where they do not just accept the knowledge passively

from others. Students actively build knowledge and concepts based on existing knowledge and

experience. It focus on the process to gain knowledge. Philosophical meanings of

constructivism varies for every field of study. Piaget (1967) focused on personal constructivism,

Vygotsky (1978) on social constructivism, radical constructivism as described by von

Glasersfeld (1995), and educational constructivism by Matthews (1998). The current

educational approaches more towards social constructivism and educational constructivism as

they both gave greatest impact on instruction and curriculum design.16

Dewey (1963) stated that education can simply be divided into two category, ‘traditional’ and

‘progressive’. In progressive education, he discovered that the process of experience and

education have a very strong relation as the knowledge from past experience will affect the

new knowledge gain. Thus, learning exposure with physical action and hands-on experience

are more appealing to students besides the important role of educators in handling the lesson

that motivates the student to continue learning and gain new knowledge.17

Kolb (1984), an American education theorist, agrees with Dewey’s theory mentioning that

‘learning is the process while knowledge results from the transformation of experience’. Worth

(2010) affirms that learning Science is more than just gaining the facts and understanding on

the particular topic. This is where learning science through hands-on experiments becomes
acceptable as an effective option as it encourages students to experience and discover from

observation or feelings. This will lead to the development of students’ problem solving skills,

creativity skills and independent learning skills (Shymansky et al., 1990).

Based on theory and research, information related to the effectiveness of hands-on inquiry

based instructional strategy is to help to bring about improvement in students’ performance in

STEM subjects. Although the previous instructional strategies for the teaching of STEM

subjects came about as a result of many past studies, research continues to provide insight into

best practices for teaching STEM subjects in the classroom. Research into best practice in the

teaching of STEM subjects is shifting from classroom-textbook level of instruction, rote

procedures toward investigation, teacher centeredness and questioning to a more of outside

classroom, experiential studies, and student centeredness. The activities within a STEM

education curriculum should scaffold from confirmatory, structured, guided, and to open an

inquiry to explore the real world.18

4.0 Hands-On Learning Characteristics/Features/Process

A wide range of disciplines from primary to higher education has applied hands-on learning.

For every type of disciplines, there are several hands-on approaches. However, there are three

main characteristics of hands-on pedagogy in making STEM instruction effective.19

4.1 Peer interaction through cooperative learning

Hands-on activity sessions usually involving making small groups consist of four to nine

students. This will promote interaction between peers in sharing ideas, argumentating opinions

and working cooperatively while working on the materials provided.

4.2 Object-mediated learning.

Hands-on activities involving manipulation of variety objects or materials. The object can

either be special equipments laboratory apparatus such as test tubes, bulbs, microscopes, and
thermometers or even everyday gadgets used such as scissors, glue, and paper or even living

things such as plants and insects.

4.3 Embodied Experience.

The students must experience the manipulation of the hands-on materials themselves instead

of watching a demonstration by the teacher only. Movement of the body are involved (hands,

eyes, ears and nose) and this will increase the science related understanding and stored in longer

term memory.

5.0 Advantages and Disadvantages of Hands-On Learning

Numerous studies in literature have shown that hands-on pedagogy help students to perform

much better than students who only used traditional, teacher-centered program. 20212223 The

misconceptions of students in scientific understanding can be treated with this type of

pedagogy2425 and also developing a positive attitudes and improve their motivation towards

science.2627 Besides that, hands-on learning also develop their critical thinking skills as well as

discover scientific concepts in daily life. Thus, encourage their creativity for solving every

problem that they had to faced neither it is a formal exam test or daily life problems. By

experiencing hands-on science by themselves, this self discovery also promote long-lasting

memory as their every senses are used. Other than that, it improves crucial skills such as reading,

arithmetic, communication and argumentative skills.28

Children also learn better when they can touch, feel, measure, manipulate, draw, make charts,

record data and when they find answers for themselves rather than being given the answer in a

textbook or lecture.29 Hands-on projects obviously engage kids who are tactile or kinesthetic

learners, who need movement to learn best. They also engage students who are auditory
learners, who talk about what they're doing, and visual learners, who have the opportunity to

see what everyone else is creating. For social learners, the time spent in small group

conversation will strengthen their knowledge.30

However, it must be accepted that there are several barriers and disadvantages in implementing

hands-on learning to students. Injuries related with hands-on learning is a negative reality with

some of the dangers are accidents leading to eye injuries, lacerations, amputations and other

permanent injuries resulting from STEM education whether it is in classroom, laboratory or

outdoor activities.31 Despite the potential injuries, few researcher argued that STEM educators

should develop strategies to avoid any kind of accident or injury that might happened during

hands-on activities.32 Teacher preparation through pre-service and in-service training is very

crucial to equip STEM teachers with knowledge of safety and liability involving how to

develop a case law and how to save time, money, and injuries that result from accidents.33

In hands-on activities, controlling the students would be a big challenge for teachers as an

active learning process will take place instead of the traditional passing knowledge process. A

more inquiry-based learning involving varieties of questions from the students will engaged in

the activities causing frustration to teachers if not thoroughly prepared physically and

mentally.3435 Thus, more human resources needed in the tutoring process which commonly the

number of staff in schools are sedikit and limited.

Besides that, another issue related with hands-on learning is the effectiveness of it in embodied

experience. A research about adults’ understanding of sinking objects shows that hands-on

experiences can cause misconceptions and misunderstandings in the science concepts if not

included with a proper and quality science teaching. Thus, we can conclude that hands-on

activities may not necessarily provide the best science learning outcomes.36
The psychology of learning science holds the response to the challenge of increasing students’

understanding of science. Throwing more science facts and principles at the students is not the

answer. Increasing the number of students’ laboratory activities is not the answer either; a

trendy emphasis on ‘hands on’ will not, by itself, increase students’ understanding of science.

What is additionally needed is a ‘minds on’ emphasis in the learning of science.

For students to truly learn science concepts, they both need practical opportunities to apply

knowledge and also need help in integrating or exchanging the knowledge they gain. Students

should have minds-on and/or heads-on experiences during hands-on activities. While doing

hands-on activity, the learner is learning by doing but while minds-on learning, the learner is

thinking about what she or he is learning and doing. 37 A minds-on science activity also

includes the use of higher order thinking, such as problem solving compared to the hands-on

activity.38 Therefore, students should be both physically and mentally engaged in activities that

encourage learners to question and devise temporarily satisfactory answers to their questions.

As collection of the most popular methods, interactive engagement methods also give emphasis

to hands-on activities (usually) as well as minds-on activities (always), which provide

immediate feedback through discussion with peers and/or instructors. In a survey, students in

physics courses that make use of interactive engagement or active learning methods retain

knowledge of physics concepts better than students in traditional lecture and lab courses.39

A research explored the best practices for bringing engineering into the science and

mathematics curriculum of secondary school classrooms described the use of robotic activities.

The use of practical, hands-on applications of mathematical and scientific concepts across

various engineering topics will help students to link scientific concepts with technology,
problem solving, and design, and to apply classroom lessons to real-life problems. 40

Additionally, through hands-on, laboratories, demonstrations and lectures, science educators

are able to explain difficult scientific concepts and make them interactive and experiential.41

Hands-on pedagogy also offers students the opportunity to interact with peers and manipulate

with objects, make inquiries based on the observation of a phenomenon, collect data and, make

conclusions which form the basis of scientific inquiries.42 In order to increase the enthusiasm

and the eagerness of elementary level students about STEM related knowledge, various

engineering design and curriculum models have been put in place. Some of the models of

Project Lead the Way (PLTW) and Engineering are Elementary (EiE). The models are

enhanced by the use of hands-on learning activities, project-based learning activities, and

cooperative based learning activities. Specifically, the use of hands-on learning activities

promote higher order thinking skills and help to increase the academic achievement of students

in STEM subjects.43

STEM educators have discovered robotic activities as powerful tools to engage students in the

classroom. 44 Researchers claim that robotic competitions have managed to improve the

enthusiasm of students in STEM content areas. In a study about the effectiveness of robotic

activities, it can be concluded that through hands-on experimentation, such technologies can

help the youth translate abstract mathematics and science concepts in concrete real-world

applications.45 Robotic competitions which are hands-on activities can improve STEM content

knowledge, and at the same time learning can extend beyond the content of technical challenges

and into broader scientific, and social.46

6.0 Malaysia’s Reality

6.1 Present Situation

In an age of growing knowledge and innovation-driven industries, maintain the

competitiveness in the global economy is very crucial for every country. Including Malaysia,

rapid economic and social changing is happened all over the world which causes environmental

problems such as green house gas (GHG) emission, rising climate change, natural resources

exploitation, decreasing energy and water sources besides other problems affecting the

human’s life. Thus, sustainable growth is introduced with the objectives to increase the

economic sector without neglecting the importance of natural environment. Lots of effort has

taken by the government in making sure sustainable development. One of that is environmental

policy changing which consisting of four distinct stages involving deforestation, water and air

pollution, wildlife and habitat loss, global warming, national and international environmental

management besides related perkara.47

Another sustainable act focuses on the implementation of renewable energy technologies also

play a crucial role as conventional fossil fuel energy that is been widely used is depleting and

causing environmental problems. Malaysia is blessed with many types of renewable and

alternative energy resources48 such as solar, hydroelectric, wind, landfill gas and municipal

solid waste (MSW), and hydrogen fuel cells. 49 Renewable energy policies developed by

Malaysia’s government to mitigate the issues of security, energy efficiency and environmental

impact to meet the rising energy demand.50’51’52 Although vast efforts has been implemented

by the government, a research shows that the uses of renewable energy products by Malaysian

in Peninsular Malaysia are only two out of five people. This is because the renewable energy

products mostly high in prices, lack of awareness on government policies besides ineffective

programs and initiatives. 53 Thus, education focuses on environmental and clean energy
technologies should be introduced at all school levels54 and make efforts on suitable programs

or campaigns to increase the public awareness.

HOTS? 21st Century Skills?

Increasingly changing global industry landscape for the last few years cause many new

concepts emerged such as the Fourth Industrial Revolution (4.0 IR) that focuses on the

integration between the physical world and technologies through real-time communication

6.2 STEM Education Challenges

Within Malaysia, education is an important contribution to the development of socio-economic

capital. An effective teaching and learning stimulates creativity, fosters innovation, provides

skills necessary for the modern labour market, and is a major driver of economic growth.

However, based on the reports by Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study

(TIMSS) between 1999 to 2011 and Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA)

for the year 2010 and 2012 on the performance of Malaysia’s students in science and

mathematics are quite low. Malaysia’s participation in both international assessment test is to

evaluate the effectiveness of science and mathematics learning among students compared to

their peers from other countries which focuses on higher order thinking skills.55 The 2012’s

PISA showed that Malaysia ranked in the bottom third of 65 participating countries, while a

total of 18% of Malaysian children have limited prerequisite knowledge and skills in science

classrooms; meanwhile, 55% of them had limited prior knowledge in science.56

Since 1970, Malaysian government targets the ratio of student participation in the science and

technical stream compared to literature and arts at 60:40. This target has, however, never been

met. In 2011, only 45% of students graduated were from the Science stream, including

technical and vocational programmes. In addition, the percentage of secondary school students

who met the requirement to study Science after national level examination (named Lower

Secondary Assessment) but chose not to do so increased to approximately 15%.57

Previous research showed that factors for the declining participation and quality of student

outcomes in STEM education include the limited awareness of the STEM education value in

everyday live and related career opportunities. (2008, Malaysian Science and Technology

Information Centre (MASTIC). There is also a perception that STEM subjects are harder to

learn compared to Arts subjects because of the content-heavy curriculum.58 Most STEM related

educators all over the world including Malaysia are more keen towards the traditional way of

teaching that is teacher centered approach and based on memorization of factual knowledge.

This type of teaching prevents students in using critical thinking skills which will hinder

students’ knowledge. 59 ’ 60 In addition, the requirement needed for teachers to complete

curriculum syllabus within a fixed time and the emphasis on test achievement causing more

passive learning approached been implemented. 61 Limited and outdated infrastructure in

schools, especially through the use of practical lab work also affects the students’ enrolment in

STEM related courses. All this factors will eventually causing the students to lost interest and

affect their decisions not to enrol in STEM related fields.62’63’64

More alarming, according to MOSTI (2008), only 44.9% of Malaysians are interested in new

science inventions or discoveries. These statistics make quite a compelling case that the

Malaysian government needs to do more to reach out to those Malaysians who appear to be

indifferent to or uninterested in STEM (MOSTI, 2008). As such, there is a great need to spark
interest among students in STEM, and to develop and facilitate quality STEM learning

experiences among them.

Because of the non-favourable results in TIMSS and PISA, the Malaysia’s government

developed a Malaysia Education Blueprint 2013-2025 in transforming the curriculum learning

across entire country. As results, encouraging improvement for Malaysia’s students in both

TIMSS and PISA on 2015 are achieved.65

Atas dasar tersebut, pelbagai kajian telah dijalankan dalam usaha untuk memupuk kreativiti

dalam pengajaran dan pembelajaran sains. Talib, Norishah dan Zulkafly (2013) telah

mengintegrasikan persembahan seni dan multimedia dalam mempelajari sains. ArtsMedia iaitu

gambungan antara Arts (Seni) dan Media (Multimedia) aadalah satu projek kreatif yang

meggalakkan pelajar membangunkan animasi mereka tersendiri sebagai persembahan bagi

sesuatu konsep sains yang spesifik melalui aktiviti hands on yang melibatkan penulisan

skrip,penulisan papan cerita, pembinaan model, dan mengambil gambar foto dan diakhiri

dengan pembangunan animasi. Animasi yang dihasilkan akan digunakan semasa persembahan

seni di hadapan guru dan rakan-rakan. Dapatan kajian ini menunjukkan bahawa ArtsMedia ini

membolehkan pelajar memahami konsep sains dan ianya adalah kaedah kreatif yang dapat

menggalakkan pelajar membina pemahaman tentang konsep sains. Projek kreatif ini

menjadikan pelajar lebih bersemangat untuk belajar.

Lim (2013) pula telah menghasilkan unit pembelajaran yang menggunakan taman tema sebagai

kaedah alternatif untuk mempelajari sains. Unit Taman Tema ini mengandungi tiga aktiviti

utama iaitu merekabentuk gravitometer, pengalaman di Taman Tema dan pembentangan

kumpulan. Dalam kajian ini, pelajar dibahagikan kepada satu kumpulan yang terdiri daripada

lima orang ahli. Setiap minggu pelajar akan bertanggungjawab untuk berkongsi dapatan

mereka. Melalui aktiviti kreatif ini, pelajar bukan sahaja mempelajari tentang konsep-konsep
berkaitan geseran, daya namun pada masa yang sama pelajar lebih menikmati dan menghargai

pembelajaran mereka. Semasa berkunjung ke Taman Tema pelajar akan membuat perkaitan

antara konsep yang ingin dipelajari dengan permainan yang bersesuaian dengan konsep

tersebut. Hu et.al, (2013) pula telah menjalankan satu program yang dikenali sebagai “Learn

to Think” (LTT) yang dibangunkan untuk membantu meningkatkan pemikiran kreatif pelajar.

LTT ini merangkumi kurikulum sains dan melibatkan kaedah berfikir iaitu antaranya pemikiran

mencapah, penghujahan dan analogi. Setiap aktiviti dipersembahkan melalui empat langkah

iaitu, pengenalan, pemerhatian dan perbincangan, refleksi dan aktiviti lanjutan. Pada peringkat

pengenalan,pelajar akan didedahkan dengan situasi konflik untuk menyuntik pelajar agar

berfikir lebih kreatif. Pada peringkat kedua, pelajar akan menjalankan pemerhatian, berbincang

dan menjalankan eksperimen iaitu pelajar akan digalakkan untuk mengeksplorasi kaedah-

kaedah pembelajaran oleh mereka sendiri. Manakala pada peringkat ketiga, pelajar akan

digalakkan untuk membuat refleksi terhadap proses yang berlaku sepanjang mereka

menjalankan aktiviti. Pada peringkat terakhir iaitu peringkat keempat, pelajar dikehendaki

mengaplikasikan apa yang telah dipelajari ke dalam situasi baru yang berkaitan dengan

kehidupan seharian. Tahap kesukaran tugasan yang diberikan berturutan dari rendah ke sukar.

Dapatan kajian ini mendapati LLT ini sangat membantu pelajar dalam meningkatkan kreativiti

mereka dan pelajar lebih bertanggungjawab terhadap proses pembelajaran masing-masing. Lim

(2011) telah menjalankan pembelajaran kreatif berkaitan tajuk gerakan di bawah graviti.

Kaedah pengajaran tersebut adalah berasaskan aktiviti bagi alternatif eksperimen Galileo

dengan menggunakan tiga tahap pengajaran oleh Nussbaum dan Novick. Tahap pertama

memerlukan pelajar untuk menyatakan idea mereka secara bebas berdasarkan lembaran soalan

yang dikemukakan. Kemudian,pada tahap kedua, demonstrasi sebenar tentang persoalan yang

telah dikemukakan sebelum ini. Pelajar juga digalakkan untuk berkongsi idea tentang alasan

mengapa terjadinya fenomena tersebut. Pada tahap ketiga, pelajar akan dikemukakan dengan
teknik penyoalan Sokratik yang melibatkan soalan kenapa dan mengapa. Ini bertujuan untuk

menggalakkan pelajar berfikir dengan kritis dan kreatif. Lim (2013a) telah menggunakan anak

patung untuk sebagai salah satu pengajaran kreatif. Aktiviti hands on ini menggalakkan pelajar

untuk mengeksplorasi konsep sains dengan menggunakan anak patung. Terdapat tiga aktiviti

dalam sesi pembelajaran kreatif ini. Aktiviti pertama dikenali sebagai Pertandingan. Dalam

aktiviti ini, setiap kumpulan diberikan dengan sebuah tembikar yang berbentuk Shaolin.

Pertandingan dijalankan untuk mengenalpasti cara unik bagi memenuhi patung tersebut dengan

air dan kaedah terpantas untuk mengeluarkan air tersebut. Aktiviti kedua memerlukan pelajar

untuk memberi hujah, alasan berdasarkan dapatan mereka. Langkah terakhir iaitu langkah

ketiga, pelajar dikehendaki membina anak patung berdasarkan konsep stroboskop. Penggunaan

anak patung ini didapati dapat menggalakkan pelajar untuk membina kemahiran interpersonal,

penyelesaian masalah serta meningkatkan imaginasi dan pemikiran kreatif mereka. Fauziah

(2013) telah menggunakan pembelajaran berasaskan masalah sebagai usaha untuk

menggalakkan pembelajaran kreatif. Setelah pelajar diperkenalkan dengan masalah yang ingin

diselesaikan, pelajar perlu mencari maklumat agar dapat mencapai jalan penyelesaian. Pelajar

dibenarkan untuk mendapatkan maklumat melalui pelbagai cara antaranya penggunaan internet,

temubual, pemerhatian atau apa sahaja kaedah yang bersesuaian. Setiap pelajar diberikan

peranan masing-masing. Masalah yang perlu diselesaikan juga adalah berasaskan silibus Sains.

Dapatan kajian ini, menunjukkan bahawa pembelajaran berasaskan masalah ini dapat

membantu meningkatkan kreativiti pelajar terutamanya dari segi kelenturan, keaslian dan

penghuraian. Berdasarkan perbincangan di atas, terdapat pelbagai cara yang boleh digunakan

dalam memupuk kreativiti dalam pendidikan Sains seperti penggunaan permainan serta

pembelajaran aktif seperti pembelajaran berasaskan masalah. Guru Sains khususnya perlu

berusaha dengan lebih gigih dan menggarap segala peluang untuk mewujudkan pengajaran dan

pembelajaran yang dapat membantu pelajar meningkatkan kreativiti.

Particularly, this is implemented in STEM related education without belittle other education

field as the world today is advancing towards science and technology innovation.

7.0 Conclusions

References
1
2
Haury, D. L. & Rillero, P. (1994). Perspectives of Hands-On Science Teaching. Columbus, OH: ERIC
Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics, and Environmental Education.
3
Hein, G. E. (1987). The right test for hands-on learning. Science and Children, 25(2), 8-12.
4
Lara M. Triona & David Klahr. (2007). Hands-On Science: Does it Matter What Students’ Hands are on? The
Science Education Review. 6(4), 126-130.
5
Apedoe, X. S., Reynolds, B., Ellefson, M. R., & Schunn, C. D. (2008). Bringing engineering design into high
school science classrooms: The heating/cooling unit. Journal of science education and technology, 17(5), 454–
465.
6
Sanders M. (2009). STEM, STEM Education, STEMmania. The Technology Teacher. 68 (4), 20-26.
7
Keefe, B. (2010). The perception of STEM: Analysis, issues, and future directions. Survey. Entertainment and
Media Communication Institute.
8
Bybee, Rodger W. (2010). Advancing STEM Education: A 2020 Vision. Technology and Engineering Teacher.
70(1). 30-35.
9
Venville, G., Wallace, J., Rennie, L., & Malone, J. (2000). Bridging the boundaries of compartmentalized
knowledge: Student learning in an integrated environment. Research in Science & Technological Education, 18(1),
23-35.
10
Apedoe, X. S., Reynolds, B., Ellefson, M. R., & Schunn, C. D. (2008). Bringing engineering design into high
school science classrooms: The heating/cooling unit. Journal of science education and technology, 17(5), 454–
465.
11
Hayden, K., Ouyang, Y, Scinski, L., Olszewski, B., & Bielefeldt, T. (2011). Increasing student interest and
attitudes in STEM: Professional development and activities to engage and inspire learners. Contemporary Issues
in Technology and Teacher Education, 11(1), 47-69.
12
Venville, G., Rennie, L., & Wallace, J. (2004). Decision making and sources of knowledge: How students tackle
integrated tasks in science, technology, and mathematics. Research in Science Education, 34, 115–135.
13
Wang, H., Moore, T., Roehrig, G., & Park, M. (2011). STEM integration: Teacher perceptions and practice.
Journal of Pre- College Engineering Education Research, 1(2), 1-13.
14
Lee J, Bagheri B, Kao HA. A cyber-physical systems architecture for industry 4.0-based manufacturing systems.
Manuf Lett 2015;3:18–23.
15
Wang S, Wan J, Zhang D, Li D, Zhang C. Towards smart factory for Industry 4.0: A self-organized multi-agent
system with big data based feedback and coordi- nation. Comput Netw 2016;101:158–168.
16
Jones, M. G. & Laura Brader-Araje. (2002). The Impact of Constructivism on Education: Language, Discourse
and Meaning. American Communication Journal 5(3),
17
Rasha Eldeeb. (2013). Review and Critique of the book "Education and Experience" by John Dewey. IOSR
Journal of Research & Method in Education, 1(2), 44-47.
18
Norazla Mustafa et.al, (2016). A Meta-Analysis on Effective Strategies for Integrated STEM Education.
Advanced Science Letters, 12, 4225-4229.
19
Satterthwaite, D. (2010). Why are hands-on Science activities so effective for students’ learning. Academic
Journal Article 56 (2), 7-9.
20
Bredderman, T. (1983). Effects of activity-based elementary science on students’ outcomes: A qualitative
synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 53(4), 499-518.
21
Glasson, G. E. (1989). The effects of hands-on teacher demonstration laboratory methods on science
achievement in relation to reasoning ability and prior knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 26(2),
121-131.
22
Freedman, M. P. (1997). Relationships among laboratory instruction, attitude toward science, and achievement
in science knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(4), 343-357.
23
Evrim Ural (2016). The Effect of Guided-Inquiry Laboratory Experiments on Science Education Students'
Chemistry Laboratory Attitudes, Anxiety and Achievement. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 4(4), 217-
227.
24
Coştu, B., Ünal, S., & Ayaş A. (2007). A hands-on activity to promote conceptual change about mixtures and
chemical compunds. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 6(1), 35-46.
25
Ünal, S. (2008). Changing students’ misconceptions of floating and sinking using hands-on activities. Journal
of Baltic Science Education, 7(3), 134-146.
26
Bilgin, İ. (2006). The effects of hands-on activities incorporating a cooperative learning approach on eight grade
students' science process skills and attitudes towards science. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 1(9), 27-37.
27
Ayşe KOÇ & Uğur BÖYÜK. (2012). The Effect of Hands-on Science Experiments on Attitude towards Science.
Journal of Turkish Science Education, 9(4), 114-118.
28
Haury, D. L. & Rillero, P. (1994). Perspectives of Hands-On Science Teaching. Columbus, OH: ERIC
Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics, and Environmental Education.
29
Lebuffe, J. R. (1994). Hands-on science in the elementary school. East Lansing, MI: National Center for
Research on Teacher Learning (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 375003).
30
Klemm, E. Barbara; Plourde, Lee A. Examining the Multi-Sensory Characteristics of Hands-On Science
Activities. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association for the Education of Teachers of Science (St.
Louis, MO, January 29-February 2, 2003).
31
Love, T. S. (2013). Addressing Safety and Liability in STEM Education: A Review of Important Legal Issues
and Case Law. The Journal of Technology Studies 35 (1), 28-34.
32
Zirkel, P. A., & Barnes, M. B. (2011). Negligence liability of K-12 chemistry teachers: The need for legal
balance and responsible action. Journal of Chemical Education, 88 (8), 1050.
33
Roy, K. (2011). Lab safety – A shared responsibility. Science Teacher, 78 (9), 8.
34
Johnna J. Bolyard & Patricia S. Moyer-Packenham. A Review of the Literature on Mathematics and Science
Teacher Quality. PEABODY JOURNAL OF EDUCATION, 83: 509–535, 2008.
35
Nurshamshida Md Shamsudin, Nabilah Abdullah, Nurlatifah Yaamat, Strategies of Teaching Science Using an
Inquiry Based Science Education (IBSE) by Novice Chemistry Teachers. 6th International Conference on
University Learning and Teaching (InCULT 2012) Strategies. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 90
( 2013 ) 583 – 592.
36
Castillo et.al. (2017), Hands-on experience can lead to systematic mistakes: A study on adults’ understanding
of sinking objects. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications. 2(28), 12.
37
Özlem ATEŞ1 and Ali ERYILMAZ. (2011). Effectiveness of hands-on and minds-on activities on
students’ achievement and attitudes towards physics. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching,
12(1).
38
Hofstein, A. & Lunetta, V. N. (1982). The role of the laboratory in science teaching: Neglected aspects of
research. Review of Educational Research, 52(2), 201-217.
39
Hake, R. R. (1998). Interactive-engagement vs. traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of
mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics, 66, 64-74.
40
Rockland, et al. (2009). Advancing the “E” in K-12 STEM Education. The Journal Technology Studies 36 (1),
53-61.
41
Keith, J. M. et.al. (2012). Application of Core Science Concepts Using Digital Video: “A Hands-On” Lap to
Approach. Journal of College Science Teaching. 41 (6), 1.
Kellogg,
42
Satterthwaite, D. (2010). Why are hands-on Science activities so effective for students’ learning. Academic
Journal Article 56 (2), 7-9.
43
Brenner, D. (2009). STEM Topics in Elementary Education. Technology and Children 14 (1), 14.
44
Kressly, R., Herbert, S., Ross, P., & Votsch, D. (2009). Portable inspiration: The necessity of Stem outreach
investment. The Technology Teacher, 68 (7), 26-29.
45
Nugent, G., Barker, B., Grandgenett, N., & Adamchuk, V. (2010). Impact of robotics and geospatial technology
interventions on youth STEM learning and attitudes. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42 (4),
391-408.
46
Robinson, T., P. & Stewardson, G. A. (2012). Exciting Students through. Academic Journal Articles from
Technology and Engineering Teacher, 72 (2), 15.
47
A. A. Hezri & Mohd. Nordin Hasan. Towards sustainable development? The evolution of environmental policy
in Malaysia. Natural Resources Forum, 2006, 30, 37-50.
48
N.W.A. Lidula, N. Mithulananthan, W. Ongsakul, C. Widjaya, & R. Henson. ASEAN towards clean and
sustainable energy: Potentials, utilization and barriers. Renewable Energy 32 (2007) 1441–1452.
49
Tick Hui Oh, Shen Yee Pang, Shing Chyi Chua. Energy policy and alternative energy in Malaysia: Issues and
challenges for
sustainable growth. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 14 (2010) 1241–1252.
50
Haslenda Hashim & Wai Shin Ho, Renewable energy policies and initiatives for a sustainable energy future in
Malaysia. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 15 (2011) 4780– 4787.
51
A.L. Maulud & H.Saidi, The Malaysian Fifth Fuel Policy: Re-strategising the Malaysian Renewable Energy
Initiatives. Energy Policy 48 (2012) 88–92.
52
Shing Chyi Chua & Tick Hui Oh, Review on Malaysia’s national energy developments: Key policies, agencies,
programmes and international involvements, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 14 (2010) 2916–2925.
53
Roozbeh Kardooni, Sumiani Binti Yusoff, Fatimah Binti Kari, Leila Moeenizadeh, Public opinion on
renewable energy technologies and climate change in Peninsular
Malaysia, Renewable Energy (2017), doi: 10.1016/j.renene.2017.09.073
54
Janusz Nowotnya , John Dodsonb , Sebastian Fiechterc , Turgut M. Gürd , Brendan Kennedye , Wojciech
Macykf , Tadeusz Baka , Wolfgang Sigmundg , Michio Yamawakih , Kazi A. Rahman, Towards global
sustainability: Education on environmentally clean energy technologies, Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Reviews
55
KPM, Laporan Tahunan 2014: Pelan Pembangunan Pendidikan Malaysia 2013-2025.
56
Martin, M.O., Mullis, I.V.S., Foy, P., &Stanco, G.M. (2012).TIMSS 2011 International results in science.
Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College.
57
MOE, Malaysia Education Blueprint 2013-2025 (Preschool to Post-Secondary Education)
58
Fatin Aliah Phang, Mohd Salleh Abu, Mohammad Bilal Ali, Salmiza Salleh, Faktor Penyumbang Kepada
Kemerosotan Penyertaan Pelajar dalam Aliran Sains: Satu Analisis Sorotan Tesis. Sains Humanika. 2014. 2(4).
63-71.
59
Eleanor Duckworth (2009). Helping students get to where ideas can find them. The New Educator, 5(3), 185-
188.
60
Neill, J.T (2003).Reviewing and Benchmarking Adventure Therapy Outcomes: Applications of Meta-analysis.
Journal of Experiential Education, 25(3), 316-321.
61
Mann, R.L. (2005). Gifted Students with Spatial Strength and Sequential Weaknesses: An Overlooked and
Under-identified Population, Poeper Review, 27, 91-96.
62
Subotnik, R. F., Tai, R. H., Rickoff, R., & Almarode, J. (2010). Specialized public high schools of science,
mathematics, and technology and the STEM pipeline: What do we know now and what will we know in 5
years. Roeper Review, 32, 7-16.
63
Riskowski, J., Todd, C. D., Wee, B., Dark, M., & Harbor, J. (2009). Exploring the effectiveness of an
interdisciplinary water resources engineering module in an eighth grade science course. International Journal
of Engineering Education, 25(1), 181-195.
64
Sanders, M. (2009). STEM, STEM education, STEMmania. The Technology Teacher, December/January, 20-
26.
65
KPM, Laporan Tahunan 2016: Pelan Pembangunan Pendidikan Malaysia 2013-2025.