HomeWVSU Research Journalvol. 12 no. 1 (2023)

Developing Students’ Conceptual Understanding Using Interactive Notebook: A Quasi-Experimental Study

Joey Elechicon | Peter Ernie Paris

Discipline: Science



In the midst of the revolutionary era of science education, the battle cry for science literacy and conceptual knowledge is imperative. Hence, this Interactive Notebook introduces an engaging and creative strategy highlighting higher-order thinking skills and conceptual understanding. This quasi-experimental research design investigated the influence of interactive notebook in developing students’ conceptual understanding in biology. There are 25 purposively match-paired Grade 10 students who participated in the study. The interactive notebook intervention format involved artistic and creative strategies including student- designed construct and connect pages. The Conceptual Test in Biology with a reliability of 0.955 was used as a data collection instrument. The study was conducted in a public secondary school and lasted for four weeks. One group of students was taught using the interactive notebook and the other was through conventional teaching methods. It was found that students in both groups have low conceptual understanding as indicated in the pre-test, but was improved as noted in the post-test. When the pre-test and post-test were compared, the students exposed to interactive notebook teaching showed improvement from low to high. At the same time, those in conventional teaching also showed improvement from low to average. A significant difference was observed in the post-test scores of the two groups, supporting the interactive notebook teaching group. A significant difference was also noted between the pre- and post-test conceptual understanding of each group, however, the interactive notebook teaching group yielded better mean gain.


  1. Akilli, M., & Genç, M. (2017). Modelling the effects of selected affective factors on learning strategies and classroom activities in science education. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 16(4), 599–611. https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/17.16.599
  2. Carter, R., Aldridge, S., Page, M., Parker, S., Frith, C. D., Frith, U., & Shulman, M. B. (2009). The human brain book. London: Darling Kindersley Publishing.
  3. Chiappetta, E. L., & Koballa, Jr., T. R. (2014). Science Instruction in the Middle and Secondary Schools. Digital Commons@Georgia Southern. https://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/coe-facpubs/6
  4. Ciascai, L., Haiduc, L., & Felezeu, C. (2014). How science is taught in the secondary and high school levels in romania. Hacettepe Universitesi Egitim Fakultesi Dergisi- hacettepe University Journal of Education, 29, 74-86.
  5. Curtis, K., Derksen, A., & Roscoe, K. K. (2013). Using presentation software to integrate formative assessment into science instruction. Science Scope, 36(5), 48-57.
  6. Dorph, R., Goldstein, D., Lee, S., Lepori, K., Schneider, S., and Venkatesan, S. (2010). The status of science education in the Bay Area: Research study e-report. Lawrence Hall of Science, University of California, Berkeley, California.
  7. Fajardo, M., Bacarrisas, G. & Castro, H. (2019). The effects of interactive science notebook on student teachers’ achievement, study habits, test anxiety, and attitudes towards physics. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 16(1), 62-76.
  8. Ferreira, S. & Morais, A. M. (2013) Conceptual demand of practical work: A framework for studying teachers’ practices. Revista Electrónica de Enseñanza de las Ciencias Vol. 14, No 2, 157-174
  9. Gilbert, J. & Kotelman, M. (2005). Five good reasons to use science notebooks. National Science Teaching Association.
  10. Hess, K. K., Jones, B. S., Carlock, D., & Walkup, J. R. (2009/2013). ERIC - ED517804 -Cognitive Rigor: Blending the Strengths of Bloom’s Taxonomy and Webb’s Depth of Knowledge to Enhance Classroom-Level Processes, Online Submission, 2009-Mar-7. ERIC - ED517804 - Cognitive Rigor: Blending the Strengths of Bloom’s Taxonomy and Webb’s Depth of Knowledge to Enhance Classroom-Level Processes, Online Submission, 2009-Mar-7. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED517804
  11. Khatri, R. (2018). A model for propagating educational innovations in higher stem education: a grounded theory study of successfully propagated innovations. ScholarWorks at WMU. https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/dissertations/3224
  12. Ludewig, B. (2006). Reading strategies: Scaffolding students learning with texts. http://www.greece.k12.ny.us/instruction/ela/6-12/Reading/Reading%20Strategies/interactivenotebook.htm
  13. Marcarelli, K. (2010). Teaching science with interactive notebooks. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
  14. Meyer, K. (2014). Making meaning in mathematics problem solving using the reciprocal teaching approach. Literacy Learning: The Middle Years, 22(2), 7-14.
  15. Mollet, A. A. (2017). Science interactive notebooks: A case study on learning in high school students. https://digitalcommons.hamline.edu/hse_ all/4367
  16. Molloy, K., Arno, K., Martin, M., & Robinson, D. (2012). The write path I science teacher guide. San Diego, CA: AVID Press.
  17. Nichols, B. E. (2015, April). The interactive classroom: An overview of smart notebook software. General Music Today, 28(3), 28–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/1048371314568372
  18. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development – Programme for International Student Assesment (OECD-PISA). (2018). PISA 2018: Insights and Interpretations. Retrieved from www.oecd.og/pisa
  19. Rossi, D. (2004). Using elementary science journals to encourage reflection, learning and positive attitudes towards learning science. Retrieved from http://www.utdallas.edu/scimathed/resources/SER/SCE5308_s04/Using_Elementary_Interactive_Science_JournalsDRW.pdf
  20. Shen, H. (2014). Interactive notebooks: Sharing the code. Nature, 515(7525), 151–152. https://doi.org/10.1038/515151a
  21. Shepard, C. (2016). Interview by S.F. Newson [Personal Interview]. The uses of interactive notebooks in biology courses. Hernando, MS.
  22. Singer, J., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J., & Clay Chambers, J. (2000). Constructing extended inquiry projects: Curriculum materials for science education reform.
  23. Educational Psychologist, 35(3), 165–178. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3503_3
  24. Wilson, K. E. (2015). The impact of interactive science notebooks on middle school students. ScholarWorks. https://scholarworks.calstate.edu/concern/theses/hh63sw504
  25. Yi, P. L. (2012). Using interactive science notebooks. University of Wisconsin River Falls. https://minds.wisconsin.edu/bitstream/handle/1793/61341/Yi.pdf?sequence=1
  26. Young, J. (2003). Science interactive notebooks in the classroom. Science Scope 26: 44- 46.