Changes in Learning Outcomes Following the Use of Simple Electrical Circuit Teaching Aids Among Fifth-Grade Elementary Students

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.58421/gehu.v5i5.2144

Authors

  • Bintang Universitas Buana Perjuangan Karawang
  • Sinta Maria Dewi Universitas Buana Perjuangan Karawang
  • Aang Solahudin Anwar Universitas Buana Perjuangan Karawang
  • Anggy Giri Prawiyogi Universitas Buana Perjuangan Karawang

Keywords:

Concrete learning, Elementary science, Learning outcomes, Simple electrical circuit, Teaching aid

Abstract

Simple electrical circuits can be difficult for elementary students because abstract concepts may not be readily connected to observable components. However, limited evidence addresses learning outcomes associated with simple, tangible circuit teaching aids in elementary classrooms. This study examined changes in fifth-grade students’ learning outcomes following instruction with a simple electrical circuit teaching aid. A quantitative, pre-experimental one-group pretest-posttest design involved 21 fifth-grade students. An achievement test on simple electrical circuits was administered before and after instruction. Descriptive statistics, the Shapiro-Wilk test, and a paired-samples t-test were used. Mean achievement increased from 39.29 (SD = 17.12) to 70.24 (SD = 11.72). The difference was statistically significant, t(20) = −10.594, p < .001, with a large standardized within-group change (Cohen’s dz = 2.31). The findings indicate substantial within-group improvement following the instructional experience. Because no control group was included, the improvement cannot be attributed exclusively to the teaching aid. The study provides preliminary classroom-level evidence for using simple, tangible circuit activities in elementary science learning. Future research should include larger samples, comparison groups, validated instruments, and stronger experimental designs.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Badan Standar, Kurikulum, dan Asesmen Pendidikan, “Capaian pembelajaran mata pelajaran Ilmu Pengetahuan Alam dan Sosial (IPAS) fase A–fase C untuk SD/MI/Program Paket A,” Kementerian Pendidikan, Kebudayaan, Riset, dan Teknologi Republik Indonesia, 2022.

D. P. Shepardson, “The nature of fourth graders’ understandings of electric circuits,” Science Education, vol. 78, no. 5, pp. 489–514, 1994, doi: 10.1002/sce.3730780505.

E. B. Glauert, “How young children understand electric circuits: Prediction, explanation and exploration,” International Journal of Science Education, vol. 31, no. 8, pp. 1025–1047, 2009, doi: 10.1080/09500690802101950.

S. Sencar, “Factors mediating the effect of gender on ninth-grade Turkish students’ misconceptions concerning electric circuits,” Journal of Research in Science Teaching, vol. 41, no. 6, pp. 603–616, 2004, doi: 10.1002/tea.20016.

J.-W. Lin, “Do skilled elementary teachers hold scientific conceptions and can they accurately predict the type and source of students’ preconceptions of electric circuits?” International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 2015, doi: 10.1007/s10763-015-9635-4.

C. Preston, “Effect of a diagram on primary students’ understanding about electric circuits,” Research in Science Education, vol. 49, no. 3, 2019, doi: 10.1007/s11165-017-9662-y.

Z. C. Zacharia, “Comparing and combining real and virtual experimentation: An effort to enhance students’ conceptual understanding of electric circuits,” Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 120–132, 2007, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2006.00215.x.

T. Jaakkola, S. Nurmi, and K. Veermans, “A comparison of students’ conceptual understanding of electric circuits in simulation only and simulation-laboratory contexts,” Journal of Research in Science Teaching, vol. 48, no. 1, pp. 71–93, 2011, doi: 10.1002/tea.20386.

T. Jaakkola, K. Nurmi, and S. Veermans, “Effects of abstract and concrete simulation elements on science learning,” Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 300–313, 2015, doi: 10.1111/jcal.12089.

E. R. Savelsbergh, G. T. Prins, C. Rietbergen, S. Fechner, B. E. Vaessen, J. M. Draijer, and A. Bakker, “Effects of innovative science and mathematics teaching on student attitudes and achievement: A meta-analytic study,” Educational Research Review, vol. 19, pp. 158–172, 2016, doi: 10.1016/j.edurev.2016.07.003.

M. Schwichow, S. Croker, C. Zimmerman, T. Höffler, and H. Härtig, “Teaching the control-of-variables strategy: A meta-analysis,” Developmental Review, vol. 39, pp. 37–63, 2016, doi: 10.1016/j.dr.2015.12.001.

D. D. Minner, A. J. Levy, and J. Century, “Inquiry-based science instruction—What is it and does it matter? Results from a research synthesis years 1984 to 2002,” Journal of Research in Science Teaching, vol. 47, no. 4, pp. 474–496, 2010, doi: 10.1002/tea.20347.

A. W. Lazonder and R. Harmsen, “Meta-analysis of inquiry-based learning: Effects of guidance,” Review of Educational Research, vol. 86, no. 3, pp. 681–718, 2016, doi: 10.3102/0034654315627366.

S. Caglak, “Does hands-on science practices make an impact on achievement in science? A meta-analysis,” Journal of Education in Science, Environment and Health, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 69–87, 2017, doi: 10.21891/jeseh.275708.

E. M. Byrne, H. Jensen, B. S. Thomsen, and P. G. Ramchandani, “Educational interventions involving physical manipulatives for improving children’s learning and development: A scoping review,” Review of Education, vol. 11, no. 2, e3400, 2023, doi: 10.1002/rev3.3400.

J.-J. Dupin and S. Johsua, “Conceptions of French pupils concerning electric circuits: Structure and evolution,” Journal of Research in Science Teaching, vol. 24, no. 9, pp. 791–806, 1987, doi: 10.1002/tea.3660240903.

K. J. Carbonneau, S. C. Marley, and J. P. Selig, “A meta-analysis of the efficacy of teaching mathematics with concrete manipulatives,” Journal of Educational Psychology, vol. 105, no. 2, pp. 380–400, 2013, doi: 10.1037/a0031084.

C. Lafay, C. St-Pierre, and M.-P. Pagani, “Effects of interventions with manipulatives on immediate learning, maintenance, and transfer in children with mathematics learning disabilities: A systematic review,” Education Research International, 2019, Art. no. 2142948, doi: 10.1155/2019/2142948.

R. E. Mayer, “Using multimedia for e-learning,” Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, vol. 33, no. 5, pp. 403–423, 2017, doi: 10.1111/jcal.12197.

J. G. Cromley and R. Chen, “A meta-analysis of Richard Mayer’s multimedia learning research: Searching for boundary conditions of design principles across multiple media types,” Educational Research Review, vol. 49, Art. no. 100730, 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.edurev.2025.100730.

K. Lynch, C. A. Asher, A. W. Gotwals, and J. Settlage, “The effects of early childhood science educational interventions on children’s science achievement: A meta-analysis of classroom-based studies,” The Elementary School Journal, vol. 126, no. 3, pp. 501–534, 2026, doi: 10.1086/739369.

M. Gangal, M. Çalık, and Y. Ozturk, “Effectiveness of early childhood science activities in promoting scientific literacy: A meta-analysis study,” Science & Education, 2026, doi: 10.1007/s11191-026-00748-2.

G. Estrella, J. Au, S. M. Jaeggi, and P. Collins, “Is inquiry science instruction effective for English language learners? A meta-analytic review,” AERA Open, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 1–23, 2018, doi: 10.1177/2332858418767402.

J. Saba and S. T. Levy, “Identifying aspects of complex and technological systems in the mental models of students who constructed computational models of electric circuits,” Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 2023, doi: 10.1002/tea.21814.

P. J. Garnett and D. F. Treagust, “Conceptual difficulties experienced by senior high school students of electrochemistry: Electric circuits and oxidation-reduction equations,” Journal of Research in Science Teaching, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 121–142, 1992, doi: 10.1002/tea.3660290204.

J. A. Wilson, “Inquiry-based science instruction for students with disabilities: A systematic and meta-analytic review,” Science Education, vol. 110, no. 2, pp. 639–653, 2026, doi: 10.1002/sce.70029.

E. Ryanda and A. Khoiri, “Animated video learning improves elementary students electrical circuit understanding,” Academia Open, vol. 11, no. 1, 2026, doi: 10.21070/acopen.11.2026.13826.

A. P. Wahyoerie and Z. Zulherman, “The influence of the problem-based learning model assisted by PhET simulation on simple electric material on elementary school students’ conceptual understanding,” Journal of Educational Sciences, vol. 10, no. 8, pp. 467–479, 2026, doi: 10.31258/jes.10.8.p.467-479.

R. Hartono, “Application of concrete props in improving science learning results: Simple electricity circuit material at elementary school,” Social, Humanities, and Educational Studies: Conference Series, vol. 3, no. 4, 2020, doi: 10.20961/shes.v3i4.54401.

R. Maulana, S. Anggoro, and R. D. Purwandari, “Identification of electrical circuit material science misconceptions in class VI SD UMP students,” Proceedings Series on Social Sciences & Humanities, vol. 12, pp. 397–401, 2023, doi: 10.30595/pssh

Downloads

Additional Files

Published

2026-10-07

How to Cite

[1]
Bintang, S. M. Dewi, A. S. Anwar, and A. G. Prawiyogi, “Changes in Learning Outcomes Following the Use of Simple Electrical Circuit Teaching Aids Among Fifth-Grade Elementary Students”, J.Gen.Educ.Humanit., vol. 5, no. 5, pp. 6469–6482, Oct. 2026.

Issue

Vol. 5 No. 5 (2026): October

Section

Articles

License

Copyright (c) 2026 Journal of General Education and Humanities

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Most read articles by the same author(s)