PROJECT FILA FOR A COST Enhances the Learning Retention of Grade 8 Isaiah Students in Science Concepts

Vivian Grace  D. Perez,; Ronalyn  V. Perhiliana,

PROJECT FILA FOR A COST Enhances the Learning Retention of Grade 8 Isaiah Students in Science Concepts

Vivian Grace D. Perez | Ronalyn V. Perhiliana

Abstract:

Retention of learned information refers to the capacity to store knowledge in long-term memory for efficient retrieval. Despite its importance, forgetting remains a prevalent challenge among learners of all ages and backgrounds, irrespective of the subject matter. While educators strive to facilitate the acquisition of new knowledge and skills, this newly acquired information often remains susceptible to rapid loss. This study investigates the effectiveness of Project FILA (Fostering Innovative Learning Activities) in enhancing knowledge retention among Grade 8 Isaiah students. Employing a one-group pretest-posttest research design, the study involved 40 participants who underwent assessments before and after the intervention. The analysis revealed a significant improvement in mean scores from pretest to posttest, indicating that Project FILA positively influences academic performance and knowledge retention. These findings suggest that integrating innovative learning activities, as exemplified by Project FILA, can serve as a potent strategy for reinforcing student learning outcomes and mitigating the effects of forgetting in educational settings.

References:

Ambrose, S.A., Bridges, M. W., DiPietro, M., Lovett, M.C., Norman, M.K., & Mayer, R.E. (2010). How learning works: seven research-based principles for smart teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Bennett, G. A., & Rebello, N. S. (nd). Retention and Learning. File://C:/Users/ACER/Documents/Requirements/research/Retention%20and%20Learning%20_%20SpringerLink.html
Bonwell, C.C., and Eison, J. A. (1991). Active Learning: creating excitement in the classroom. ASH#-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 1, Washington. D.C.: The George Washington University, School of Education and Human Development
Carini, R. M., Kuh, G. D. & Klein S. P. (2006). Student engagement and student learning: testing the linkages. Research in Higher Education, 47(1), 1-32.
Carr, R., Palmer, S., & Hagel, P. (2005). Active learning: the importance of developing a comprehensive measure. Active Learning in Higher Education 16, 173-186.
Gatens, B. (2016). Let the Childres Play: Why Adding Fun to the Classroom Helps Kids Learn. https://education.cu-portland.edu/blog/curriculum-teaching-strategies/let-children-play-add-fun-to-classroom/
Hake, R. (1980). Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: a six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics course. American Journal of Physics 66, 64-74.
Handelsman, J., Miller, S., & Pund, C. (2007). Scientific teaching. New York: W.H.Freeman.
Johnson, D.W. & Johnson, R.T. (1993). Cooperative learning and feedback in technology-based instruction. In J.V Dempsey & G.C. Sales (Eds.), Interactive Instruction and Feedback (pp. 133-157). Eaglewood Cliffs, NJ Educational Technology.
Johnson, D.W. & Johnson, R.T. (1999). Learning together and alone: Cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning(5^th ed.). boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Johnson, R. B (2004). Mixed methods research: a research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14-26.
Jonassen, D.H (1991). Evaluating constructivistic learning. Educational Technology, 31, 28-33.
Phillips, D. C. (200). Constructivism in Education (Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education). Chicago: University of Chicago Press