Why Do Children Love Electricity? Multivariate Evidence from Hands-On Electronics Learning in Elementary STEM Education
Abstract
The integration of hands-on learning into elementary science education has garnered increasing scholarly attention, yet empirical investigations examining its simultaneous effects on multiple educational outcomes remain limited, particularly within the domain of electricity learning at the primary school level. This study examined the effects of a structured hands-on electronics learning program on elementary students' scientific curiosity, STEM interest, problem-solving skills, and scientific engagement using a multivariate analytical framework. Employing a quasi-experimental pretest–posttest nonequivalent control group design, 300 Grade 4–6 students (aged 9–12 years) from Lakarsantri District, Surabaya, Indonesia, were assigned to either a hands-on electronics intervention (n = 150) or conventional science instruction (n = 150). The eight-session intervention engaged students in circuit building, conductor investigations, and collaborative mini-project design using modular electronics kits, facilitated through the 5E instructional model. Data were collected using validated instruments measuring all four outcome constructs and analyzed via Multivariate Analysis of Covariance (MANCOVA), with prior academic achievement and digital literacy serving as covariates. Results revealed a statistically significant and large omnibus multivariate effect (Wilks' Λ = .312, F(8, 586) = 41.73, p < .001, η²p = .363), with significant univariate effects across all four dependent variables (η²p range: .356–.427). Discriminant function analysis further identified STEM interest and curiosity as the primary dimensions differentiating the two groups (classification accuracy = 89.3%). These findings demonstrate that hands-on electronics learning constitutes a pedagogically powerful approach for cultivating multidimensional STEM competencies in elementary education, with significant implications for curriculum design, teacher professional development, and early STEM engagement policy.
Downloads
References
American Psychological Association. (2020). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (7th ed.). APA Publishing.
Ardianto, D., Rubini, B., & Pursitasari, I. D. (2023). Inquiry-based science learning and its effects on scientific reasoning in Indonesian primary schools. International Journal of Science Education, 45(3), 412–431. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2022.2148210
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. Freeman.
Bers, M. U., Govind, M., & Portsmore, M. (2023). Tangible coding and engineering in early childhood: Bridging abstract concepts and hands-on experience. Computers & Education, 194, 104702. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2022.104702
Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2011). Teaching for quality learning at university (4th ed.). Open University Press.
Blikstein, P. (2013). Digital fabrication and “making” in education: The democratization of invention. In J. Walter-Herrmann & C. Büching (Eds.), FabLabs: Of machines, makers and inventors (pp. 203–222). Transcript. https://doi.org/10.14361/transcript.9783839423820.203
Bybee, R. W., Taylor, J. A., Gardner, A., Van Scotter, P., Powell, J. C., Westbrook, A., & Landes, N. (2006). The BSCS 5E instructional model: Origins and effectiveness. BSCS.
Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Rand McNally.
Claessens, A., & Engel, M. (2013). How important is where you start? Early mathematics knowledge and later school success. Teachers College Record, 115(6), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146811311500603
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum.
Crippen, K. J., & Archambault, L. (2022). Scaffolded inquiry-based instruction with technology: A signature pedagogy for STEM education. Computers in the Schools, 29(1–2), 157–173. https://doi.org/10.1080/07380569.2012.658733
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. Harper & Row.
Cunningham, C. M., & Carlsen, W. S. (2014). Teaching engineering practices. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 25(2), 197–210. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-014-9380-5
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. Macmillan.
Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2020). From expectancy-value theory to situated expectancy-value theory: A developmental, social cognitive, and sociocultural elaboration. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 61, 101859. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101859
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146
Field, A. (2018). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS Statistics (5th ed.). SAGE.
Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59–109. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001059
Furtak, E. M., Seidel, T., Iverson, H., & Briggs, D. C. (2012). Experimental and quasi-experimental studies of inquiry-based science teaching: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 82(3), 300–329. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654312457206
Glancy, A. W., & Moore, T. J. (2013). Theoretical foundations for effective STEM learning environments. University of Minnesota STEM Education Center.
Gottlieb, J., Oudeyer, P.-Y., Lopes, M., & Baranes, A. (2013). Information-seeking, curiosity, and attention: Computational and neural mechanisms. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 17(11), 585–593. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2013.09.001
Gruber, M. J., Gelman, B. D., & Ranganath, C. (2014). States of curiosity modulate hippocampus-dependent learning via the dopaminergic circuit. Neuron, 84(2), 486–496. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2014.08.060
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2019). Multivariate data analysis (8th ed.). Cengage.
Han, S., Capraro, R. M., & Capraro, M. M. (2021). How science, technology, engineering, and mathematics project-based learning affects high-need students in the US. Learning and Individual Differences, 48, 173–183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2016.06.007
Hazari, Z., Sadler, P. M., & Sonnert, G. (2022). The science identity of college students: Exploring the intersection of gender, race, and ethnicity. Journal of College Science Teaching, 42(5), 82–91.
Hidi, S., & Renninger, K. A. (2006). The four-phase model of interest development. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 111–127. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4102_4
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
Huberty, C. J., & Morris, J. D. (1989). Multivariate analysis versus multiple univariate analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 105(2), 302–308. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.105.2.302
IBM Corp. (2023). IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 29.0. IBM Corp.
Jirout, J., & Klahr, D. (2012). Children’s scientific curiosity: In search of an operational definition of an elusive concept. Developmental Review, 32(2), 125–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2012.04.002
Jonassen, D. H. (2011). Learning to solve problems: A handbook for designing problem-solving learning environments. Routledge.
Kapur, M. (2016). Examining productive failure, productive success, unproductive failure, and unproductive success in learning. Educational Psychologist, 51(2), 289–299. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2016.1155457
Kemendikbud. (2022). Merdeka Belajar: Framework for curriculum transformation in Indonesia. Indonesian Ministry of Education, Culture, Research, and Technology.
Kidd, C., & Hayden, B. Y. (2015). The psychology and neuroscience of curiosity. Neuron, 88(3), 449–460. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2015.09.010
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Prentice-Hall.
Krajcik, J. S., & Shin, N. (2022). Project-based learning. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (3rd ed., pp. 171–189). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108888295.006
Lawshe, C. H. (1975). A quantitative approach to content validity. Personnel Psychology, 28(4), 563–575. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1975.tb01393.x
Lazonder, A. W., & Harmsen, R. (2016). Meta-analysis of inquiry-based learning: Effects of guidance. Review of Educational Research, 86(3), 681–718. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315627366
Lillard, A. S., Hopkins, E. J., Dore, R. A., Palmquist, C. M., Lerner, M. D., & Smith, E. D. (2023). Make-believe play and creativity in early childhood: A longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology, 59(2), 312–327. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0001474
Little, R. J. A. (1988). A test of missing completely at random for multivariate data with missing values. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 83(404), 1198–1202. https://doi.org/10.2307/2290157
Litman, J. A. (2008). Interest and deprivation factors of epistemic curiosity. Personality and Individual Differences, 44(7), 1585–1595. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2008.01.014
Loewenstein, G. (1994). The psychology of curiosity: A review and reinterpretation. Psychological Bulletin, 116(1), 75–98. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.116.1.75
Maltese, A. V., Melki, C. S., & Wiebke, H. L. (2022). The nature of experiences responsible for the generation and maintenance of interest in STEM. Science Education, 106(1), 85–106. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21667
Master, A., Meltzoff, A. N., & Cheryan, S. (2021). Gender stereotypes about interests start early and cause gender disparities in computer science and engineering. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(48), e2100030118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2100030118
Maxwell, S. E., Delaney, H. D., & Kelley, K. (2018). Designing experiments and analyzing data: A model comparison perspective (3rd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315642956-2
Montessori, M. (1949). The absorbent mind. Theosophical Publishing House.
Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Foy, P., Kelly, D. L., & Fishbein, B. (2023). TIMSS 2023 international results in mathematics and science. Boston College, TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center. https://doi.org/10.6017/lse.tpisc.tr2103.kb5342
NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For states, by states. National Academies Press.
Nguyen, T. P., Strickland, H. A., & Park, H. J. (2022). Electronics-based project learning and systems thinking in upper elementary students. Journal of STEM Education, 23(1), 47–58.
OECD. (2022). PISA 2022 results (Volume I): The state of learning and equity in education. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/53f23881-en
Oppermann, E., Vinni-Laakso, J., Juuti, K., Loukomies, A., & Salmela-Aro, K. (2021). Elementary school students’ motivational profiles across Finnish language, mathematics and science: Longitudinal trajectories, gender differences and STEM aspirations. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 64, 101927. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101927
Park, J., & Ko, Y. (2022). Understanding elementary students’ misconceptions about electric circuits: Implications for hands-on curriculum design. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 18(4), em2095. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/11866
Peel, A., Sadler, T. D., & Friedrichsen, P. (2022). Learning natural selection through computational thinking: Unplugged game design in a middle school classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 59(1), 34–64. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21719
Piaget, J. (1964). Part I: Cognitive development in children: Piaget development and learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 2(3), 176–186. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660020306
Polya, G. (1945). How to solve it. Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400828678
Potvin, P., & Hasni, A. (2014). Interest, motivation and attitude towards science and technology at K–12 levels: A systematic review of 12 years of educational research. Studies in Science Education, 50(1), 85–129. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2014.881626
Putnick, D. L., & Bornstein, M. H. (2016). Measurement invariance conventions and reporting: The state of the art and future directions for psychological research. Developmental Review, 41, 71–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2016.06.004
Raharjo, E., Wibowo, A., & Yudha, R. P. (2024). Active learning strategies and vocational students’ STEM engagement in Indonesian secondary education. Vocations and Learning, 17(1), 91–115.
Razali, N. M., & Wah, Y. B. (2011). Power comparisons of Shapiro-Wilk, Kolmogorov-Smirnov, Lilliefors, and Anderson-Darling tests. Journal of Statistical Modeling and Analytics, 2(1), 21–33.
Renninger, K. A., & Hidi, S. (2016). The power of interest for motivation and engagement. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315771045
Sahin, A., Gulacar, O., & Stuessy, C. (2021). High school students’ STEM identity formation through summer STEM camps. Journal of STEM Education, 22(4), 29–39.
Sencar, S., & Eryilmaz, A. (2004). Factors mediating the effect of gender on ninth-grade Turkish students’ misconceptions concerning electric circuits. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(6), 603–632. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20016
Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Houghton Mifflin.
Shipstone, D. M. (1988). Pupils’ understanding of simple electrical circuits. Physics Education, 23(2), 92–96. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9120/23/2/004
Sinatra, G. M., Heddy, B. C., & Lombardi, D. (2015). The challenges of defining and measuring student engagement in science. Educational Psychologist, 50(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2014.1002924
Stevens, J. P. (2009). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences (5th ed.). Routledge.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2019). Using multivariate statistics (7th ed.). Pearson.
Thibaut, L., Ceuppens, S., De Loof, H., De Meester, J., Goovaerts, L., Struyf, A., & Depaepe, F. (2021). Integrated STEM education: A systematic review of instructional practices in secondary education. European Journal of STEM Education, 3(1), 02. https://doi.org/10.20897/ejsteme/85525
UNESCO. (2021). Reimagining our futures together: A new social contract for education. UNESCO Publishing.
van Aalderen-Smeets, S. I., Walma van der Molen, J. H., van Hest, E., & Poortman, C. (2023). Primary teachers’ professional development in science and technology: Outcomes for teachers and students. Teaching and Teacher Education, 125, 104040. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2023.104040
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
Wang, M.-T., Chow, A., Hofkens, T., & Salmela-Aro, K. (2014). The trajectories of student emotional engagement with teachers across middle school: Implications for academic and social development. Developmental Psychology, 51(8), 1198–1214.
Wang, M.-T., Degol, J. L., Amemiya, J., Parr, A., & Guo, J. (2024). Classroom climate and children’s academic and psychological wellbeing: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Developmental Review, 57, 100912. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2020.100912
Wigfield, A., Eccles, J. S., Fredricks, J. A., Simpkins, S., Roeser, R. W., & Schiefele, U. (2015). Development of achievement motivation and engagement. In R. M. Lerner (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology and developmental science (7th ed., Vol. 3, pp. 1–44). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118963418.childpsy316
Wilson, F. R., Pan, W., & Schumsky, D. A. (2012). Recalculation of the critical values for Lawshe’s content validity ratio. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 45(3), 197–210. https://doi.org/10.1177/0748175612440286
Wing, J. M. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33–35. https://doi.org/10.1145/1118178.1118215
Copyright (c) 2026 Rivo Panji Yudha, Tri rijanto
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with ISEJ: Indonesian Science Education Journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the ISEJ: Indonesian Science Education Journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0) that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors can enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or edit it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) before and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.
_(3).png)
