Psych Educ, Document ID: PEMJ0, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.

6727906, ISSN 2822-4353

Research Article

Research-Based Learning Model for Senior High School Science Instruction

Kristoffren M. Lubas*
For affiliations and correspondence, see the last page.

Abstract
Research-Based Learning (RBL) is a feasible way to improve the learning of students and to refine
learning thru doing. It is an instructional system that uses genuine learning, problem-solving,
interactive learning, hands-on, and inquiry-discovery approaches driven by constructivist logic. This
study portrayed the effects of research-based learning model for senior high school science
instruction and employed the quasi-experimental method of research. The respondents were the grade
12 STEM students of Bitoon National Vocational High School S.Y. 2020 – 2021 randomly assigned
as control and experimental group respectively while the research data were collected using test and
survey questionnaire. Frequency of Correct Responses, Percentage formula, and Weighted Mean
were used for academic performance, weighted mean for learning experience, Paired t-test formula
for the significant difference in respondents’ pretest and post-test scores, and independent t-test
formula obtained the significant difference between the mean gains of each of the aforementioned
groups. Paired t-test results revealed improved performance for both groups with majority of the
improvements of the experimental groups were in the higher-order thinking skills (HOTS). Also, the
experimental group expressed fondness of RBL that motivated them to learn science and find RBL an
effective and efficient way to learn science. In conclusion, RBL can enhance students’ performance
level as there was a significant difference in the academic performance ruled by independent t-test
result. It was highly recommended to implement RBL in a face-to-face setting for those who desire to
conduct similar studies in the future.
Keywords: Research-Based Learning Model, Science Instruction, Quasi-Experimental Research,
Senior High School Students, Cebu, Philippines

Introduction on and minds-on), and research discovery strategy.

Science is habitually seen as significant because it is
the foundation and a catalyst for technological
advancements as well as the key factor in a country's
economic growth. It is included as a central
component in school curricula in both elementary and
secondary levels in spite of conceptual complexity and
tall taken toll on usage. The students become
scientifically literate and able to compete and operate
in a complex world and eventually become agents of
transformation (Ayodele et. a.l., 2016; de Leon-Abao;
and Okolie, 2014). Hence, modern society demands
high-quality teaching and learning science concepts
from science teachers through research-based teaching
and learning.
However, students' mastery of science concepts
requires an effective methodology in the teaching-
learning process. Ganguly (nd) affirmed that the
Research-Based Learning methodology inculcates
Grade 8-12 students' original thinking, creativity,
science process skills, reasoning skills, and problem-
solving skills. It provides further to students to actively
seek, process, construct and use knowledge in the
learning process (Usmeldi et. al., 2017). Prahmana
(2015) describes Research-Based Learning as a
learning model based on a constructivist theory that is
real, problem-solving, cooperative, relational (hands-
Furthermore, students improve their critical thinking
skills, creativity, and communication skills, and 2
generally, students learn independently. Research-
Based Learning is a theory that refers to a range of
methodologies for learning and teaching that
incorporate research and education (Ionescu et al.,
2016).
However, numerous studies found out that there is a
global education problem in which students'
performances across the world is drifting (Ding, 2019),
not only to developing countries but also to first world
countries (Lord, 2016 & Hidalgo-Cabrillana, 2018). In
the Philippines, the recent result of the Programme
International Students' Assessment (PISA), garnered
an average Scientific Literacy score of 357 points,
which is suggestively lower than the average OECD
score of 489 points. Also, it is fared significantly lower
in Scientific Literacy than all the participated ASEAN
countries.
These problems could also be seen in Bitoon National
Vocational High School. Students have poor
performance in science as well as in research project
outputs. In fact, the students' Investigatory papers or
studies have inadequacies in content that make a
logical and winning project, as assessed by the
national review committee during their yearly
conduction of Investigatory Projects Congress

Kristoffren M. Lubas
2/14
Psych Educ, Document ID: PEMJ0, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.6727906, ISSN 2822-4353
Research Article

(Division Memo. No. 504, s. 2019). Several studies
revealed that Research-Based Learning is an efficient
way of changing the learning of students and
practicing learning thru doing. The findings of this
study serve as the basis for adopting a Research-Based
Learning Model module for senior high school science
instruction; thus, it will not only benefit the educators
but for the augmentation of the learners' proficiency as
well.
organized by school administrators at the beginning of
the school year, it was not possible to randomly assign
students to both experimental and control groups. But,
as a control and experimental group, the classes were
randomly distributed. Also, quasi-experimental
research was used because the independent variable
was manipulated before the dependent variable was
measured thus eliminating the problem of
directionality.

The experiment design pattern is shown in Table 1. In

Research Questions the pattern below, O1 is the experimental group while
O2 is the control group. “X” represented the treatment
This study determined the effects of a Research-Based which is the Research-Based Learning model.
Learning model in science instruction for Grade 12
STEM students’ performance and learning experiences Table 1. Experiment Design Pattern
at Bitoon National Vocational High School,
Dumanjug, Cebu, during the School Year 2020 – 2021
as a basis for module adoption. Specifically, it sought
to answer the following questions:
1. What is the profile of the students in terms of:
1.1. age; and
1.2. gender?
2. What is the students’ pretest and post-test
performance level based on the following cognitive
domains:
2.1. remembering; Environment
2.2. understanding;
2.3. applying; This study was conducted at Bitoon National
2.4. analyzing; Vocational High School situated at Bitoon, Dumanjug,
2.5. evaluating; and Cebu.
2.6. creating?
3. As perceived by the students, to what extent is Respondents
their learning experience in a Research-Based
Learning model? The Grade 12 STEM students were chosen to be the
4. Is there a significant difference between: respondents of the study. These students are the
4.1. the pretest and post-test performance of each primary receiver of science instruction and where the
of the aforementioned groups; and majority of the population preferred modular learning
4.2. the mean gain of each of the aforementioned based on the Learner Enrollment Survey Form (LESF)
groups? gathered by the school during the enrollment period.
5. Based on the findings, what learning module can Hence, it is suitable for the procedures of the study.
be adopted? The respondents were divided into two groups:
randomly assigned as experimental and control groups.

Methodology Table 2. Distribution of Respondents

Design

This research was a quasi-experimental study with

non-equivalent groups which included experimental
and control groups to assess the effectiveness of
Research-Based Learning model instruction in
teaching science based on the six cognitive domains in
pre and post-test design. Since the classes were

Kristoffren M. Lubas
3/14
Psych Educ, Document ID: PEMJ0, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.6727906, ISSN 2822-4353
Research Article

Heick’s research-based learning model to the

The classes from Grade 12 STEM were randomly
assigned as experimental and control groups. As seen
in Table 2, the experimental group were composed of
15 (19%) male and 25 (31%) female which summed to
40 (50%) while the control group was composed of 19
(24%) male and 21 (26%) female which also summed
to 40 (50%). The total number of male respondents
was 34 (43%) and the number of female respondents
was 46 (57%). There are 80 total respondents in both
groups that reached 100 percent.
Instruments
The researcher used a questionnaire in gathering the
data for this study. The first part contains the
respondents' profiles in which personal information
about their age and gender was gathered. The second
part consists of 60 multiple-choice items adapted from
Biology Today and Tomorrow with Physiology 5th
Edition by Starr et. al. (2016) and was used to
determine the respondents’ pre-test and post-test
scores, respectively.
Students’ learning experiences were assessed with 15
items, using the 5-point scale: Strongly agree (5),
Agree (4), Undecided (3), Disagree (2), and Strongly
Disagree (1). The items were taken from Ikonta and
Ugonna (2015) and were slightly modified by the
researcher.
Data Gathering Procedure
To gather pertinent data needed in this study, the
researcher asked permission from the school head and
the school's division superintendent through a
transmittal letter to conduct the study. Then, the
participants were assigned as control and experimental
groups. Parents and guardians of the respondents were
also informed about the study through a letter.
The researcher, with the help of the school head,
arranged the schedule of the science teacher and the
giving of the pretest to post-test, respectively. After the
dissemination of information, the researcher
administered the pretest on the first day of class;
modules were then distributed on the second day and
started answering the modules on the succeeding days.
The researcher made a scheduled follow-up on the
respondents the following week; every Monday and
Wednesday for the experimental group while every
Tuesday and Thursday for the control group.
Before the pretest was given, the researcher introduced
experimental group. On the other hand, the control
group was also introduced to the module design by the
Department of Education. After completing all
learning areas for the first quarter, the researcher then
admini st ered the post -test and the survey
questionnaire. The researcher facilitated the
respondents in every lesson, and after the post-test was
administered, the gathered data were sorted, tabulated,
computed, and analyzed.
Statistical Treatment of Data
To interpret the data gathered, the researcher utilized
the following statistical techniques:
The respondents’ profile was determined using the
Simple frequency and percentage formula. As to
respondents' academic performance, Frequency of
Correct Responses, Percentage formula, and Weighted
Mean were employed. With regard to the learning
experience of the respondents, Weighted Mean was
used also. Meanwhile, to obtain a significant
difference in respondents’ pretest and post-test scores,
the Paired t-test formula was used. Finally, to obtain a
significant difference between the mean gain of each
of the aforementioned groups, a t-test formula was
utilized.
Results and Discussion
Profile of the Respondents
The respondents’ profiles used in the study are their
age and gender. It is assumed that the profile of the
respondents would, to some extent, influence their
learning. Hence, their profile is included in this
research endeavor.
Table 3. Respondents’ Profile
Age and sexual orientation have impacts on scholastic
accomplishment (Eze, Ezenwafor, & Obi, 2015). Table
3 showed the age and the gender profile of the Grade

Kristoffren M. Lubas
4/14
Psych Educ, Document ID: PEMJ0, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.6727906, ISSN 2822-4353
Research Article

12 STEM students of Bitoon National Vocational High remember them.

School, Bitoon, Dumanjug Cebu.
Figure 4. Students’ Performance Level in the
Age. As reflected in the table, most of the respondents Remembering Cognitive Domain
belonged to the age bracket of 16-17 years old for
male, and 18-19 years old for female. The median age
was 17 years old which is considered to be an
adolescent. Adolescents in this age ordinarily
experience less actual turns of events and more
intellectual turns of events. Adolescent at this age
prefer kinesthetic and visual learning style (Kinjari and
Ram Gopal, 2020) which is an ideal learning style
suited for research- based learning model.

Gender. As regards to gender, the majority of the

respondents were female with a percentage of 57%,
while only 43% comprised the male. Gender is one of
the individual factors that have been identified with
contrasts found in inspirational working and in self-
controlled learning. Huang et. al. (2020) suggested
there is a gradual increase of women having a
significant impact in the field of science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics (STEM).

Students’ Performance Level in the Cognitive

Domains

This sub-section elucidates the students’ performance

level based on the following cognitive domains
namely; remembering, understanding, applying,
analyzing, evaluating, and creating.
Remembering Cognitive Domain
Remembering alludes to recovering important
information from long-haul memory. This level
included reviewing fundamental realities, cycles,
strategies, or examples and structures (Haring et. al.,
2018). The students at this level are simply needed to
retain and recollect the data and the realities have
straightforwardly given to them (Faris, 2019). Figure 4
below showed the students’ performance in the
Remembering Cognitive Domain.
Control Group. The pretest performance for this
group of students showed a frequency of 19 or 48
percent which is described as a Very Low performance
level. Somehow, the post-test performance showed
improvements with a frequency of 30 or 75 percent
which depicted a Low performance level. This means
that the learners failed to learn the skill expected of
them. Although there's an increase in the learners'
post-test performance, they still need to improve since
low performance only means low mastery of the
considered skills. They barely memorize facts and
The contributory factor for the low performance for
this group of students is that the module provided
fewer information retrieval activities. Although the
module had a pretest and post-test section, however,
the pretest questions are different from the post-test
which did not give the students the chance to practice
recalling facts and remember them.
Experimental Group. The pretest performance for
this group of students showed a frequency of 18 or 45
percent indicating a Very Low performance level. On
the other hand, the post-test performance showed
tremendous improvements with a frequency of 38 or
95 percent exposing a Very High performance level.
This implies that the students have reviewed essential
realities, cycles, and strategies, or examples and
structures. The self-assessment section of the
Research-Based Learning module paved the
opportunity for the learners to remember information
efficiently. In contrast to the module used by the
control group, the RBL module provided the students
from the experimental group a chance to practice
recalling basic facts, methods, patterns, and structures
through the self-assessment section of the RBL
module.

Kristoffren M. Lubas
5/14
Psych Educ, Document ID: PEMJ0, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.6727906, ISSN 2822-4353
Research Article

Looking at Figure 4, it revealed that the learners in the
control group manifested a below- average level of
mastery of the competencies indicated by their Low
performance level in the post-test. On the other hand,
learners from the experimental group manifested the
highest level of mastery of the competencies shown in
their Very High level of performance during the post-
test. It is just imperative to note that the Research-
Based Learning model can significantly improve the
abilities to recover, perceiving, and reviewing related
information from the memory of the students.
Understanding Cognitive Domain
Understanding refers to the understanding of the first
stage of the ideas and materials provided by the
learners. This level is typically utilized when the
instructor aims to give the learners appreciation and to
let them exhibit their comprehension of given thoughts
and realities (Faris, 2019). Figure 5 below showed the
students’ performance level in the Understanding
Cognitive Domain.
Figure 5. Students’ Performance Level in the
Understanding Cognitive Domain
This implies that the students neglected to decide the
significance of instructional messages, including the
oral, composed, and realistic correspondence. The
module falls short on activities that help students think
about information on a deeper level. It banked mostly
on basic recalling of process and methods activities
rather than on explaining and inferring hence, the
students' performance was on a very low level.
Experimental Group. The pretest performance for
this group of students showed a frequency of 13 or 32
percent indicating a Very Low performance level.
Contrary to the pretest, the post-test performance
showed tremendous improvements with a frequency of
38 or 95 percent exposing a Very High performance
level. This suggests that students who accomplish this
level are equipped for deciphering the material and
exhibit a comprehension of the material. The RBL
module, with the guide of the science teacher,
scaffolds the activities by providing self- explanation
prompts throughout the material.
As seen in Figure 5, it revealed that the students in the
control group manifested a very low level of mastery
of the competencies indicated by their Very Low
performance level in the post-test. In contrast, students
from the experimental group manifested the highest
level of mastery of the competencies shown in their
Very High level of performance during the post-test.
Results revealed that learners exposed to RBL
cultivated the skills of making sense of the material
they have learned and mastered the skills of comparing
and contrasting, organizing, describing, and
interpreting. By directing arithmetic and science
teachers and specialists for all students, learning with
understanding is emphatically upheld. Learning with
understanding is facilitated when new and existing
data is structured around the discipline's essential ideas
and standards.

Applying Cognitive Domain

Applying asked learners to implement or execute a

task or action. At this level of reasoning, students
Control Group. The pretest performance for this should have the option to utilize their insight and
group of students showed a frequency of 14 or 35 comprehension in specific circumstances (Deller,
percent which is described as a Very Low performance 2019). Figure 6 showed the students’ performance
level. Somehow, the post-test performance showed level in the Applying Cognitive Domain.
minimum improvements with a frequency of 25 or 63
percent which still at a Very Low performance level.

Kristoffren M. Lubas
6/14
Psych Educ, Document ID: PEMJ0, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.6727906, ISSN 2822-4353
Research Article

Figure 6. Students’ Performance Level in the absence of useful information; it is hard to instruct
Applying Cognitive Domain fortes that include countless viable activities distantly.
Indeed, even the most present-day test systems won't
supplant future doctors or instructors of "live" practice.

Figure 6 pointed out that the students from both groups

manifested a very low level of mastery of the
competencies described by their Very Low
performance level in the post-test. It points out that
both learning modules neglected to improve the
application aptitudes of the students of doing or
utilizing a strategy in a given circumstance. It is
important to note that RBL should be implemented in
a face-to-face setting as application activities can be
carried out as expected. There will be more hands-on
experience for the students in a face-to-face learning
setting using the RBL.

Analyzing Cognitive Domain

At this level, the learners profoundly research thoughts

Control Group. The pretest performance for this
group of students showed a frequency of 18 or 45
percent which is described as a Very Low performance
level. Somehow, the post-test performance showed
improvements with a frequency of 23 or 58 percent
despite that, the performance rating remains the same
at a Very Low level.
and ideas to recognize the components of each and to
discover any concealed associations between them
(Faris, 2019). Figure 7 showed the students’
performance level in the Analyzing Cognitive Domain.
Figure 7. Students’ Performance Level in the
Analyzing Cognitive Domain

This suggests that in some cases, the students were

unable to use their experience and understanding. It
might because the presentation of the material failed to
capitalize on connecting what the students know to
real-world scenarios (Loan, 2016). Although the
module provided application activities, it was never
enough the activities were more on minds-on rather
than hands-on application. In STEM education, the
students are needed to apply innovation and
engineering in learning sciences (Faris, 2019).

Experimental Group. The pretest performance for

this group of students showed a frequency of 16 or 40
percent indicating a Very Low performance level
while their post-test performance showed slight
improvements with a frequency of 24 or 60 percent
which is at the same Very Low performance level.
This indicates that the learners barely take what they
have learned and apply it to real-world problems. The
reason for this slight increase is that there are science
materials needed in the activities of the RBL module
that were inaccessible due to pandemic restrictions. Control Group. The pretest performance for this
Fox (2020) enumerated cons for distance learning that group of students showed a frequency of 16 or 40
affect students' performance, one of which is the

Kristoffren M. Lubas
7/14
Psych Educ, Document ID: PEMJ0, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.6727906, ISSN 2822-4353
Research Article

percent which is described as a Very Low performance
level. Likewise, the post-test performance showed
trifling improvements with a frequency of 23 or 58
percent despite that, the performance rating remains
the same at a Very Low level. The outcomes are
characteristic that the students didn't meet the normal
abilities to draw connections between thoughts, use
basic reasoning, and breakdown information into the
number of its parts. The lack of problem-based
activities in the module invalidated the student from
investigating ideas and concepts on a deeper level.
Control Group. The pretest performance for this
group of students showed a frequency of 11 or 28
percent which is described as a Very Low performance
level. Likewise, the post-test performance barely made
improvements with a frequency of 14 or 35 percent
despite that, the descriptive rating remains the same at
Very Low performance level. This goes to show that
the module lack activities that would allow students to
make judgments. In the same manner, the results
indicate that the learners were less likely to critique or
check materials.

Experimental Group. The pretest performance for Figure 8. Students’ Performance Level in the
this group of students showed a frequency of 16 or 40 Evaluating Cognitive Domain
percent indicating a Very Low performance level
while their post-test performance showed impressive
improvements with a frequency of 33 or 83 percent
which depicted a Moderate performance level. This
means that students have acquired the ability to split
the material into constituent parts, to determine how
parts identify with each other, and to use coherent
derivation in a general structure. Measuring the
analytical thinking skills of the students were done
using various relevant methods in the module such as
problem-based or problem-solving laboratory works,
and home experiments.

As seen in Figure 7, it revealed that the students in the

control group manifested a very low level of mastery
of the competencies indicated by their Very Low
performance level in the post-test. In contrast, students
from the experimental group manifested an average
level of mastery of the competencies shown in their
Moderate level of performance during the post-test.
The learners proved that they fully understand the
material on the whole after achieving the analyzing
level of thinking. Analytical thinking exercises in the
RBL module permits students to think legitimately, Experimental Group. The pretest performance for
about the connection among ideas and circumstances this group of students showed a frequency of 9 or 23
they face, because logical reasoning includes the percent indicating a Very Low performance level
capacity to arrange the issue into its parts and while their post-test performance exposed great
comprehend the entry and clarify the capacity of a improvements with a frequency of 40 or 100 percent
framework, the explanation something to occur or how which portrayed a Very High level of performance.
to take care of an issue. The result is evocative to vindicate that the learners
have mastered the skills of justifying a position or
Evaluating Cognitive Domain decision. The Questioning section of the module
greatly contributed to the outstanding performance of
In Evaluating, learners' skills in making judgments the students in the evaluating cognitive domain.
based on criteria and standards are measured. At this
level, students are required to make decisions about The results in Figure 8 exposed that the students in the
the estimation of the techniques or materials control group manifested a very low level of mastery
introduced to them (Deller, 2019). Figure 8 below of the competencies indicated by their Very Low
showed the students' performance level in the performance level in the post-test. In contrast, students
Evaluating Cognitive Domain.

Kristoffren M. Lubas
8/14
Psych Educ, Document ID: PEMJ0, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.6727906, ISSN 2822-4353
Research Article
from the experimental group manifested the highest
level of mastery of the competencies shown in their
Very High level of performance during the post-test.
This called attention to the that the RBL module
improved the capacity of the students to cause
scholarly judgment about the estimation of the
material they have quite recently learned, applied, and
examined, to have the option to differentiate among
realities and sentiments or deductions.
Creating Cognitive Domain
Creating measured learners' ability to generate new
ideas. Figure 9 below showed the students'
performance level in the Creating Cognitive Domain.
Figure 9. Students’ Performance Level in the Creating
Cognitive Domain
Control Group. The pretest performance for this
group of students showed a frequency of 11 or 28
percent which is described as a Very Low performance
level. Likewise, the post-test performance barely made
improvements with a frequency of 15 or 38 percent
despite that, the performance rating remains the same
at Very Low performance level. The outcomes show
that the students' capacity to join various thoughts or
components to make new structures or thoughts was
not emphasized by the learning module. For example,
action words like generate, schedule, or provide
guidance (Deller, 2019) to students that they need to
Kristoffren M. Lubas
work at this stage. Activities that showcase the
creative thinking skills of the students were present in
the module however it was not challenging enough to
improve the performance level of the students in the
creating cognitive domain.
Experimental Group. The pretest performance for
this group of students revealed a frequency of 13 or 33
percent indicating a Very Low performance level.
Meanwhile, their post- test performance immensely
improved with a frequency of 37 or 93 percent which
is described as a Very High performance level. The
result is imperative to note that the learners established
the skills of assembling components to frame a novel,
intelligible whole or make a unique item. For Deller
(2019), making something unique or significantly new
is viewed as the most elevated level of reasoning. As
per Rodriguez et. al. (2019), innovativeness is key in
exploration and advancement measures.
Upon analyzing the result, it revealed that the students
in the control group manifested a very low level of
mastery of the competencies indicated by their Very
Low performance level in the post-test. In contrast,
learners from the experimental group manifested the
highest level of mastery of the competencies portrayed
in their Very High level of performance during the
post- test.
It was apparent that RBL refined students' capacities
of applying what they have realized, analyzed and
assessed, and assembling something, either verifiable
or theoretical. Capacities and abilities that integrate the
use of higher-order thinking skills (HOTS) are
nuanced reasoning that goes beyond essential real-
world assessment, such as evaluation and growth,
encouraging students to keep data and apply logical
thinking responses to certifiable problems (Ramos
et al., 2019). Advancing imagination should be a need
for schooling frameworks to address the difficulties of
the twenty-first century. Dynamic learning techniques,
for example, Research-Based Learning are more
compelling than customary instructing in advancing
inventive reasoning.
Summary of the Students’ Performance Level in
the Cognitive Domains
The figure showed the summary of the Students’
Performance Level in the Cognitive Domains. Data
revealed that the control group presented meager
improvements in all cognitive domains and remained
at a Very Low performance level in the overall result.
In contrast, the experimental group exhibited a
generous improvement in all cognitive domains
9/14
 Psych Educ, Document ID: PEMJ0, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.6727906, ISSN 2822-4353
Research Article
demonstrated a High performance rating in the overall
results after divulgence to RBL instructions.
Figure 10. Summary of the Students’ Performance Level in the
Cognitive Domains
Although the level of performance for both groups has
improved, it is yet vital to surmise that RBL can
enhance students' performance in terms of higher-
order thinking skills (HOTS).
Demir (2019) uncovered that the recurrence of
students' reactions improved in the post-test which is
similar to the study conducted by Sambeka Y., Nahadi,
and Sriyati S. (2017) showed also increased student's
concept mastering significantly.
Likewise, Rodriguez et. al. (2019) referenced that a
few investigations exhibit that educational
methodologies dependent on interaction, inquiry,
critical thinking, and interdisciplinary in adaptable and
open conditions encourage students' self-sufficiency,
duty regarding their own learning, agreeable work, and
long-haul information maintenance.
Finally, Aktamis, et. al. (2016) additionally uncovered
that there is a huge impact size on student
accomplishment and thus very well may be contended
that the students' scholarly accomplishment in the
groups where the inquiry-based learning technique is
utilized is a lot higher than in the groups where the
conventional learning strategy is utilized.
Students’ Learning Experiences in the Research-
Based Learning Model
This part assessed the level of perceptions of the
respondents in the experimental group after they were
exposed to research-based learning model instruction.
Kristoffren M. Lubas
Table 4. The Extent of Students’ Experiences in Research–Based
Learning
Table 4 displayed the students’ experiences using a
research-based learning model. Taking a close look at
it, the students strongly agreed that RBL has a
beneficial influence on their science learning
experiences.
It was because most of the learning tasks aroused their
interest, which means that RBL is an engaging way for
students to learn the concepts of science. Consenting
to Sumbawati and Anistyasari (2018), research-based
learning has been executed as per the punctuation of
research-based learning. In the learning period in the
classroom, students are usually constructive students.
Most of the students ask questions efficiently, and the
rest took care of tasks regularly.
Also, the students disagreed that RBL had a
detrimental impact on the values of studying science.
In like manner, Kortam, Basheer, Hofstein, and
Hugerat (2018) presumed that the presentation of RBL
into standard education could achieve upgrades in both
students' interest and their attitudes. A mediation
program comprising predominantly of joining the
instructing of biology with RBL brought about both
expanded motivation among students and more
uplifting perspectives towards biology.
Students detailed more noteworthy delight, interest,
premium, and participation because of utilizing RBL
in finding out about the cell in biology. Generally, the
learners Strongly Agreed (4.31) that the Research-
Based Learning model helped improve their
10/14
Psych Educ, Document ID: PEMJ0, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.6727906, ISSN 2822-4353
Research Article
performance and gave them a positive outlook on
learning science.
Test of Significant Difference
Tables 4 and 5 reflect the significant difference among
the mean scores of the six cognitive domains in the
pretest and post-test using the dependent t-test.
Significant Difference Between the Pretest and
Post-test Performance of the Control Group
The next table presents the results for the test of
significant difference between the pretest and post-test
performance of the control group.
The t-values and p-values are shown in table 5, for the
lower-order thinking cognitive domains Remembering,
Understanding, and Applying indicated a rejection of
the null hypothesis since these values are less than
critical and the alpha value of 0.05.
As such, there were significant differences in the
pretest and post-test performance of the control group.
Comparing the mean scores of the said type of test,
students in the control group scored significantly
higher in the post-test in the lower-order thinking skills
(LOTS) cognitive domains than the pretest. This
implies that the module utilized for this group was
effective in improving the lower-order thinking skills
(LOTS) of the learners given the significant increase in
their performance.
As for the higher-order thinking skills (HOTS), only
the Analyzing cognitive domain indicated a rejection
of the null hypothesis since the p-value is less than
critical and the alpha. While the other HOTS,
Evaluating and Creating, had a greater p-value than the
set alpha which indicates the acceptance of the null
hypothesis. This means that there is no significant
difference in the performance between pretest and
post-test hence, students’ performance for these
cognitive domains showed no improvement.
As for the higher-order thinking skills (HOTS), only
the Analyzing cognitive domain indicated a rejection
of the null hypothesis since the p-value is less than
critical and the alpha. While the other HOTS,
Evaluating and Creating, had a greater p-value than the
set alpha which indicates the acceptance of the null
hypothesis. This means that there is no significant
difference in the performance between pretest and
post-test hence, students’ performance for these
cognitive domains showed no improvement.
Kristoffren M. Lubas
Table 5. The Significant Difference Between the Pre-
test and Post-test Performance of the Control Group
It can be gleaned in Table 5 that the significant
difference of the pretest and post-test performance of
the control group. The HO1 was rejected since the
critical p-values of 0.0421 on Remembering, 0.0082
on Understanding, 0.0301 on Applying, and 0.0169 on
Analyzing were lower than the set alpha of 0.05. It can
be said that there is a significant difference in the
pretest and post-test performance of the STEM
students on these specified cognitive domains.
However, the HO1 was accepted since the critical p-
value of 0.1498 on Evaluating and 0.1906 on Creating
were greater than the set alpha therefore, it can be said
that there was no significant difference in the pretest
and post-test performance of the STEM students on
these cognitive domains.
The majority of the significant increase in the
performance of the group came from the lower-order
thinking skills (LOTS) questions as the content in the
module used was LOTS-based meaning, activities that
enhance skills on justifying a stand or decision and
producing new or original work were limited.
Significant Difference Between the Pretest and
Post-test Performance of the Experimental Group
Similarly, Table 6 showed the significant difference
between the pretest and post-test performance of the
experimental group. In the lower-order thinking skills
(LOTS) cognitive domains; Remembering and
Understanding p-values are less than the alpha value of
0.05. This explains that there were significant
differences in the performance of the pretest and post-
test of the experimental group.
11/14
Psych Educ, Document ID: PEMJ0, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.6727906, ISSN 2822-4353
Research Article
It further implies that RBL is deemed efficient.
However, the p-value of Applying was higher than the
alpha which explains that there was no significant
difference in the performance of pretest and post-test
on this cognitive domain. It can be associated with the
fact that materials needed for the application activities
were inaccessible due to pandemic restrictions. As Fox
(2020) counted that one of the cons of distance
learning is the absence of viable information; it is hard
to instruct strengths that include countless pragmatic
activities distantly. Indeed, even the most present-day
test systems won't supplant future doctors or
instructors of "live" practice.
Table 6. The Significant Difference Between the Pre-
test and Post-test Performance of the Experimental
Group
Contrary to the LOTS, the higher-order thinking skills
(HOTS) cognitive domains; Analyzing, Evaluating,
and Creating had a lower critical p-value than the set
alpha which connotes that there were significant
differences in the pretest and post-test scores. It means
that students’ performance level in HOTS cognitive
domains significantly improved.
Table 6 exposed that the significant difference of the
pretest and post-test performance of the experimental
group. The HO1 was rejected since the critical p-values
of 0.0016 on Remembering, 0.0004 on Understanding,
0.0025 on Analyzing, 0.000 on Evaluating and
Creating were lower than the set alpha of 0.05. It can
be said that there is a significant difference in the
pretest and post-test performance of the STEM
students on these specified cognitive domains.
However, the HO1 was accepted since the critical p-
value of 0.0595 on Applying was greater than the set
alpha therefore, it can be said that there was no
significant difference in the pretest and post-test
performance of the STEM students on this cognitive
Kristoffren M. Lubas
domain. In contrast to the control group, the majority
of the significant increase came from the higher-order
thinking skills (HOTS) cognitive domains since the
RBL module utilized were more on analyzing,
evaluating, and creating activities. Similarly,
Kurniawati (2019) in a study used RBL that has two
core stages, namely the analysis of collaborative
problem solving and independent learning which drew
a conclusion of improving HOTS of students.
Test of Significant Difference in Mean Gain
Table 7 reflected the significant difference between the
mean gain results of the control and experimental
group.
Table 7. The Significant Difference Between the Mean
Gain Results of the Control and Experimental Group
As reflected in the table, the HO2 was rejected since
the computed t-value of 23.32 was greater than the
critical p-value of 0.000 at 0.05 level of significance;
hence, there was a significant difference between the
mean gain of the control and experimental groups.
Therefore, the Research-Based Learning model
significantly improved the learners' performance in
level based on the six cognitive domains of
Remembering, Understanding, Applying, Analyzing,
Evaluating, and Creating. HOTS are student
capabilities that are implemented when students
experience new issues, vulnerabilities, questions, or
issues. HOTS are also valued because they are
accepted to better plan students for the challenges of
both advanced scholarly life and adult work and duty
on a daily basis. Thus, HOTS can be used to anticipate
the student's achievement. In this specific situation,
students are likewise expected to create thinking
aptitudes, innovativeness, examination, and capacity to
make information.
Besides, McLeod (2018) introduces Piaget's (1952)
theory of constructivist Learning, which is
fundamentally based on interpretation and critical
reasoning, a hypothesis of how individuals learn. It
notes that by encountering things and reflecting on
those experiences, people develop their own
perception and awareness of the environment.
12/14
Psych Educ, Document ID: PEMJ0, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.6727906, ISSN 2822-4353
Research Article
Learning should be student-centered within the
classroom and done by active learning of exploration.
Conclusion
The test resulted in a manner that the Research-Based
Learning model (RBL) helped improve learners'
performance levels in the six cognitive domains with
emphasis on higher-order thinking skills (HOTS)
namely analyzing, evaluating, and creating; therefore,
it is imperative for implementation, especially for
senior high school science instructions. Learners'
experience disclosed RBL as an effective and efficient
strategy in learning science. RBL upgrades higher
thinking aptitudes, including self-reflection, basic
reasoning, the capacity to attempt autonomous inquiry,
and an awareness of others' expectations for learning,
scholarly development, and development.
As premised on the result of the study, it is highly
recommended to implement the Research-Based
Learning (RBL) model, especially in a classroom
setting for future researchers who aspire to conduct
similar studies on RBL.
References
Abosalem, Y. (2016). Assessment Techniques And Students’
Higher-Order Thinking Skills. International Journal Of Secondary
E d u c a t i o n . V ol. 4, N o. 1, 20 16 , Pp. 1- 11 . D oi:
1 0 . 1 16 4 8 /J . I js e d u . 20 1 6 04 0 1 .1 1
Aktamis, et. al. (2016). Effects of the Inquiry-Based Learning
Method on Students’ Achievement, Science Process Skills and
Attitudes towards Science: A Meta-Analysis Science. Journal of
T urkis h Sc ie nc e Educ a tio n, 13(4), 2 4 8-2 6 1 , doi:
10.12973/tused.10183a.
Alvarado, et. al. (2016). Design and Validation of a Questionnaire to
Measure Research Skills: Experience with Engineering Students.
Journal of Technology and Science Education, 6 (3), 219-233.
Andrini, V. S. (2016). The Effectiveness of Inquiry Learning
Method to Enhance Students’ Learning Outcome: A Theoritical and
Empirical Review. Journal of Education and Practice. ISSN: 2222-
1735. Vol. 7, No. 3.
Aparecio, M. (2018). Mentoring, Self-Efficacy and Performance in
Conducting Investigatory Projects: A Mixed-Method Analysis.
Published Thesis, Central Mindanao University. Bukidnon,
Philippines.
Ayodele, TO.; and Oladokan, TT., Gbadegesin, JT., (2016). “Factors
Influencing Academic Performance of Real Estate Students in
Nigeria”. Property Management, Vol.34 Iss 5 pp.396-414v
Bansal, M., & Goyal, M. (2017). To Introduce and Measure the
Effectiveness of Case Based Learning in Physiology. International
Journal of Research in Medical Sciences, 5(2), 437-445.
Kristoffren M. Lubas
Çakmak, M. (2017). Students' Problems Related to Research Skills
in Higher Education: Academics and Students' Views. Published
Thesis. Gazi University. Ankara, Turkey.
Choudhary, F. (2016). Effect of Inquiry Based Instruction on
Student’s Attitude and Academic Achievement in Physics.
Published Thesis. National University of Modern Languages.
Islamabad, Pakistan.
Cuartero, O. (2016). Impact of Doing Science Investigatory Project
(SIP) on the Interest and Process Skills of Elementary Students.
International Journal of Multidisciplinary Academic Research, Vol.
4 No. 5, p. 27-41.
Department of Education (2019). PISA 2018 National Report of the
Philippines. Pasig City, Philippines.
Elham H. Fini, Faisal Awadallah, Mahour M. Parast & Taher Abu-
Lebdeh (2018). The Impact of Project-Based Learning on Improving
Student Learning Outcomes of Sustainability Concepts in
Transportation Engineering Courses. European Journal of
Engineering Education, 43:3, 473-488.
Farzaneh Badinlou, Reza Kormi-Nouri & Monika Knopf (2018) A
study of retrieval processes in action memory for school-aged
children: the impact of recall period and difficulty on action
memory, Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 30:8, 792- 802,
DOI:10.1080/20445911.2018.1535495
Frezell, D. (2018). Impact of Inquiry Based Learning on Students’
Motivation, Engagement and Attitude in Science. Published Thesis.
University of Windsor. Ontario, Canada.
Friesenhahn, I. and Beaudry, C. (2014). The Global State of Young
Scientists – Project Report and Recommendations. The Global
Young Academy and Berlin Brandenburg Academy of Science and
Humanities. Berlin, Germany.
Fox, A. (2020). What are the Advantages and Disadvantages that
Distance Education Can Offer You? Retrieved November 06, 2020,
from https://elearningindustry.com/advantages-and- disadvantages-
distance-education-offer
Gallos, B. (2017). Senior High School Students’ Attitudes Towards
Research. SSRN: http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3263496
Granjeiro, E.M. (2019). Research-Based Teaching-Learning
Method: A Strategy to Motivate and Engage Students in Human
Physiology Classes. Advances in Physiology Education, Volume 43,
No. 4, 553-556.
Haring, P. et. al. (2018). Using the Revised Bloom Taxonomy to
Analyze Psychotherapeutic Games. International Journal of
Computer Games Technology, vol. 2018, Article ID 8784750, 9
pages. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/8784750
Heick, T. (2019). 4 Phases of Inquiry-Based Learning: A Guide For
Teachers. Retrieved March 24, 2020, from
https://www.teachthought.com/pedagogy/4-phases-inquiry-based-
learning-guide-teachers/
Huang, J. et. al. (2020). Historical comparison of gender inequality
in scientific career across countries and disciplines. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1914221117
Huet, I. (2018) Research-based education as a model to change the
teaching and learning environment in STEM disciplines,
European Journal of Engineering Education, 43:5, 725-740,
DOI: 10.1080/03043797.2017.1415299
I K Yulina, et. al. (2019). Analytical Thinking Skill Profile and
13/14
Psych Educ, Document ID: PEMJ0, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.6727906, ISSN 2822-4353
Research Article
Perception of Pre Service Chemistry Teachers in Analytical
Chemistry Learning. J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 1157 042046.
doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1157/4/042046
Ikonta, N. R., and Ugonna, N. C. (2015). The Effect of Rosetta
Stone (Computer-Assisted Language Learning) Software on English
as Second Language Students’ Profiency in English Language.
African Educational Research Journal, 3 (1): 69-79.
Ionescu, C., Keyser, R. De, Keyser, R. De, & Ionescu, C. (2016).
Interdisciplinary Project-Based Learning at Master Level: Control of
Robotic Mechatronic Systems. IFAC- PapersOnLine, 49(6), 314–
319.
Jenkins, Alan & Healey, Mick. (2020). Research-Led or Research-
Based Undergraduate Curricula: A Learning-Centered Approach.
10.4324/9780203079690-8.
Khuana, et. al. (2017). An Instructional Design Model with the
Cultivating Research-based Learning Strategies for Fostering
Teacher Students' Creative Thinking Abilities. Published Thesis.
Kamphaeng Phet Rajabhat University. Kamphaeng Phet, Thailand.
Kinjari, K. & Gopal, C. N. Ram. (2020). Learning style preference
among adolescent school students. DOI: 10.25215/0801.118.
Kortam, N., Basheer, A., Hofstein, A., Hugerat, M. (2018). How
Project-Based Learning Promotes 7th Grade Students' Motivation
and Attitudes Towards Studying Biology. Action Research and
Innovation in Science Education, 1(2), 9-17.
Krain M. (2016) Putting the Learning in Case Learning? The Effects
of Case-Based Approaches on Student Knowledge, Attitudes, and
Engagement. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 27(2),
131-153.
Kurniawati, T. (2019). Improving Students’ Higher Order-thinking
Skills Through Problem-based Learning in Introduction to
Microeconomics Course.
h t t p s : / / d oi . o r g /1 0 . 18 5 0 2 /k s s .v 3 i 1 1. 3 9 95
Liberman, B. (2019). How Learning Works: 10 Research-Based
I n s i gh t s . R et r i e ve d D ece mb er 12, 2020 from
https://www.gettingsmart.com/2019/03/how-learning-works-10-rese
arch- based-insights/
Loan (2016). Higher Order Thinking Skills in Science Education:
L O T S a nd H O T S – T h o u g h t s for C h a n g e . D O I:
1 0 . 1 31 4 0 /R G . 2 . 2 .2 4 4 56 . 1 66 4 8 .
McLeod, S. A. (2018). Jean Piaget's Theory of Cognitive
D e ve l o p me n t. R e t r ie ve d May 25, 2020, from
h t t p s : / / w w w .s i m pl y ps y c h o l og y . o rg / p ia g e t. h t m l
P N Sagala and A Andriani (2019). Development of Higher-Order
Thinking Skills (HOTS) Questions of Probability Theory Subject
Based on Bloom’s Taxonomy. J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 1188 012025
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1188/1/012025
Ramos, Jennifer Lyn & Ramos, S & Dolipas, Bretel & Villamor,
Brenda. (2019). Higher Order Thinking Skills and Academic
Performance in Physics of College Students: A Regression Analysis.
2013.
Rodríguez, G., Pérez, N., Núñez, G. et al. (2019). Developing
creative and research skills through an open and interprofessional
inquiry-based learning course. BMC Med Educ 19, 134.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-019-1563-5
Kristoffren M. Lubas
Rubrica, R. D. (2018). An Action Research on Project-Based
Learning and Understanding by Design and their Effects on the
Science Achievement and Attitude of Science Students. Published
Thesis. Caloocan City, Philippines.
Sambeka Y., Nahadi and Sriyati S. (2017). Implementation of
Authentic Assessment in the Project Based Learning to Improve
Student's Concept Mastering. Retrieved September 22, 2019, from
https://aip.scitation.org/doi/abs/10.1063/1.4983980
Sanchez, J. M. and Rosaroso, R. (2019). Science Investigatory
Project Instruction: The Secondary Schools' Journey. Published
Thesis. Cebu Normal University. Cebu City, Philippines.
Sumbawati, M.S. and Anistyasari, Y. (2018). The Impact of
Research-Based Learning on Student's Academic Performance and
Motivation. Published Thesis. Universitas Negeri Surabaya.
Surabaya, Indonesia.
Susiani, et. al. (2017). Research Based Learning (RBL): How to
Omprove Critical Thinking Skills. Published Thesis. Universitas
Sebelas Maret. Surakarta, Indonesia.
Tanujaya, et. al. (2017). The Relationship between Higher Order
Thinking Skills and Academic Performance of Student in
Mathematics Instruction. SSRN:
h t t p s : / / d oi . o r g /1 0 . 55 3 9 / ie s . v 10 n 1 1p 7 8
T.E. Vossen, I. Henze, R.C.A. Rippe, J.H. Van Driel & M.J. De
Vries (2018) Attitudes of secondary school students towards doing
research and design activities, International Journal of Science
E d u c a t i o n , 4 0 : 1 3 , 1 6 2 9 - 1 6 5 2 , DOI:
1 0 . 1 08 0 / 0 95 0 0 69 3 . 20 1 8 .1 4 9 43 9 5
Trif, L (2015). Training models of social constructivism. Teaching
based on developing a scaffold. The 6th International Conference
Edu World 2014 “Education Facing Contemporary World Issues”,
7th-9th November 2014. Procedia – Social and Behavioral
DOI: Sciences 1 8 0 (2015)
978-983. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.02.184.
h t t p : / /c r e a t i ve c om m o ns . o rg / l i c e ns e s / by - n c -n d / 4 .0/
Tuğçe Günter & F. Ebru Ofluoğlu Demir (2019). The Effect of
Using A Case Study on the Academic Achievement of Students in
Learning About the Topic of 'Vitamins', Journal of Biological
Education, 53:3, 288-301
Usmeldi, Usmeldi & Amini, R. & Trisna, S.. (2017). The
Development of Research-Based Learning Model with Science,
Environment, Technology, and Society Approaches to Improve
Critical Thinking of Students. Jurnal Pendidikan IPA Indonesia. 6.
318-325. 10.15294/jpii.v6i2.10680.
Weinstein, Y., Madan, C.R. & Sumeracki, M.A. (2018). Teaching
T he S c ie n c e of L e a r n i n g . C o gn . R e s e a r c h 3, 2.
h t t p s : / / d oi . o r g /1 0 . 11 8 6 /s 4 12 3 5 - 01 7 - 0 08 7 - y
Affiliations and Corresponding Information
Corresponding: Kristoffren M. Lubas
Affiliation: Cebu Technological University
Moalboal Campus, Philippines
Email: kristoffrenlubas@gmail.com
14/14