Learning by Speaking Science: The Effect of Student-Generative Reflective Vodcast in Science Achievement

This study investigated how student-generated reflective vodcasts impact science achievement compared to traditional instructional methods. Using a quasi-experimental, non-equivalent control group design, the research involved 62 first-year Bachelor of Information Technology students in a Science, Technology, and Society course. One group engaged with reflective vodcasting, while the control group followed conventional instruction. A researcher-developed 30-item science achievement test provided the data through pretest and posttest administration. Although both groups showed improvement, the vodcast group achieved a significantly higher mean gain. Statistical analysis confirmed that both groups started at a similar baseline, making the posttest differences a clear indicator of the intervention's success. These findings suggest that creating reflective multimedia encourages students to move beyond rote memorization toward active knowledge construction and higher-order thinking. Ultimately, the results highlight vodcasting as a practical, innovative tool for fostering meaningful engagement in science education.

student-generative vodcast, reflective learning, science achievement, quasi-experimental design, technology-enhanced learning

1. Al-Rawahi, N. M., & Al-Balushi, S. M. (2015). The effect of reflective science journal writing on students’ self-regulated learning strategies. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 10(3), 367–379. https://www.ijese.net/makale/1539 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Alessa, I. A., & Hussein, S. (2023). Using traditional and modern teaching methods on the teaching process from teachers’ own perspective. Route Educational and Social Science Journal, 10(2), 65–92. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Alwafi, E. M. (2023). The effect of learner-generated digital materials on learners’ deep learning approach and self-efficacy. Journal of Education and E-Learning Research, 10(3), 415–420. https://doi.org/10.20448/jeelr.v10i3.4755 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Bruner, J. S. (1961). The act of discovery. Harvard Educational Review. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Houghton Mifflin. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Chang, B. (2019). Reflection in learning. Online Learning, 23(1), 95–110. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v23i1.1447 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Chan, C. K. Y., & Lee, K. K. W. (2021). Reflection literacy: A multilevel perspective on the challenges of using reflections in higher education through a comprehensive literature review. Educational Research Review, 32, 100376. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2020.100376 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Coppola, B. P., & Pontrello, J. K. (2020). Student-generated instructional materials. In J. J. Mintzes & E. M. Walter (Eds.), Active learning in college science (pp. 353–366). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-33600-4_24 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Creswell, J. W., & Cresswell, J D., (2018). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mix-Method Approaches, Thoudand Oaks, CA: Sage Publication, Inc, [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Dewey, J. (1933). How we think. D. C. Heath. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive–developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906–911. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.34.10.906 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(23), 8410–8415. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1319030111 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Kay, R. H. (2012). Exploring the use of video podcasts in education: A comprehensive review of the literature. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(3), 820–831. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Khomyshak, O. B. (2024). Video-based learning in the digital age: Challenges and opportunities. Information Technologies and Learning Tools, 104(6), 14–30. https://doi.org/10.33407/itlt.v104i6.5854 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Prentice Hall.. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Litchfield, A., Dyson, L. E., Wright, M., & Courtille, B. (2010). Student-produced vodcasts as active metacognitive learning. In Proceedings of the 10th IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies. IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICALT.2010.160 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Machost, H., & Stains, M. (2023). Reflective practices in education: A primer for practitioners. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 22(2). https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.22-07-0148 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Mayer, R. E. (2020). Multimedia learning (3rd ed.). Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. McGuire, L., Lay, K., & Peters, J. (2009). Pedagogy of reflective writing in professional education. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 9(1), 93–107. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ854881.pdf [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. McLoughlin, C., Lee, M. J., & Chan, A. (2007). Guidelines for podcasting in higher education: Principles and pedagogy. In World Conference on E-Learning (pp. 1104–1111). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Morisson, B., Sutisna, U., & Anwarul Umam, R. (2024). Application of video-based learning method to increase student engagement in the digital age. Wulang: Jurnal Pendidikan Guru Madrasah Ibtidaiyah, 2(2), 51–60. https://doi.org/10.55656/wjp.v2i2.338 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. OECD. (2019). PISA 2018 results: What students know and can do. https://www.oecd.org/pisa [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Serra, T., Stokes, C., & Villanueva, J. (2023). Enhancing metacognitive awareness through reflective scientific writing in physical oceanography education. Journal of Geoscience Education, 71(1), 45–57. https://doi.org/10.1080/10899995.2022.2149347 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Stajić, S., Đukičin Vučković, S., Ivanović Bibić, L., Milanković, J., Ivkov Džigurski, A., Dragović, R., Dragin, A., Solarević, M., & Lukić, A. (2025). How the flipped classroom affects year seven students in geography test results: A case study of two primary schools in Serbia. Sustainability, 17(6), 2464. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17062464 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Harvard University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory Into Practice, 41(2), 64–70. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Exploring the Moderating Role of Demographic Variables in the Relationship Between Scientific Curiosity and Creativity Among Secondary School Students
• Development of a CODE-Based Teaching Guide on the Central Dogma in Biochemistry: A Study in the Philippines
• Scaffolding Genetics Learning in Resource-Constrained Classrooms: Effects of Inquiry-Based Worksheets on Student Achievement
• Chronological Versus Biological Age: The Role of Diet and Healthy Lifestyle in Modulating Epigenetic Aging
• Exploring Relationship Between Reaction Time and Academic Achievement in Science Subjects of Middle Stage Students