Designing a Learning Model to Promote Imaginative Culture Through Contextual Cartoon Applications in Science Education
Keywords:
contextual cartoons; imaginative culture; science education; learning model; creative thinking.Abstract
This study aimed to design and develop a Contextual Cartoon-Based Imaginative Learning Model (CCILM) to promote imaginative culture in science education. The research employed an Educational Design Research (EDR) approach consisting of analysis, design, and evaluation phases. The model integrates contextual cartoons as instructional media to support inquiry-based, creative, and meaningful learning processes. The findings reveal that CCILM is valid, practical, and effective in enhancing students’ imaginative culture, creative thinking, critical thinking, scientific literacy, and learning motivation. Students showed improved understanding of abstract scientific concepts through visual narratives that connect science with real-life contexts. The study concludes that contextual cartoons are powerful pedagogical tools for fostering imagination and higher-order thinking skills in science learning. The model offers a structured framework for teachers to implement engaging and interdisciplinary science instruction. Future research is recommended to expand the model into digital learning environments and test its effectiveness across broader educational settings.
Downloads
References
Ainsworth, S. (2022). The role of multiple representations in learning science. Educational Psychology Review, 34(2), 421–447. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-021-09631-5
Ainsworth, S., & Scheiter, K. (2021). Learning with multiple representations. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 6(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-021-00221-0
Beghetto, R. A. (2019). Big wins, small steps: How to lead for and with creativity. Harvard Education Press.
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2019). How people learn II: Learners, contexts, and cultures. National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/24783
Bybee, R. W. (2021). Scientific literacy in science education. NSTA Press.
Craft, A. (2021). Creativity and education futures. Routledge.
Drake, S. M., & Reid, J. L. (2020). Integrated curriculum and interdisciplinary learning. International Journal of Curriculum Studies, 52(3), 201–215. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2020.1722274
Ennis, R. H. (2018). Critical thinking across the curriculum. Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across Disciplines, 33(2), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.5840/inquiryctnews20183321
Facione, P. A. (2020). Critical thinking: What it is and why it counts. Insight Assessment.
Fiorella, L., & Mayer, R. E. (2018). What works and doesn’t work in educational technology. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316546166
Fogarty, R. (2019). How to integrate the curricula. Corwin Press.
Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2019). 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
García-Moreno, C., et al. (2023). Visual narratives and creative thinking in science education. Journal of Educational Psychology and Creativity, 15(1), 55–70. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2023.2189012
Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Duncan, R. G., & Chinn, C. A. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning. Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 99–107. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520701263368
Jacobs, H. H. (1989). Interdisciplinary curriculum: Design and implementation. ASCD.
Kaufman, J. C., & Sternberg, R. J. (2021). The Cambridge handbook of creativity. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316979834
Keogh, B., & Naylor, S. (1999). Concept cartoons, teaching and learning in science. International Journal of Science Education, 21(4), 431–446. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500699929048
Kress, G. (2020). Multimodality: A social semiotic approach to contemporary communication. Routledge.
Kolb, D. A., & Kolb, A. Y. (2020). Experiential learning theory. Learning, Design, and Technology. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-57942-0
Lazonder, A. W., & Harmsen, R. (2019). Meta-analysis of inquiry-based learning. Review of Educational Research, 89(3), 345–388. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654319832991
Liu, Y., et al. (2022). Visual storytelling and cognitive flexibility in education. Computers & Education, 180, 104–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2022.104120
Mayer, R. E. (2020). Multimedia learning (3rd ed.). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316941350
Michael, J. (2006). Where’s the evidence that active learning works? Advances in Physiology Education, 30(4), 159–167. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00053.2006
National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K–12 science education. National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/13165
National Research Council. (2018). Science and engineering for grades 6–12. National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/24901
Naylor, S., & Keogh, B. (2019). Concept cartoons in science education: Updated perspectives. Science Education Review, 18(2), 1–12.
OECD. (2019). PISA 2018 assessment and analytical framework. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/b25efab8-en
OECD. (2021). 21st century learners and skills development. OECD Publishing.
OECD. (2023). PISA 2022 science framework. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/aa787c55-en
Osborne, J., & Dillon, J. (2008). Science education in Europe: Critical reflections. Nuffield Foundation.
Paivio, A. (1991). Dual coding theory. In Cognitive science and education.
Pedaste, M., et al. (2015). Phases of inquiry-based learning. Educational Research Review, 14, 47–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2015.02.003
Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? Journal of Engineering Education, 93(3), 223–231. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2004.tb00809.x
Prince, M. (2022). Active learning in STEM education. International Journal of STEM Education, 9(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-022-00357-8
Runco, M. A., & Jaeger, G. J. (2019). The standard definition of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 24(1), 92–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2019.1590338
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2020). Self-determination theory. American Psychologist, 75(5), 609–627. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000493
Schunk, D. H. (2020). Learning theories: An educational perspective. Pearson.
Serafini, F. (2021). Visual literacy in multimodal education. Language Arts, 98(4), 256–267.
Sternberg, R. J. (2021). Creativity theory and research. Annual Review of Psychology, 72, 89–108. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010419-051003
Theobald, E. J., et al. (2020). Active learning narrows achievement gaps. PNAS, 117(12), 6476–6483. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1916903117
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Harvard University Press.
Yulaichah, S., et al. (2024). Contextual learning and mathematical reasoning using comics. Journal of Educational Innovation, 12(1), 45–60.
Zhang, X., & Chen, Y. (2022). Contextualized learning in science education. Science Education International, 33(4), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.33828/sei.v33.i4.1
