AnaPhyStory as An Innovative Pedagogical Approach for Enhancing Conceptual Understanding and Reflective Comprehension Among BPED Students
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19302605Keywords:
Anatomy and Physiology, AnaPhyStory, Narrative Story-Based Approach, Conceptual Understanding, Reflective ComprehensionAbstract
This quasi-experimental study assesses the effectiveness of AnaPhyStory, a narrative-based approach, in improving conceptual understanding and reflective comprehension of anatomy and physiology among Bachelor of Physical Education (BPED) students at Ramon Magsaysay Memorial Colleges, General Santos City, during the 2025-2026 academic year. Utilizing a non-equivalent control group pretest-posttest design, the experimental group (n=25) received AnaPhyStory instruction, which incorporated structured narratives on the skeletal, muscular, and nervous systems, whereas the control group (n=25) participated in traditional lectures; the instruments employed consisted of validated 60-item assessments and reflective comprehension evaluations. Pretest scores revealed inadequate conceptual comprehension in both groups (Control: M=19.08, SD=3.79; Experimental: M=19.04, SD=3.22), progressing to intermediate levels (Control posttest: M=32.24, SD=6.84) and high levels (Experimental: M=36.04, SD=4.14) following the intervention. Paired t-tests indicated significant pre-post improvements (Control: t=-7.67, p<.001; Experimental: t=-17.06, p<.001), while an independent t-test demonstrated higher posttest performance in the experimental group (t=-2.48, p=.018). The experimental group exhibited proficient reflective comprehension (M=14.28, SD=1.27). The findings confirm AnaPhyStory's superiority over conventional techniques in promoting deeper learning, aligning with the significance of story pedagogy in STEM education. Recommendations advocate for its incorporation into teacher training programs to enhance scientific literacy in accordance with SDG 4.
Downloads
References
Adams, J. A., & Dewsbury, B. M. (2020). Inclusive pedagogy: An essential component of undergraduate biology education. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 19(3), es2. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.20-03-0044
Barchas-Lichtenstein, J., Sherman, M., Voiklis, J., & Clapman, L. (2023). Science through storytelling or storytelling about science? Identifying cognitive task demands and expert strategies in cross-curricular STEM education. Frontiers in Education, 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.1279861
Bilici, S., & Yilmaz, R. M. (2024). The effects of collaborative digital storytelling on academic achievement and skill development in biology education. Education and Information Technologies. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12638-7
Dahlstrom, M. F. (2014). Using narratives and storytelling to communicate science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(Supplement 4), 13614–13620. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1320645111
Department of Education. (2016). K to 12 science curriculum guide. DepEd.
Deslauriers, L., McCarty, L. S., Miller, K., Callaghan, K., & Kestin, G. (2019). Measuring actual learning versus feeling of learning in response to being actively engaged in the classroom. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(39), 19251–19257. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1821936116
Dutta, T., & Keith, C. (2023). Evolution of storytelling pedagogy in global health education. Frontiers in Public Health, 11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2023.1165241
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
Green, M. C., & Brock, T. C. (2021). The role of transportation in the persuasiveness of public narratives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(5), 701–721. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.79.5.701
Harris, M. A., Viengkhou, V., & Knight, J. K. (2020). Variation in student performance in introductory biology courses. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 19(1), ar8. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.19-03-0058
Jiménez-Valverde, G. (2025). Narrative approaches in science education: From conceptual understanding to applications in chemistry and gamification. Encyclopedia, 5(3), 116. https://doi.org/10.3390/encyclopedia5030116
Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1
Kolb, D. A. (2021). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development (2nd ed.). Pearson Education.
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
Moon, J. A. (2013). Reflection in learning and professional development: Theory and practice. Routledge.
Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education, 93(3), 223–231. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2004.tb00809.x
Royse, E. A., Pullen, N. A., Cogswell, A., & Holt, E. A. (2024). A scoping review of undergraduate anatomy and physiology education: Approaches to evaluating student outcomes in the United States. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, 25(2), e00011-24. https://doi.org/10.1128/jmbe.00011-24
Satoh, M., Fujimura, A., & Miyagawa, S. (2023). Difficulties and innovations in teaching anatomy and physiology in nursing education. Nurse Education in Practice, 67, 103551. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nepr.2023.103551
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
How to Cite
