Interactive Effects of Structured Practice and Research Interest on University Students’ Learning Outcomes in an Educational Research Course

Hamidi; Robinson Situmorang; Hartati Muchtar

doi:10.55927/fjst.v5i9.164

Authors

Hamidi STKIP Hamzar
Robinson Situmorang Universitas Negeri Jakarta
Hartati Muchtar Universitas Negeri Jakarta

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.55927/fjst.v5i9.164

Keywords:

Research Methods Education, Structured Practice, Direct Instruction, Research Interest, Higher Education, Teacher Education, Learning Outcomes, Instructional Interaction.

Abstract

Educational research courses are expected to prepare prospective teachers to understand research concepts and apply them in authentic research tasks. Yet research-methods learning is often experienced as conceptually dense and technically demanding, making the instructional approach and students’ disposition toward research important considerations. This study examined whether the effect of structured practice on learning outcomes differed according to students’ research-interest level. A quasi-experimental 2 × 2 factorial design was used with 52 students enrolled in an educational research course at STKIP Hamzar Lombok, Indonesia. Instructional method was the treatment factor (structured practice versus direct instruction), while research interest was classified as high or low using the original upper- and lower-group procedure. Learning outcomes were measured through a course achievement test. Assumption checks supported the use of factorial analysis of variance. The analysis showed significant main effects of instructional method, F(1, 48) = 4.439, p = .040, partial η² = .085, and research interest, F(1, 48) = 4.557, p = .038, partial η² = .087. More importantly, the interaction between instructional method and research interest was significant, F(1, 48) = 9.665, p = .003, partial η² = .168. Simple-effects analysis indicated that among students with high research interest, structured practice was associated with higher learning outcomes than direct instruction (M = 27.17 vs. 22.64), t(48) = 3.688, p < .001, d = 1.31. Among students with low research interest, the difference was not statistically significant (M = 22.42 vs. 23.29), t(48) = −0.708, p = .482, d = −0.32. The findings suggest that the pedagogical value of structured practice is conditional rather than uniform, highlighting the importance of aligning instructional scaffolding with students’ readiness and orientation toward research

References

Agarwal, P. K., Nunes, L. D., & Blunt, J. R. (2021). Retrieval practice consistently benefits student learning: A systematic review of applied research in schools and classrooms. Educational Psychology Review, 33, 1409–1453. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-021-09595-9

Ahmad, Z., Sultana, A., & Siby, N. (2025). Building research capacity in higher education: Exploring confidence as a mediator of contextual support and research interest. Innovative Higher Education, 50, 1529–1552. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-025-09823-y

Arifin, Z., Sukristyanto, A., Widodo, J., & Rahman, M. R. (2022). Implementation, outcomes, and effectiveness of research-based learning: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Education and Literacy Studies, 10(4), 153–163.

Atenas, J., Havemann, L., & Timmermann, C. (2023). Reframing data ethics in research methods education: A pathway to critical data literacy. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 20, 11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-023-00380-y

Exploring open education pedagogy in research methods classrooms: Diversifying methods. (2024). Journal of Political Science Education, 20(4). https://doi.org/10.1080/15512169.2024.2318238

Haughton, N. A. (2023). A pragmatic approach to preparing novice doctoral qualitative researchers. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 23(4). https://doi.org/10.14434/josotl.v23i4.33815

Höft, L., & Bernholt, S. (2021). Domain-specific and activity-related interests of secondary school students: Longitudinal trajectories and their relations to achievement. Learning and Individual Differences, 92, 102089. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2021.102089

Integrating research methods training into elective courses in an undergraduate curriculum. (2024). PS: Political Science & Politics, 57(1), 113–118. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096523000483

Jianrong, Q., Iamsa-ard, A., Kong-In, W., & Sethakajorn, S. (2024). Development of flipped classroom teaching model to improve research ability of undergraduate students.

Johnson, M., & Meder, M. E. (2021). A meta-analysis of technology: Interventions in collegiate economics classes. The Journal of Economic Education, 52(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220485.2020.1845261

Kozanitis, A., & Nenciovici, L. (2023). Effect of active learning versus traditional lecturing on the learning achievement of college students in humanities and social sciences: A meta-analysis. Higher Education, 86, 1377–1394. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-022-00977-8

McDermott, K. B. (2021). Practicing retrieval facilitates learning. Annual Review of Psychology, 72, 609–633. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010419-051019

Mendes, A. Q., Pedro, A., & Galego, C. (2023). Teaching and learning research methodologies in education: A systematic literature review. Education Sciences, 13(2), 173. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13020173

Nind, M., & Katramadou, A. (2023). Lessons for teaching social science research methods in higher education: Synthesis of the literature 2014–2020. British Journal of Educational Studies, 71(3), 241–266. https://doi.org/10.1080/00071005.2022.2092066

Rotgans, J. I., & Schmidt, H. G. (2011). Situational interest and academic achievement in the active-learning classroom. Learning and Instruction, 21(1), 58–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.11.001

Roure, C., & Lentillon-Kaestner, V. (2022). Relationships between students’ individual interest, achievement goals, perceived competence and situational interest: A cluster analysis in swimming. European Journal of Sport Science, 28(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/1356336X211045992

Shi, Y., Yang, H., MacLeod, J., Zhang, J., & Yang, H. H. (2020). College students’ cognitive learning outcomes in technology-enabled active learning environments: A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 58(4). https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633119881477

Teaching research methods in education: Using the TPACK framework to reflect on praxis. (2024). Teaching Education/related research-methods pedagogy literature. https://doi.org/10.1080/1743727X.2023.2270426

Turner, R., Sutton, C., Gray, C., Stevens, S., & Swain, J. (2018). Student experiences of research methods education in college-based higher education. Research in Post-Compulsory Education, 23(3), 348–367.

Wahab, A. W., et al. (2024). Problem-based learning in research method courses: Development, application and evaluation. Journal of Medical Education and Curricular Development. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38264476/

Wessels, I., Rueß, J., Gess, C., Deicke, W., & Ziegler, M. (2021). Is research-based learning effective? Evidence from a pre–post analysis in the social sciences. Studies in Higher Education, 46(12), 2595–2609. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2020.1739014