SINTA

0.0

Impact

Scholar

0.0

H-Index

GeoEdu Insight Journal: Geography and Education Geography

an Open Access Journal

Scramble-Based Social Studies Instruction: Fostering Interest and Engagement Among Elementary School Students

Kartila Kartila
Institut Agama Islam Negeri (IAIN) Palopo
Indonesia
kartila111@gmail.com
Allyson Compton
Columbia University ROR
United States
Share

  • Purpose of the study: This study aimed to describe the implementation of the cooperative learning model of the Scramble type in Social Studies learning for third-grade students at Datok Sulaiman Islamic Elementary School Palopo. It also examined students’ learning interest after the implementation and identified supporting and inhibiting factors affecting the model in increasing learning interest.

    Methodology: This study employed a descriptive qualitative approach involving 32 third-grade students of Datok Sulaiman Islamic Elementary School Palopo. Data were collected through classroom observation, interviews with teachers and students, and documentation. Research instruments consisted of observation sheets, interview guidelines, and documentation sheets. Data were analyzed using the Miles and Huberman model through data reduction, data display, and conclusion verification.

    Main Findings: The implementation of the Scramble model increased students’ learning interest in Social Studies. Students demonstrated greater enjoyment, interest, attention, participation, and involvement during learning activities. The learning process involved preparing scrambled-word questions, presenting learning materials, forming heterogeneous groups, completing worksheets within a specified time, and providing assessment and appreciation. Supporting factors included teacher motivation, heterogeneous grouping, clear group objectives, and appreciation.

    Novelty/Originality of this study: This study provides a contextual description of how the Scramble cooperative learning model develops Social Studies learning interest through four observable indicators: enjoyment, interest, attention, and participation. It also identifies pedagogical supporting and inhibiting factors, showing that the effectiveness of Scramble depends not only on its game-based activity but also on teacher support, group organization, student characteristics, and learning variation.

  • How to cite

    Scramble-Based Social Studies Instruction: Fostering Interest and Engagement Among Elementary School Students. (2026). GeoEdu Insight Journal: Geography and Education Geography, 1(2), 103-116. https://doi.org/10.37251/gedij.v1i2.3788

    More Citation Formats

  • 16
    Abstract views
    8
    Downloads

    Metrics — Badges

    1. F. Xu, L. Wang, and J. Xu, “The impact of teachers’ motivating style and student-teacher relationships on adolescents’ class participation: The indirect role of learning motivation,” Acta Psychol. (Amst)., vol. 257, pp. 1–11, 2025, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2025.105105.
    2. M. A. Saeed and H. S. Al Qunayeer, “Can we engage postgraduates in active research methodology learning? Challenges, strategies and evaluation of learning,” Int. J. Res. Method Educ., vol. 44, no. 1, pp. 3–19, Jan. 2021, doi: 10.1080/1743727X.2020.1728526.
    3. Y. Shih, “Children ’ s learning for sustainability in social studies education : A case study from Taiwanese elementary school,” Front. Educ., vol. 9, pp. 1–14, 2024, doi: 10.3389/feduc.2024.1353420.
    4. S. Zhang and Y. Q. Tan, “Redefining learning : Student-centered strategies for academic and personal growth,” Front. Educ., vol. 10, pp. 1–15, 2025, doi: 10.3389/feduc.2025.1518602.
    5. C. J. Lai, “Examining the impact of multimodal task design on english oral communicative competence in fourth ‑ grade content ‑ language integrated social studies : A quasi ‑ experimental study,” Asian-Pacific J. Second Foreign Lang. Educ., vol. 9, no. 64, pp. 1–27, 2024, doi: 10.1186/s40862-024-00289-7.
    6. E. Sefa and D. Darko, “Social Sciences & Humanities Open Effectiveness of problem-based learning strategy in improving teaching and learning of mathematics for pre-service teachers in Ghana,” Soc. Sci. Humanit. Open, vol. 7, no. 1, p. 100453, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.ssaho.2023.100453.
    7. R. A. Howell, “Engaging students in education for sustainable development : The benefits of active learning , reflective practices and flipped classroom pedagogies,” J. Clean. Prod., vol. 325, no. October, p. 129318, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.129318.
    8. L. R. M. Zamorano, J. Ángel, L. Sánchez, A. Luisa, G. Caballero, and C. B. Muñoz, “Gamification and active learning in higher education : is it possible to match digital society , academia and students ’ interests ?,” Int. J. Educ. Technol. High. Educ., vol. 18, no. 15, pp. 1–27, 2021, doi: 10.1186/s41239-021-00249-y.
    9. K. Aga, “Comfort in active learning spaces – students’ perceptions and preferences,” Eur. J. Eng. Educ., vol. 49, no. 4, pp. 785–806, Jul. 2024, doi: 10.1080/03043797.2024.2341756.
    10. L. Wong et al., “IDC theory : Interest and the interest loop,” Res. Pract. Technol. Enhanc. Learn., vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 1–16, 2020.
    11. H. Tu and S. W. Lee, “Curiosity , interest , and engagement : Unpacking their roles in students ’ learning within a virtual game environment,” J. Educ. Comput. Res., vol. 62, no. 8, pp. 1775–1799, 2025, doi: 10.1177/07356331241277904.
    12. E. Blinkoff, K. T. Nesbitt, R. Michnick, and K. Hirsh-pasek, “Acta psychologica investigating the contributions of active , playful learning to student interest and educational outcomes,” Acta Psychol. (Amst)., vol. 238, pp. 1–7, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2023.103983.
    13. X. Xu, Z. Shi, N. A. Bos, and H. Wu, “Student engagement and learning outcomes: An empirical study applying a four-dimensional framework,” Med. Educ. Online, vol. 28, no. 1, p. 2268347, Dec. 2023, doi: 10.1080/10872981.2023.2268347.
    14. S. Bai, K. Foon, M. Sailer, and C. Jia, “Computers & education from top to bottom : How positions on different types of leaderboard may affect fully online student learning performance , intrinsic motivation , and course engagement,” Comput. Educ., vol. 173, pp. 1–15, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104297.
    15. K. C. H. Zhoc, R. B. King, T. S. H. Chung, and J. Chen, “Emotionally intelligent students are more engaged and successful: Examining the role of emotional intelligence in higher education,” Eur. J. Psychol. Educ., vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 839–863, 2020, doi: 10.1007/s10212-019-00458-0.
    16. K. A. Renninger and S. E. Hidi, “To level the playing field, develop interest,” Policy Insights from Behav. Brain Sci., vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 10–18, Mar. 2020, doi: 10.1177/2372732219864705.
    17. Z. Zen, Reflianto, Syamsuar, and F. Ariani, “Academic achievement: The effect of project-based online learning method and student engagement,” Heliyon, vol. 8, no. 11, Nov. 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e11509.
    18. M. Taub, R. Sawyer, A. Smith, J. Rowe, R. Azevedo, and J. Lester, “The agency effect: The impact of student agency on learning, emotions, and problem-solving behaviors in a game-based learning environment,” Comput. Educ., vol. 147, p. 103781, 2020, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103781.
    19. Halil Taş and Muhammet Baki Minaz, “The Effects of Learning Style-Based Differentiated Instructional Activities on Academic Achievement and Learning Retention in the Social Studies Course,” Sage Open, vol. 14, no. 2, p. 21582440241249290, Apr. 2024, doi: 10.1177/21582440241249290.
    20. Jean-Marc Dewaele and Chengchen Li, “Teacher enthusiasm and students’ social-behavioral learning engagement: The mediating role of student enjoyment and boredom in Chinese EFL classes,” Lang. Teach. Res., vol. 25, no. 6, pp. 922–945, Nov. 2021, doi: 10.1177/13621688211014538.
    21. V. Schneider and A. Rohmann, “Arts in education : A systematic review of competency outcomes in quasi-experimental and experimental studies,” Front. Psychol., vol. 12, no. April, pp. 1–13, 2021, doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.623935.
    22. S. Lions, M. P. Blanco, P. Dartnell, C. Monsalve, G. Ortega, and J. Lemarié, “Item-writing guidelines on response option placement: A systematic review,” Appl. Meas. Educ., vol. 37, no. 4, pp. 289–304, Oct. 2024, doi: 10.1080/08957347.2024.2424551.
    23. H. Banaruee, D. Farsani, and O. Khatin-Zadeh, “Empowering teacher education with jigsaw techniques: Insights from language learners’ listening tasks,” Front. Educ., vol. 10, 2025, [Online]. Available: https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/education/articles/10.3389/feduc.2025.1503888
    24. S. Lions, C. Monsalve, P. Dartnell, M. P. Blanco, G. Ortega, and J. Lemarié, “Does the response options placement provide clues to the correct answers in multiple-choice Tests? A systematic review,” Appl. Meas. Educ., vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 133–152, Apr. 2022, doi: 10.1080/08957347.2022.2067539.
    25. S. Lecturer, Praise for Learning to Collaborate , Collaborating to Learn educators have few resources to teach students how to systematically pursue collaborative problem-solving . Janet Salmons ’ s book fills this gap with this Author , The Psychologist Manager those. 2023.
    26. A. K. Jeppu, K. A. Kumar, and A. Sethi, “‘ We work together as a group ’: Implications of jigsaw cooperative learning,” BMC Med. Educ., vol. 23, no. 734, pp. 1–8, 2023, doi: 10.1186/s12909-023-04734-y.
    27. S. Strauß and N. Rummel, “Promoting interaction in online distance education: Designing, implementing and supporting collaborative learning,” Inf. Learn. Sci., vol. 121, no. 5–6, pp. 251–260, Jun. 2020, doi: 10.1108/ILS-04-2020-0090.
    28. K. A. Nguyen et al., “Instructor strategies to aid implementation of active learning : A systematic literature review,” Int. J. STEM Educ., vol. 8, no. 9, pp. 1–18, 2021, doi: 10.1186/s40594-021-00270-7.
    29. M. Hartt, H. Hosseini, and M. Mostafapour, “Game on: Exploring the effectiveness of game-based learning,” Plan. Pract. Res., vol. 35, no. 5, pp. 589–604, Oct. 2020, doi: 10.1080/02697459.2020.1778859.
    30. H. J. Cho, K. Zhao, C. R. Lee, D. Runshe, and C. Krousgrill, “Active learning through flipped classroom in mechanical engineering: Improving students’ perception of learning and performance,” Int. J. STEM Educ., vol. 8, no. 46, 2021, doi: 10.1186/s40594-021-00302-2.
    31. Y. J. Kim, G. Kim, and A. Stoiber, “Playful design for AI literacy: Creating inclusive learning and assessment opportunities,” Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud., vol. 199, 2025, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2025.103508.
    32. D. S. Fussy, H. Iddy, J. Amani, and S. T. Mkimbili, “Girls’ participation in science education: Structural limitations and sustainable alternatives,” Int. J. Sci. Educ., vol. 45, no. 14, pp. 1141–1161, Sep. 2023, doi: 10.1080/09500693.2023.2188571.
    33. R. E. Slavin, “Cooperative learning in elementary schools,” Educ. 3-13, vol. 43, no. 1, pp. 5–14, Jan. 2015, doi: 10.1080/03004279.2015.963370.
    34. C. Reich, S. Markus, and K. Lohrmann, “Die bedeutung von unterrichtsgestaltung und bedürfniserfüllung für das fachbezogene interesse von grundschülerinnen und grundschülern,” Zeitschrift für Grundschulforsch., vol. 16, pp. 215–233, 2023, doi: 10.1007/s42278-023-00173-2.
    35. S. Tatiana, J. Hanna, and M. Kristiina, “The relationship between secondary school students’ situational interest and their collaborative learning interactions,” SN Soc. Sci., vol. 3, no. 138, pp. 1–22, 2023, doi: 10.1007/s43545-023-00738-z.
    36. V. M. Sya’ban, “Pengaruh metode scramble terhadap minat belajar siswa kelas V SD Negeri Rejowinangun 1 Yogyakarta [The influence of the scramble method on the learning interest of fifth-grade students at SD Negeri Rejowinangun 1 Yogyakarta],” J. Pendidik. Guru Sekol. Dasar, vol. 5, no. 25, pp. 30–33, 2016, [Online]. Available: https://journal.student.uny.ac.id/index.php/pgsd/article/view/4270
    37. L. Rahmyanti, Joharman, and M. Salimi, “The influence of scramble learning model on interest in learning of social science to fourth grade students of public elementary schools in Pejagoan subdistrict Kebumen regency in academic year 2019/2020,” Kalam Cendekia J. Ilm. Kependidikan, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 527–531, 2021, doi: 10.20961/jkc.v9i2.47930.
    38. M. Mellyana, P. D. Iswara, and N. Hanifah, “Penerapan permainan scramble untuk meningkatkan minat belajar IPS siswa kelas V [The implementation of the scramble game to enhance the interest in learning Social Studies among fifth-grade students],” J. Pena Ilm., vol. 3, no. 2, Nov. 2020, doi: 10.17509/jpi.v3i2.27783.
    39. N. F. Kavarela and A. C. Utomo, “Application of scramble learning model to communicative character and learning interests of elementary school students,” J. Elem. Edukasia, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 2607–2623, 2024, doi: 10.31949/jee.v7i2.9077.
    40. A. E. Nurhasanah, Nafiah, Akhwani, and S. Ghufron, “Meta-analysis of the effect of scramble type cooperative learning model on students’ learning outcomes at elementary schools,” Prim. J. Pendidik. Guru Sekol. Dasar, vol. 9, no. 5, Oct. 2020, doi: 10.33578/10.33578/jpfkip.v9i5.8007.