Middle-East Journal of Scientific Research 16 (5): 626-632, 2013

ISSN 1990-9233
© IDOSI Publications, 2013
DOI: 10.5829/idosi.mejsr.2013.16.05.1310

Impact of Hands-on Activities on Students’ Achievement in

Science: An Experimental Evidence from Pakistan

Munir Hussain and Mumtaz Akhtar

Institute of Education and Research,

University of the Punjab, Lahore, Pakistan

Abstract: This study aimed to investigate the effectiveness of hands-on activities on 8 th grade students’
achievement in science. The study was conducted on 342 students (145male, 197 female) of which 169 were
assigned as experimental group and instructed by hands-on activities, while the 173 were assigned as control
group and instructed by the traditional method. For the study, Science Achievement test was used to collect
the data. The data were analyzed by using Independent Sample t-test through SPSS. The results indicated that
there was a significant difference between the means of the students’ science achievement in favour of the
experimental group. The results of this study are important especially for developing countries that cannot
afford to use expensive science equipments to make the students physically active and engaged in learning
science.

Key words: Hands-on activities Science achievement

INTRODUCTION Researchers advocate that creativity and higher

order learning may be achieved by the use of hands-on
Globalization has created a sense of competition activities which will eventually lead to achieve the
among the nations of the world in every sphere of life. It aforesaid objectives of science [4]. Especially at the
has also accelerated the pace of development. In the primary level these activities may prove an effective
contemporary world scenario, different nations are supplement for the teachers who lack in science
striving for their survival and advancement to play the background knowledge [5].
leading role in this global village. This advancement Activities which provide students with the
depends on the quality of education provided to the opportunity to switch over freely and continuously
nation. Specifically, sound education in science and between collecting, processing and interpreting the
technology has played a remarkable role in achieving the data, may prove fruitful and effective for a better learning
world leading role. [6].
Science has two-fold nature (a) Systematic body of The research on methodologies and strategies for
knowledge); and (b) ways of investigating and thinking, science teaching has evidenced that students in activity
that is, the product and the process nature of science. based programs learn better than students in traditional
Both these aspects of science combine to form knowledge textbook based programs [7]. It has been observed that
of science [1]. In its real sense, science provides unique learning situations that require more active involvement
training of observation and reasoning. It makes people of students in multiple ways to process information may
careful and systematic by training them in observing, increase their learning [8].
recording, inferring and predicting about the phenomena It is obvious from the research that there is a shift
occurring in the environment. in emphasis from text book recitation to physical
Acquiring information, developing methods of interaction with materials, having the spirit of active
thinking, applying science principles and forming learning, causing a change in that what we can accept as
attitudes are general categories of objectives related to understanding. The ultimate goal of science teaching
science learning [2,3]. Science curriculum at different is to bring students to a stage where they delight in
levels is designed keeping in view the above objectives. being involved in learning science and feel committed to

Corresponding Author: Munir Hussain, Institute of Education and Research,

University of the Punjab, Lahore, Pakistan.
626
 Middle-East J. Sci. Res., 16 (5): 626-632, 2013

continuing its study [9]. There are various factors in inquiry activities; the learner has no understanding
affecting the students’ learning in science. One of these of the concept or phenomenon prior to conducting of
is hands-on science activities. activity.
Hands-on science is not completely a new idea in the The abstraction of science content and teaching put
literature but it broadens the meaning from the past terms unpleasant effects on learners. Currently, almost all major
such as “laboratories” to cover a variety of settings i.e. science curriculum development projects have
from laboratories to classrooms. Descriptions of science emphasized on hands-on practical activities as both an
education have shifted from vocabulary and text materials effective and enjoyable way of learning science content.
to activities. Teachers are now seeking to recognize what These activities provide the students concrete
students are learning as a consequence of busy hands experiences as far as possible to reduce the abstraction
[10]. The term hands-on is used commonly in science [15]. Effectiveness of hands-on activities in learning
education. It means that teacher should do more than science has long been hotly debated and accepted by
lecturing about science. It allows the students to science education community [16].
experience science by doing it involving using the hands. The need of concrete experiences in science
Like many other terms in educational practice, these terms instruction is advocated because they enhance students’
have no standard definition that has one meaning for all learning and provide a more authentic view of science
practitioners. It may also be defined as any activity that [17]. He believed in doing first and reading and writing
allows the learner to handle, observe or operate a later. According to [14] John Dewy was of the strong
scientific process. In hands-on science activities, learners opinion that experiences specifically hands-on activities
interact with materials and equipments [11]. are vital in educational process. Physical operations
Hands-on science activities may also be defined as a provide feedback of learning that allows learners to see it
variety of activities that may or may not be actual happen.
experiments, such as observation or measurements, not Hands-on activities are effective learning
necessarily carried out in laboratories [12]. Generally experiences. Research has evidenced that hands-on
hands-on science activities are defined as the activities approach in science improves understanding of concepts
that allow the students to handle, manipulate or observe resulting in better achievement score and success in
the scientific processes [11]. In these hands-on activities, science subject area. In a study conducted by [14] on 50
students interact with materials to observe scientific eighth graders in teaching technical concept on geodesic
phenomena. Flannery [13] states that hands-on science domes, it was found that there existed a significant
foster the mind in more basic ways by extending the links difference between learning with and without hands-on
between the brain and the hand. Different memories have activities. They concluded that hands-on activities are
been identified for different functions. Those are auditory, effective in learning any applicable concept. It was found
visual, tactile and body motor functions [14]. It implies in a study conducted by [18] that the students who were
that any information which utilizes all four memories engaged in hands-on activities everyday or once a week
would be a stronger and easily retrievable. Because scored significantly higher on a standardized test of
hands-on activities utilize all these memories, therefore the science achievement than the students engaged in hands-
information gathered through these, would be more on activities once a month or never. Young and Lee (2005)
powerful and easily retrievable. conducted a study on 399 fifth graders. The study
Science educators have attempted to classify provided evidence that the students who were taught
hands-on science activities into different categories. through science kits outperformed as compared to the
One dimension addressed by various experts in students taught science without using science kits [19].
science education is inquiry. It has been argued by In a study conducted by [20] on 123 fifth and sixth
prominent educators and psychologists that science is graders from a middle school, it was found that the
an inquiry based subject and should be taught in students involved in hands-on activities scored
that fashion. Within the inquiry dimension, significantly better than those taught through teacher
distinctions might be made keeping in view the level of centered experiments. Similar results were found in the
inquiry involved. Lumpe and Oliver [11] differentiated study conducted by [21] on a sample of 611 seventh and
the verification activities from inquiry activities eighth grade students enrolled in middle school science,
that inquiry activities that verification activities are it was concluded that near daily implementation of
those activities in which the learner knows the result hands-on activities yield the greatest positive impact on
of the activity prior to conducting the activity while students’ achievement.

627
 Middle-East J. Sci. Res., 16 (5): 626-632, 2013

As Pakistan is lagging behind in science and Sample: Purposively four schools from district Khushab
technology as compared to the developed countries (two boys’ and two girls’ schools), with the condition of
and Pakistani students’ achievement in science is low having at least two sections of class VIII, being taught
as compared to the students of those countries, therefore, the subject of science by the same teacher or the
there is dire need to explore the ways and means by which teachers of equal qualification and experience were
Pakistani students’ achievement in science may be selected. The reason for purposive sampling is that the
improved. This study attempts to meet this need, researcher himself is a public sector school teacher
anticipating the improvement of teaching learning science and it was difficult for the researcher to supervise
in Pakistan. the study or teach himself beyond a reachable
distance. Due to this restraint four schools within
Research Questions: This study addresses the following a radius of 20 kilometers were purposively
research questions: selected. The students of two sections of class
VIII of these schools each comprised sample of the
Is there any significant difference between mean study. One section from each school was randomly
achievement scores in science of the students taught assigned to experimental group and the other to
through hands-on activities and those taught by control group.
traditional method?
Is there any significant difference between mean Procedure of the Study: Eight chapters from science text
achievement scores in science of male students and book grade VIII were selected and twenty four concepts
female students taught through hands-on activities? from these chapters were taught through hands-on
Is there any significant difference between mean activities. Hands-on activities suggested in these
achievement scores in science of the male students chapters were used as well as some additional hands-on
taught through hands-on activities and those taught activities were developed by the researcher to strengthen
by traditional method? students’ understanding of the selected science
Is there any significant difference between mean concepts. Both classes of the each school i.e. control and
achievement scores in science of the female students experimental, were taught by the same teacher or the
taught through hands-on activities and those taught teachers of equal qualification and experience. The control
by traditional method? classes were taught solely in the traditional way of
instruction, whereas the experimental classes were
Methodology exposed to hands-on-activities relevant to the selected
Research Design: Quasi experimental design [22] concepts twice a week in addition to traditional
was followed in the study. Intact sections of class VIII instruction (teacher centered method of instruction with
were taken as experimental and control groups. teachers’ main focus on lecturing, dictating main points
As there is no pre-test, the scores of sampled students and students’ rote memorization without any kind of
in the subject of science in their 7th class annual practical activity on students’ part or any sort of
examination were used to determine whether there exists demonstration by teachers).
any initial difference between the experimental and As both the experimental and control classes in each
control groups but it was found that there existed no school were taught through the same teachers, the
significant difference in science achievement between students in both classes were almost equal in ability
the experimental and control group. As the study was (t-value was insignificant for grade seven scores in
initiated at the start of session of VIII class, so the score science), the school environment was almost the same,
of students’ in science gained in their VII class annual the internal validity issues were assumed to be covered.
examination was used to determine whether there existed So far as the external validity issue is concerned, all the
any initial difference between experimental and control participants of the study were assigned to experimental
groups on their achievement in science. The independent and control groups randomly. All the four selected
sample t-test was applied through SPSS on the science schools were similar to other public sector schools
achievement score of experimental (M=40.37, SD=15.88) throughout the district in all respects; teachers’
and control group (M=43.14, SD=16.12) but no qualification, ability, cultural background and socio-
significant difference in science achievement between economic status of the students and so on. So it was
control and experimental group was found, t (340) = -1.67, expected that the results of the study would be
p =. 095 > 0.05. generalizable for the whole population.

628
 Middle-East J. Sci. Res., 16 (5): 626-632, 2013

All the groups were post-tested only for Table 1: Comparison of Experimental and Control Group on Achievement

achievement. Experimentation period covered in Science

12 weeks. Group N Mean SD df T P Effect size
Experimental 188 34.31 4.32 367 8.59** 0.000 0.90
Achievement Test: A multiple choice achievement test in Control 181 30.67 3.80
science was developed by the researcher. This test was *
p<0.01
developed in accordance with curriculum objectives. It
comprised of 55 multiple choice items. The face and Table 2: Gender wise Comparison of Experimental Group on Achievement
content validity of the test was determined through expert in Science
opinion. A panel of three experts having qualification and Group N Mean SD Df T p Effect size
experience in both the content and assessment areas Male 77 34.66 4.60 186 .936 0.351 0.14
reviewed and rectified the test. The improved version was Female 111 34.06 4.11
undergone pilot study. As a result of item analysis, 3 *
p<0.01
items were discarded and the final version contained 52
items. The alpha reliability of the test was computed 0.93.
Table 3: Comparison of Male Respondents of Experimental and control
Only first three levels of Blooms’ taxonomy i.e.
Groups on Achievement in Science
knowledge, comprehension and application were
Group N Mean SD df T P Effect size
incorporated in the test.
Experimental 77 34.66 4.60 153 5.82** 0.000 0.94
Control 78 30.68 3.90
Data Analysis: Independent samples t-test was applied to
*
p<0.01
analyze the data with the help of SPSS.

Table 4: Comparison of Female Experimental and control Groups on

RESULTS
Achievement in Science

Data were exposed to an independent samples t-test Group N Mean SD df T P Effect size

which revealed that there was a significant mean Experimental 111 34.06 4.11 212 6.32** 0.000 0.87
difference between the experimental (M =34.31, SD = 4.32) Control 103 30.66 3.74
and control (M = 30.67, SD = 3.80) groups, t (367) = 8.59, *
p<0.01
p < 0.01, with effect size (0.90), indicating that the
student who were taught science using hands-on- Independent samples t-test (Table 4) revealed that
activities performed better on science achievement test there was a significant difference between mean science
than those students who were taught without inclusion of achievement scores of female experimental and female
hands-on-activities. Hence, it can be concluded that control group students, t(212) = 6.32, p < 0.01, indicating
hands-on-activities enhance students’ achievement in that female experimental group students (M = 34.06,
science. SD = 4.11) performed better than female control group
As shown in table 2, gender wise comparison of students (M = 30.66, SD = 3.74) on science achievement
experimental group on science achievement score was test.
made through independent samples t-test. A non-
significant difference was found between the two gender CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION
groups, t (186) = 0.936, p = 0.351 > 0.01. Hence, it can be
concluded that hands-on-activities had the same effect on It is evident from the study that inclusion of
both male and female students’ science achievement. hands-on activities has significant effect on students’
Table 3 depicts the results of independent samples t- science achievement. Students instructed by these
test that was run to compare the mean science activities gained a higher achievement in science.
achievement scores of male experimental and male control This finding is consistent with previous studies
group students. The difference was significant, t (153) = [14, 19, 20, 21, 23-27, and 28], but in contrast with the
5.82, p < 0.01, indicating that the male experimental group findings of [15]. They concluded that although hands-on
students (M = 34.66, SD = 4.60) performed better than activities have positive effect on students’ attitudes
their counter parts—male control group students (M = but no significant difference between experimental and
30.68, SD = 4.60) on science achievement test. control groups was found in science achievement.

629
 Middle-East J. Sci. Res., 16 (5): 626-632, 2013

It may be attributed to the fact that the activities were higher motivation and achievement in science. This study
quite limited in number (only two) and experimentation has the implication for science teachers who want to
period was too short (six periods of 50 minutes each). bridge the gap of their students’ achievement in science,
Moreover, contrary to our research finding, to enable them to compete internationally, for their own
Areepattamannil (2012) found that student investigations better future and prosperity of the country.
and hands-on activities had negative effects on science
achievement of school students in Qatar [29]. In the same REFERENCES
way [30] found that student-centered activities did not
contribute to explain achievement measures positively. It 1. Martinsen, O., 2003. Approaches to learning,
may be due to context specific orientations. cognitive style and motives as predictors of academic
Gender wise comparison shows that there exists no achievement. Educational Psychology, 23(2): 195-207.
significant difference between the post test achievement 2. Skamp, K., 2002. Teaching Primary Science
score of male and female students of experimental groups. Constructively. Nelson Australia: Pty.
It means that hands-on activities are equally effective to 3. Harlen, W., 2007. Teaching learning and assessing
raise the achievement score in science irrespective of the science 5-12. London: Sage.
gender of the students. These findings are similar to the 4. Ornstein, A., 2006. The frequency of hands-on
previous studies [31, and 32]. However, [20, and 33] found experimentation and students’ attitudes towards
that female students benefitted more as a result of science: A statistically significant relation. Journal of
experiencing hands-on activities. It may be due to the fact Science Education and Technology, 15(3): 285-297.
that in their study, activities were related to biology and 5. Appleton, K., 2002. Science Activities that Work:
according to [34] female students perform better than male Perceptions of Primary School Teachers. Research in
students in biology. Some other studies have also Science Education, 32: 393-410.
evidenced that performance of female students in science 6. Coelho, S.M. and M. Sere, 1998. Pupils' reasoning
is better than their male counterparts [35, 36, and 37]. But and practice during hands-on activities in the
according to [38] sex differences in achievement in measurement phase. Research in Science and
science do exist but smaller than it is assumed, generally Technological Education, 16(1): 79-96.
they tend to favour males. 7. Walton, E. and J. Butler, 1990. Teacher training for
Comparison between male students of experimental hands-on science. Phi Delta Kappan, 71(9): 738-739.
and control groups shows that there existed a significant 8. Freeman, J.G., J.C. McPhail and J.A. Berndt, 2002.
difference between the groups. It reflects that hands-on Sixth graders’ views of activities that do and that do
activities have a significant effect on male students’ not help them learn. The Elementary School Journal,
achievement in science. The results of this study are 102(4): 335-347.
consistent with the previous studies [20, and 25]. 9. Morris, R., 1990. Science Education Worldwide.
Comparison between female students of Belgium: UNESCO.
experimental and control group also shows a significant 10. Flick, L.B., 1993. The meanings of hands-on science.
difference among the groups. It indicates that inclusion Journal of Science Teacher Education, 4(1): 1-8.
of hands-on activities have positively affected the 11. Lumpe, A.T. and J.S. Oliver, 1991. Dimensions of
female students’ achievement in science. These hands-on science. The American Biology Teacher,
findings confirm the previous findings of the studies 53(6): 345-348.
[20, 25, and 33]. 12. Ruby, A., 2001. Hands-on science and students’
The overarching conclusion of this study is that achievement. Retrieved Nov 11, 2009 from
students’ science achievement can be improved through http://www.rand.org/pubs/rgs_dissertations/RGSD
the use of hands-on activities. Several international 159/index.html.
studies on science achievement have shown that 13. Flannery, M.C., 2001. Hands-on: In many different
Pakistani students are performing poor in science as ways. The American Biology Teacher, 63(4): 282-286.
compared to the other nations of the world. Therefore, 14. Korwin, A.R. and R.E. Jones, 1990. Do hands-on,
teachers should select and execute such hands-on technology based activities enhance learning by
activities that may enhance their interest and reinforcing cognitive knowledge and retention.
understanding in science which will eventually result in Journal of Technology Education, 1(2): 1-12.

630
 Middle-East J. Sci. Res., 16 (5): 626-632, 2013

15. Johnson, D.M., G.W. Wardlow and T.D. Franklin, 26. Sabine, G. and X.B. Franz, 2010.
1997. Hands-on activities versus worksheets in Cognitive Achievement and Motivation in
reinforcing physical science principles: Effects on Hands-on and Teacher-Centred Science Classes:
students’ achievement and attitude. Journal of Does an additional hands-on consolidation phase
Agricultural Education, 38(3): 9-16. (concept mapping) optimize cognitive learning at
16. Klahr, D. and J. Li, 2005. Cognitive research and work stations? International Journal of Science
elementary instruction: From laboratory, to the Education, 32(7): 849-870.
classroom and back. Journal of Science Education 27. Aydede, M.N. and F. Matyar, 2009. The Effect of
and Technology, 14(2): 217-238. Active Learning Approach in Science Teaching on
17. Yore, D.L., 2000. Enhancing science literacy for all Cognitive Level of Student Achievement. Journal of
students with embedded reading instruction and Turkish Science Education, 6(1): 115-127.
writing to learn activities. Journal of Deaf Studies and 28. Breddeman, T., 1983. Effects of Activity-Based
Deaf Education, 5(1): 105-122. Elementary Science on Student Outcomes:
18. Stohr, P.M., 1996. An analysis of hands-on A Quantitative Synthesis. Review of Educational
experience and science achievement. Journal of Research, 53(4): 499-518.
Research in Science Teaching, 33(1): 101-109. 29. Areepattamannil, S., 2012. Effects of Inquiry-
19. Young, B.J. and S.K. Lee, 2005. The effects of Based Science Instruction on Science Achievement
a kit-based science curriculum and intensive science and Interest in Science: Evidence from Qatar.
professional development on elementary student The Journal of Educational Research,
science achievement. Journal of Science Education 105(2): 134-146.
and Technology, 14(5/6): 471-481. 30. Kalender, I. and G. Berberoglu, 2009. An Assessment
20. Randler, C. and M. Hulde, 2007. Hands-on versus of Factors Related to Science Achievement of
teacher centered experiments in soil ecology. Turkish Students, International Journal of Science
Research in Science and Technological Education, Education, 31(10): 1379-1394.
25(3): 329-338. 31. Pine, J., P. Aschbacher, E. Roth, M. Jones,
21. Odom, A., E.R. Stoddard and S.M. LaNasa, 2007. C. McPhee, C. Martin, S. Phelps, T. Kyle and
Teachers’ practices and middle school science B. Foley, 2006. Fifth graders’ science inquiry abilities:
achievements. International Journal of Science A comparative study of students in hands-on and
Education, 29(11): 1329-1346. textbook curricula. Journal of Research in Science
22. Borg, W.R. and M.D. Gall, 1983. Educational Teaching, 43(5): 467-484.
Research: An introduction, New York: Longman. 32. Harvey, T.J. and M. Wareham, 1984. An investigation
23. Ozlem, A. and E. Ali, 2011. Effectiveness of into sex differences in certain aspects of science
Hands-on and Minds-on Activities on Students’ practical work with first year secondary school pupils
Achievement and Attitude toward Physics. Asia in single sex and mixed teaching groups. Research in
Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, Science and Technological Education, 2: 187-195.
12(1): 1-22. 33. Burkam, D.T., V.E. Lee and B.A. Smerdon, 1997.
24. Kanter, D.E. and S. Konstantopoulos, 2010. Gender and Science Learning Early in High School:
The impact of a project-based science curriculum Subject Matter and Laboratory Experiences.
on minority student achievement, attitudes and American Educational Research Journal,
careers: The effects of teacher content and 34(2): 297-331.
pedagogical content knowledge and inquiry-based 34. Lee, V.E. and D.T. Burkam, 1996. Gender differences
practices. DOI 10.1002/sce.20391.Published online 1 in middle grade science achievement: Subject domain,
March 2010 in Wiley Online Library ability level and course emphasis. Science Education,
(wileyonlinelibrary.com). 80(6): 613-650.
25. Pell, A.W., H.M. Iqbal and S. Sohail, 2010. 35. Martin, M.O., I.V.S. Mullis and P. Foy, 2008.
Introducing Science Experiments to Rote Learning TIMSS 2007 International Science Report. Boston,
classes in Pakistani Middle Schools. Evaluation and MA: TIMSS and PIRLS International Study Centre,
Research in Education, 1(1): 1-22. Lynch School of Education, Boston College.

631
 Middle-East J. Sci. Res., 16 (5): 626-632, 2013

36. Qualter, A. and I.R.A. Abu-Hola, 2000. 38. Steinkamp, M.W. and M.L. Maehr, 1984.
Approaches to teaching science in the Jordanian Gender Differences in Motivational Orientations
primary school. Research in Science and Toward Achievement in School Science:
Technological Education, 18(2): 227-239. A Quantitative Synthesis. American Educational
37. Murphy, P., 1994. Gender differences in pupils’ Research Journal, 21(1): 39-59.
reactions to practical work. In R. Levinson (Ed.),
Teaching science (pp: 132-142). London: Rutledge.

632