1

An assessment of the effectiveness of hands-on versus theoretical

learning strategies in improving science education outcomes for
students in Key Stage 2.

Student’s Name: 11494007

Institutional Affiliation: Manchester University

Course: Educational Leadership in Practice

Date: 19th May 2024

 2

Table of Contents
1. Introduction..................................................................................................................................2
1.1. Rationale for Topic Selection................................................................................................2
1.2. Individual Context......................................................................................................................3
2. Analytical Report..........................................................................................................................3
2.1. Methods................................................................................................................................3
2.1.1. Data Collection..............................................................................................................3
2.1.2. Instruments and Procedures.........................................................................................4
2.2. Findings and Analysis............................................................................................................5
2.2.1. Presentation of Data.....................................................................................................5
2.2.2. Quantitative Data: Statistical Analysis and Interpretation...........................................5
2.2.3. Qualitative Data: Thematic Analysis.............................................................................5
2.3. Key Findings..........................................................................................................................6
2.4. Discussion of Findings...........................................................................................................7
2.4.1. Alignment with Research Questions.............................................................................7
2.4.2. Integration with Existing Literature..............................................................................7
2.4.3. New Insights..................................................................................................................8
2.5. Evaluation and Conclusion....................................................................................................9
2.5.1. Evaluation of Methods..................................................................................................9
2.5.2. Conclusion.....................................................................................................................9
2.5.3. Recommendations for Further Research....................................................................10
Part Two: Critical Reflection on Collaborative Working.....................................................................11
Introduction....................................................................................................................................11
Strengths of Collaborative Working...............................................................................................11
Limitations of Collaborative Working.............................................................................................12
Different Forms of Collaboration....................................................................................................13
Conclusion.......................................................................................................................................13
References..........................................................................................................................................15
 3

1. Introduction
In the rapidly fluctuating area of education, specifically in KS2 science, educators and
researchers are always searching for the best ways of teaching and stimulating curiosity in
young learners. This pursuit is underscored by a fundamental dichotomy: the superiority of
mind applications over human-centered learning strategy (Kyere, 2017). This theme for my
research project is based on my early realisation that creating a solid love for Science in
students is essential to their development and future prosperity, utterly dependent upon
scientific breakthroughs and high-tech innovations.

1.1. Rationale for Topic Selection

The main reasons we should approach this issue lie in the significant amount of
research that has shown that the learning process children go through in KS2 can contribute
to how they develop their knowledge of Science and influence their attitude towards it. The
central part of traditional pedagogy has been based on highly theoretical ways of learning.
This method of instruction is mainly based on deduction where, formally, students are
provided with available textbooks and lectures that serve as reference tools (Pakpahan &
Saragih, 2021). Alongside these strengths, this method supports teaching a wide range of
subjects. However, the critics are correct in observing that this way of teaching is only
sometimes suitable for students learning actively or grasping concepts and processes deeply
(Yusuf et al., 2016).

However, interactivity is a critical component of hands-on learning, which usually

involves bot activities like active engagement of participants, lab experiments, or
simulations. People who lean toward this line of thought believe that students can actively
build their knowledge by physically playing with the materials, observing phenomena, and
engaging in scientific research. They are better prepared for the future than those who learn
it this way. This form of study is said to not only engage thinking and the outstanding
memorisation of science concepts but also to cause the development of critical thinking
skills, creativity, and enthusiasm for Science.

Thus, my research project stands at the junction of the above-referenced pedagogical

paradigms, perceiving the two perspectives and enlightening each approach's relative
advantages and limitations within KS2 science education. The scope of this inquiry lies
accordingly in multiple ways; however, it impacts both science teaching and how children
 4

learn best, shaping educational policies and teacher training programs, making the latter
more goal-oriented and far-reaching.

1.2. Individual Context

What spurs me is mainly based on my educational experiences and the volunteering
lessons I undertook at local schools. I have experienced, in my work with students, the
fascination and curiosity a student shows when doing hands-on science activities. From my
struggle to understand abstractions without many real-world examples, I know the
challenges of learning through theoretical instruction. These interactions make me think
about the best strategies to use and avoid so that there would be good results in the future.

Moreover, the investigation of the practical aspect will majorly involve qualitative
techniques. The aim is to create a complete picture of the efficiency of the theoretical
versus practical approach to learning KS2 science. Our objective is not only to become a part
of the scientific conversation on educating Science, but we also want to offer valuable tips
and practical recommendations for educators who aim to magnetise their students and
transform them from learners to active scientific community members.

2. Analytical Report
2.1. Methods
2.1.1. Data Collection
The research was conducted for 3 classrooms in one primary school located in a suburban
area with mixed socio-economic status. The participants were 30 students aged between 7
and 9 years and of both sexes. Furthermore, 3 teachers from Key Stage 2 Science
educational subjects were selected for this research. This was a carefully constructed
combination that was supposed to provide a general view, including the whole content of
the impact of the hands-on and theoretical learning strategies on the Key Stage 2 students.

The parents of all the students who were to be involved in the research were given the
consent after they were told the area of the study, the kind of involvement needed, and the
ways to protect the confidentiality. The teacher participants were well-informed, and they
were also guaranteed of anonymity and voluntariness. The whole data was processed
according to the GDPR rules that are for the confidentiality of the participants and the
security of the data (Alderson & Morrow, 2020).
 5

2.1.2. Instruments and Procedures

The research was done by using well-structured questionnaires, semi-structured interviews
and direct classroom observations as the tools (Shown in Appendix I, II, and III). The surveys
were made to get the opinions of students and teachers on the pros of experience over
theoretical learning methods. The survey was carried out using Likert-scale questions for the
quantitive analysis, and at the same time, there were open-ended questions for the
qualitative insights. The interviews with teachers were half-structured so that the interviews
could be more friendly and the participants could give their responses and explanations in
addition to the survey questions.

An observation protocol was developed to record the student interactions, engagement

levels, and learning patterns during the science lessons. Observers filled in a standardised
form for each learning strategy being employed (hands-on or theoretical), the activities'
length, the students' engagement levels, and any spontaneous educational activities that
occurred during the lessons. It took half a day to conduct a training course for observers to
ensure that the observation and recording techniques would be uniform.

Data collection spanned approximately six months, with each class being observed four
times per period. The observations comprised practical sessions where students got
involved in activities such as establishing a simple electrical circuit and looking into the
conditions of plant growth. The third and fourth observations were carried out in subject-
driven lectures where the teaching primarily depended on lectures, textbook readings, and
PowerPoint presentations.

In hands-on lessons, particular attention was given to different types of applicable

resources, such as laboratory equipment, everyday things, and digital tools, and how they
help students interact with the teachers and each other. Theoretical lessons were highly
based on teachers' delivery methods and students' responses to these, like their
participation during discussions and their ability to answer conceptual questions.

The footage was videotaped from all sessions (hands-on and theoretical ones) with prior
consent. The data was used later to supplement notes from live observations. Using this
holistic approach, which combined different data collection techniques—including surveys,
 6

interviews, and observations—we were able to cover a wide range of Science educating
dynamics in Key Stage 2 science education.

2.2. Findings and Analysis

2.2.1. Presentation of Data
The quantitative data in the study was mainly obtained through the responses to the
structured surveys of the students and teachers. The study included descriptive statistics to
summarise data and inferential statistics to test hypotheses on the efficiency of hands-on
versus theoretical training approaches. As for the qualitative part, a thematic analysis was
applied to the interview responses and on-site notes, thus enabling the drawing of
conclusions and spotting common trends covering teaching strategies and learning
consequences.

2.2.2. Quantitative Data: Statistical Analysis and Interpretation

It was found through the quantitative analysis that the students who performed hands-on
activities reported a higher level of engagement (M = 4.5, SD = 0.50 on a 5-point scale) than
those who attended theoretical sessions (M = 3.2, SD = 0.65). The t-test of the between-
subjects design showed that these differences were statistically significant (t(58) = 5.97,
p<0.001). Teachers observed that the involvement of students was higher during the hands-
on lessons rather than theoretical lessons.

In addition, assessment outcomes at the end of the study period revealed that students did
well in tests after interactive lessons were conducted. Students scored, on average, 78% (SD
= 10.2) compared to 65% (SD = 15.3) on the science tests for hands-on and theoretical
lessons, respectively. The ANCOVA method, which took the initial test scores into account,
shed light on the fact that the type of learning strategy was a significant factor in the scores
(F (1, 57) = 14.67, p<0.001).

2.2.3. Qualitative Data: Thematic Analysis

Thematic analysis of the interviews and note-taking suggested several common vital
themes. The most notable theme was "Engagement and motivation," where the students
and teachers frequently talked about the fact that practical activities brought about higher
levels of excitement and prolonged attention during lessons. A common point raised by
teachers was that students were generally more interested and attentive when they knew
 7

that they would be actively doing something. Other students said, "It is like we are actual
scientists doing experiments, which is much more fun than just reading the book."

An important idea was to have students fully understand and retain the scientific concepts.
The teachers observed that the students could understand the concepts better by
manipulating variables and observing the results. One teacher commented, "Participatory
sessions enable memorisation and application of concepts better than when theory is just
being delivered abstractly." The teacher's observations revealed students' ability to recall
and apply concepts in different contexts almost accurately and with confidence, mainly
when hands-on activities were incorporated.

2.3. Key Findings

The analysis of both quantitative and qualitative data led to several key findings:

Higher Student Engagement: The interactive experience was very effective. It made students
feel joy and led to their strong engagement in science classes. This was highlighted by both
questionnaire results and class observations, where students engaged in active learning
showed better attentiveness and interaction.

Enhanced Understanding and Retention: Students showed more than a basic understanding
of scientific concepts and a higher retention rate after they participated in hands-on
activities. This finding was confirmed through high academic performances and students'
capabilities to apply knowledge in real-life situations.

Teacher Perceptions: Teachers essentially indicated that through hands-on learning, they
experienced an improved performance among their students themselves as teachers. They
found progress not only in student learning but also in teacher motivation and effectiveness.

Challenges of Theoretical Learning: While theoretical teaching was viewed as useful for
acquiring basic knowledge, it was seen as less effective in developing engagement and a
deep understanding, particularly when practical learning did not supplement it.

The performance of these approaches, as shown by the data collected during this study,
unambiguously proves that hands-on learning is superior to theoretical approaches when
teaching Science to children from key stage 2. The results show in the same way that
conceptual learning can be of value for both. It is the experience of passing on this
 8

information through hands-on activities that really helps students connect, understand, and
memorise scientific ideas. This broad study not only validates the existing school philosophy
that elaborates the practical side of training in helping learners earn more but also gives an
avenue for educators to aim at improving science education outcomes.

2.4. Discussion of Findings

2.4.1. Alignment with Research Questions
The primary research questions guiding this study were: (1) Does hands-on learning drive a
higher degree of engagement and deeper understanding of scientific topics among Key
Stage 2 pupils than theoretical learning? In addition, (2) How can hands-on learning affect
student motivation and academic performance in Science? The results from both the
quantitative and qualitative studies unequivocally clarify these queries.

The first research question was answered directly by the increased activities among the
students, and the higher test scores gained using these individualised approaches. Students
indicated a more significant amount of involvement and interest while doing hands-on
activities. Their enhanced academic performances, as proved by test scores, confirm that
this mode of learning enhances learning abilities.

Furthermore, research results that were consistent with the second question indicated that
the experimental group, having a hands-on approach, was highly motivated. This is in
agreement with observational data, which shows very high enthusiasm and involvement
when students do hands-on activities, not theoretical lessons. Teachers, too, saw an
improvement in most students' readiness to learn new things and explore new topics with
the introduction of active learning in class.

2.4.2. Integration with Existing Literature

The findings of the research are in line with the complete theoretical background that calls
for the advantages of experiential learning in science education. Studies such as Kyere
(2017) and Pakpahan and Sarigih (2021) have shown that practical, hands-on learning
activities are essential factors in boosting students' level of engagement in their
understanding of complex scientific concepts by allowing them to put the understanding of
the theory into tangibles ways. According to this research, our study has proved that
 9

including active methods in teaching courses would help students to understand more
profoundly and more stable.

Nevertheless, as phenomenal in cases of theoretical learning described by Yusuf and his

colleagues (2016), who argue that theoretical learning is the basis of overall knowledge
without which learning will not be fully completed, this study argues that the foundation
cannot be one stand-alone and yet beneficial in promoting learning success. Learning by
theory and abstraction should be accompanied by hands-on exercises to allow the students
to capture the connection between notions and practical understanding.

Another critical factor is that the literature on this topic has repeatedly focused on the issue
of resource availability in planning for hands-on learning (as seen through study works like
those done by Brown & Abell, 2007). We realise the challenges associated with hands-on
learning, such as additional costs and time allocation. However, we also state that the
advantages are numerous and akin to the additional investment of time, space, and
affordable materials. Therefore, we recommend that learning through doing methods
should be encouraged, especially at the primary school level.

2.4.3. New Insights

Besides the fact that the finding was quite remarkable, we came to understand the
interwoven nature between doing and talking about physics. Notwithstanding the fact that
they are contrasted here, our findings suggest that they are not opposing systems. Such a
view is undoubtedly a novel element in the existing scientific picture that usually places the
depiction of them in antithesis to each other. The gap between practical-based studies and
theoretical learning can be bridged by these two theories, which in turn enable the
implementation of a blended learning strategy where practicals aid the theoretical aspect
and vice versa.

Another new finding of the study is the effect of interactive learning on various groups of
people. The data showed that the hands-on task was found to be particularly effective for
students who were usually not interested in conventional science subjects or demonstrated
struggling with science concepts. This tends to mean that the case for hands-on learning
could be a factor in tackling the educational aspects and supplying many educational levels
in a classroom.
 10

This research study further highlighted the overwhelming significance of teachers'

enthusiasm and the contribution that is made to the effectiveness of hands-on learning.
Teachers found out that in activities where teachers were more prepared and excited about
creating easy tasks and projects, there was more engagement on the part of students,
resulting in learning improvement. This inquiry increases literature that underscores the role
of teacher competency and discipline in realising a learning strategy with the conclusion
that professional development and teachers' preparation in hands-on learning approaches
can extend to such learning outcomes.

Discussion of these findings onto the study questions with the current literature only
confirms the fact that the application of hands-on learning enhances students' involvement
and understanding but also can create new knowledge about how to combine different
educational strategies to create an educational system that works effectively. These findings
facilitate the broader educational debate by raising a call for embracing the holistic
perception of teaching Science by acknowledging the significance of both practical and
cognitive learning and their unrivaled role in inspiring a more diverse, participatory, and
result-giving educational setting for the Key Stage 2 students.

2.5. Evaluation and Conclusion

2.5.1. Evaluation of Methods
The study implemented a mixed-methods approach, integrating quantitative surveys and
tests with qualitative interviews and observations. This type of methodology was the critical
component of the research on the suitability of hands-on and theoretical learning
approaches in Key 2-stage science education. The numbers, for instance the grades, will
quickly show the difference between the engagement and the academic performance of the
students. On the other hand, the qualitative data completely explained the reasons and the
places from which these discrepancies came and the environmental factors that caused
them (Barnett et al., 2021).

The structured surveys and the standardised tests are the instruments which enabled to
gather the same data, and therefore, the comparison of the two learning strategies is
trustworthy. On the contrary, self-reported data from surveys as a source of information can
 11

result in individual perception bias which will be based on the views of students and
teachers about hands-on learning (Tenny et al., 2017).

The classroom observations and the interviews with the teachers are the factors which
changed the research direction and now the real educational context is clearly understood.
Experts were asked to eliminate the probability of the bias that the different observers
could bring in. On the other hand, the observers might have also influenced the students
and teachers by their presence (Hawthorne effect) which could have altered the class
atmosphere.

In general, these approaches were helpful in resolving the research questions; however,
further investigations should consider applying more recent research techniques like
longitudinal tracking to examine the long-term outcomes of different learning strategies.

2.5.2. Conclusion
The results from this research support the idea that the best way of studying KS2 science is
through practical methods rather than only theoretical ones. Tactile learning is not only a
potent, engaging, and motivating tool for students but also results in deeper understanding
and retention of scientific ideas. Learning by doing is one of the best ways students can use
theoretical knowledge in practical situations, hence overcoming the gap between abstract
concepts and actual comprehension.

Teachers have noticed that students are happier to learn by doing things. Science becomes
more interesting and inspires them to learn more about it. It seems to be especially useful
for learners who may have difficulties with traditional learning approaches, implying that it
could serve as a remedy for eliminating educational inequalities.

On the other hand, the study also states the importance of theoretical learning, which
provides the necessary foundation of knowledge on which practical activities can be built
on. As such, an interactive learning style, which combines theoretical and practical
knowledge, could be the best way of teaching Science at Key Stage 2.

2.5.3. Recommendations for Further Research

This work provides several areas for in-depth research. For the prospective research, the
types of hands-on activities that are most helpful for different science concepts and the best
 12

combination of hands- and theory-oriented learning can be explored. Furthermore,

exploring the long-term effects of hands-on learning on students' scientific literacy and
interest in STEM careers would give helpful information about the broader impact of the
mentioned educational strategies. Furthermore, the study could also investigate obstacles in
delivering hands-on learning, like resource constraints and teachers' training needs, in order
to have better knowledge about how they can be solved in various educational settings.

Part Two: Critical Reflection on Collaborative Working

Introduction
Based on my project group's, immediate workplace colleagues', and broader academic
community's experiences, this reflection assesses the pros and cons of collaboration
through various modalities. It varies from formal team meetings and structured project
management approaches to informal emails and social media communications, each of
which contributes individually. These exchanges promoted an intellectual exchange of ideas
and facilitated personal and professional growth, demonstrating that collective work could
be beneficial for attaining complex educational needs.

Strengths of Collaborative Working

Through disseminating our project, the strengths of collaborative efforts were
manifested in line with widely explored benefits in academic literature. One of the best
advantages apparent in our team was the improvement of innovative and problem-solving
abilities in the group. According to Liu (2021), diversity within teams can spark more
creative solutions, which, with our experience, correlates. We had members from diffrent
parts such as Arabic backgrounds and some europeans in different middle eastern countries
like kuwait among others, From every team member, we learnt different approaches. When
we combined all of them, we ended up with what none of us would have achieved alone. In
addition to theory, we demonstrate this synergy in action by applying multidimensional
solutions to complex problems that we probably would not have thought of as a more
homogenous group.

In addition, a critical advantage that has become apparent through collaborative

working is the sharing of resources and expertise evocative of communities of practice, as
 13

described by Petrescu et al. (2017). Besides utilising our unique skills, each member filled
some knowledge gaps during our project. Hence, the project work was completed
effectively. For instance, my pedagogical strategies were brought together with the team
members with digital technology and project management expertise. Such an integration
enabled us to look into the educational process from another side within the framework of
an academic project, guaranteeing both the educational finality and the operational
feasibility simultaneously.

For another thing, I thoroughly enjoyed working in a collaborative setting, as

evidenced by Stout and Keast (2021) encouragement for reflection in cooperative contexts.
The continual interaction and feedback from my classmates allowed me to use them as my
mirror, which deepened my understanding of myself and corrected my shortcomings. This
constant intellectual exchange was fundamental for learning and adaptation because I could
immediately work with new ideas. It was an interactive process combining actions, thinking,
feedback, and adjustments, enhancing my professional growth.

Additionally, the collaborative work process has shown how meaningful non-
structured communication is. Beyond formal presentations and planned discussions,
informal chats and instant exchanges through email and WhatsApp have added a lot to our
partnership experience. The informal interaction, however, played a crucial role in building
trust and maintaining morale, as it also contributed to the informal knowledge exchange,
which made the project flexible, adjusting to new information and ideas.

As a whole, collaborative working in this project has revealed the different strengths
of collaborative working. The additional benefits include the enlargement of creative and
innovative thoughts, the practical approach of pooling different sets of skills and resources,
and the inculcation of the reflective practice of professional development. These elements
brought us to the success of our project and largely influenced my personal and professional
development, revealing the fantastic potential of collaborative work done systematically.

Limitations of Collaborative Working

In addition to the benefits, collaborative working may have challenges. The first
obstacle is the inherent possibility of conflict and ineffectiveness resulting from different
goals, expectations, or working methods. According to Hargreaves (2021), conflict not
 14

correctly managed can destroy work as a team and productivity approach. At the beginning
of our project, certain team members had differences in their expected outcomes, which
were the source of tension. This situation called for negotiation and realignment of our
goals.

In addition, there is also the risk of groupthink, where the group pressure to achieve
harmony or conformity may eventuate into an irrational or dysfunctional decision-making
process Liu (2021), shows how group thinking can suppress contrary opinions and
undesirable decisions. We have had instances in our project where the team was not
objective in expressing their views or did not want to dispute the group's consensus.

Time limitations and coordination costs are also significant obstacles in joint projects.
As Stout and Keast (2021) shows, coordinating and arranging the group's work often takes
more time than the individual work process. Scheduling incompatibility and the time
required to reach an agreement can slow down the project process. This was especially true
in our project, with aligning everyone's schedules for meetings and integrating different
components of the project being quite challenging and time-consuming.

Different Forms of Collaboration

The collaboration process advanced at each project stage, whereby diverse
approaches propelled success and cultivated a well-rounded educational atmosphere. The
most established collaboration procedure was within the individual project group, where we
followed a formal timetable of scheduled meetings and used project management tools to
allocate duties effectively and track the progress made. This collaboration was of great
importance as it gave the project a good direction and helped with the timely completion of
all the project milestones (Hargreaves, 2021). Nevertheless, informal, spur-of-the-moment
interactions with this team—fast updates via email, spontaneous calls to sort out issues, and
sharing tips through instant messaging—were equally as important. Along with the short
response time, this type of communication consolidated the problem-solving processes and
the interpersonal relationships within the group, making the group much sturdier and more
resilient to external shocks.

Apart from our local group, our project hugely benefited from collaborating with the
ELIP cohort and the educational community. Through formal presentations and feedback
 15

sessions with the ELIP community, we were privileged to garner multiple viewpoints and
constructive criticisms that guided us to adjust our model appropriately. Beyond that, we
could engage in forums and community blogs as a source for others' collective wisdom.
These avenues were the most valuable tools for interacting, seeking guidance, and praising
each other. This combination of formal task communication in our group and informal
interactions with a broad community enriched our project results and highlighted the
polyphony of contributions in educational settings where learning and development
continuously evolve through differentiated, interconnected efforts (Stout & Keast, 2021).

Conclusion
As I conclude, our experience of collaborative working on this unit has been that, just
like any other type of human interaction, it is never smooth-going; instead, it is the product
of the potential plus shortcomings that unite to form positive results. Apart from achieving
the set objectives, the project gave a lot of learning experiences that resulted in personal
development and achieving collective outcomes. In the future, taking into account inherent
challenges to collaboration will be of primary importance. Instituting a communication
framework and a shared goal system and creating a culture that accepts all team members'
input as a valuable resource would all work towards realising a highly efficient collaborative
team. Such reflections apply not only to academic or project-based situations but also to
professional skills that require a balanced and reflective approach in terms of collaboration
at the workplace.
 16

References
Alderson, P., & Morrow, V. (2020). The ethics of research with children and young people: A
practical handbook. Sage.

Barnett, T., DeMore, J., & Bartlett, G. (2021). Quantitative study designs. In How To Do
Primary Care Educational Research (pp. 85-92). CRC Press.

Dhanapal, S., & Shan, E. W. Z. (2014). A study on the effectiveness of hands-on experiments
in learning Science among year four students. International Online Journal of Primary
Education, 3(1), 20-31.

Hargreaves, A. (2021). Teacher collaboration: 30 years of research on its nature, forms,

limitations, and effects. Policy, Teacher Education and the Quality of Teachers and
Teaching, 103-121.

Kyere, J. (2017). The effectiveness of hands-on pedagogy in STEM education (Doctoral

dissertation, Walden University).

Lederman, L. M., Csermely, P., & Korcsmáros, T. (Eds.). (2005). Science education: Best
practices of research training for students under 21. IOS Press.

Liu, J. (2021). Building education groups as school collaboration for education improvement:
a case study of stakeholder interactions in District A of Chengdu. Asia Pacific
Education Review, 22(3), 427-439.

Nweke, C. C., & Owoh, A. T. (2021). John Dewey and Paulo Freire: Comparative thought on
experiential education. Nnadiebube Journal of Philosophy, 1(1), 98-109.

Pakpahan, F. H., & Saragih, M. (2022). Theory of cognitive development by Jean Piaget.
Journal of Applied Linguistics, 2(1), 55-60.

Petrescu, A. M. A., Gorghiu, G., & DRĂGHICESCU, L. M. (2017). The advantages of

collaborative learning in science lessons. LUMEN Proceedings, 2, 326-333.
 17

Stout, M., & Keast, R. (2021). Collaboration: What does it mean? In Handbook of
collaborative public management (pp. 17-35). Edward Elgar Publishing.

Tenny, S., Brannan, J. M., & Brannan, G. D. (2017). Qualitative study.

Yusuf, N. A. N., Ali, N. M., Abdullah, N., & Tek, O. E. (2016). THE EFFECTIVENESS OF HANDS-
ON/AUTHENTIC LEARNING ON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL STUDENTS 'ACHIEVEMENT IN
AND ATTITUDES TOWARDS SCIENCE (79-100). Jurnal Pendidikan Sains dan Matematik
Malaysia, 6(1), 79-100.

Appendix

Appendix I: Interview Questions

1. Can you define what hands-on learning means to you in the context of Key Stage 2
Science education?

2. How do you integrate hands-on learning activities into your Key Stage 2 Science
curriculum?

3. What benefits do you believe hands-on learning provides students compared to

theoretical learning in Science?

4. In your experience, what challenges have you encountered when implementing

hands-on learning strategies in Key Stage 2 Science classrooms?

5. How do you assess the effectiveness of hands-on learning activities in helping students
grasp scientific concepts?

6. Can you describe a specific hands-on learning activity that you find particularly
effective in teaching a Key Stage 2 Science concept? What were the outcomes?

7. What role does theoretical learning play in complementing hands-on activities in Key
Stage 2 Science education?

8. How do you adapt your teaching approach when transitioning between hands-on and
theoretical learning in Science?
 18

9. Have you noticed student engagement or achievement differences when comparing

hands-on and theoretical learning approaches in Key Stage 2 Science?

Appendix II: Sample Questionnaire

A. For Students
Instructions: Please answer the following questions honestly. Your answers will help us
understand your learning experiences and improve science education.
Part 1: Demographic Information
Age: ____
Gender: ____
Grade: ____
Part 2: Learning Preferences (Tick where applicable)

1 (Not at 2 3 4 5(A lot)

all)

How much do you enjoy science classes?

Never Rarely Sometimes Often Always

How often do you participate in

hands-on activities in your science
class?
How often do you participate in
theoretical lessons in your science
class?

1 (not 2 3 4 5 (very
engaged) engaged)

Rate your level of engagement during

hands-on activities.
Rate your level of engagement during
theoretical lessons.

Which type of science class do you prefer? (Circle one)

Hands-on activities (experiments, building models)
 19

Theoretical lessons (reading, lectures)

Part 3: Learning Outcomes (tick where applicable)

1 (Not 2 3 4 5 (Very
well) well)
How well do you understand science
concepts after hands-on activities?
How well do you understand science
concepts after theoretical lessons?

4. Any additional comments about your science learning experiences? (Open-ended)

B. For Teachers
Instructions: Please answer the following questions honestly. Your answers will help us
understand the impact of different teaching methods on students' learning experiences.
Part 1: Demographic Information
Years of teaching experience: ____
Gender: ____
Grade levels taught: ____
Part 2: Teaching Preferences (tick where applicable)

Never Rarely Sometimes Often Always

How often do you use hands-on

activities in your science classes?
How often do you use theoretical
lessons in your science classes?

1 (not 2 3 4 5 (very
engaged) engaged)

Rate your students' engagement during

hands-on activities.
Rate your students' engagement during
theoretical lessons.
 20

3. Which type of lesson do you believe is more effective for teaching science concepts?
(Circle one)
Hands-on activities
Theoretical lessons
Both equally
3. Do you have any additional comments about your teaching experiences in science
education? (Open-ended)
 21

Appendix III: Observation Protocol

Observation Details

Observer: _______________
Date: _______________
Time: _______________
Class/Grade: _______________
Teacher: _______________
Section 1: General Information
Type of Lesson:
Hands-on activity
Theoretical lesson
Combination
Lesson Topic: _______________
Number of Students: _______________
Section 2: Student Engagement
Level of Student Engagement (Rate on a scale of 1-5):
1 (Not engaged)
2
3
4
5 (Very engaged)
Indicators of Engagement:
Active participation (raising hands, asking questions)
Collaboration with peers
Focused attention (eye contact, note-taking)
Enthusiasm (smiling, excitement)
 22

Section 3: Learning Activities

Description of Activities:
Hands-on tasks (experiments, building models)
Theoretical tasks (reading, lectures)
Mixed activities
Section 4: Student Responses
Student Reactions:
Positive
Neutral
Negative
Examples of Student Questions/Comments: _______________

Section 6: Overall Impressions

General Observations: _______________

Any Notable Incidents or Behaviors: _______________
Suggestions for Improvement: _______________