Changes in Science Achievement Following Hands-On Science Activities Among Grade 7 Non-Reader Learners
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Background and Aim: Science instruction frequently requires learners to decode scientific vocabulary, read explanations, follow written procedures, and interpret text-based assessment items. These requirements may create additional barriers for Grade 7 learners identified as non-readers. Text-reduced, hands-on activities may provide an alternative access route by allowing learners to encounter scientific phenomena through observation, manipulation, demonstration, oral interaction, and guided experimentation. This study examined changes in Science achievement following a hands-on Science intervention among Grade 7 non-reader learners in a Philippine secondary school.
Materials and Methods: The study employed a quantitative one-group pretest-posttest design. Forty-three Grade 7 learners identified by the participating school as non-readers participated through purposive sampling. The intervention consisted of 20 structured hands-on Science activities incorporating concrete materials, demonstrations, collaborative work, and visual or reduced-text instructions. Science achievement was measured using a 50-item Grade 7 Science Achievement Test administered before and after the intervention. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize achievement scores. A paired-samples t-test was used to examine the difference between pretest and posttest scores, and Cohen's dz was calculated as the standardized paired difference.
Results: The mean Science achievement score increased from 13.47 (SD = 3.65) at pretest to 30.30 (SD = 4.09) at posttest. The reported mean increase was 16.84 points, with a 95% confidence interval of [15.19, 18.49]. A paired-samples t-test indicated a statistically significant difference between pretest and posttest scores, t (42) = 20.61, p < .001. The standardized within-participant difference was Cohen's dz = 3.14.
Conclusion: The available achievement data indicate substantial improvement in Science test scores following the hands-on intervention. However, because the study employed a single-group pretest-posttest design without a comparison group, the observed improvement cannot be attributed exclusively to the intervention. In addition, the intervention combined hands-on activities with visual, oral, collaborative, and teacher-scaffolded strategies. The findings should therefore be interpreted as evidence of improvement following the intervention package rather than definitive causal evidence of intervention effectiveness.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Copyright and License
Copyright of all articles published in the Journal of Education and Learning Reviews (JELR) is retained by the author(s).
All articles are distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution–NonCommercial–NoDerivatives 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0). Users may read, download, copy, distribute, and share the content for non-commercial purposes with proper attribution.
Modification, adaptation, or commercial use of the content is not permitted.
License details: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
References
Abrahams, I., & Reiss, M. J. (2012). Practical work: Its effectiveness in primary and secondary schools in England. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(8), 1035–1055. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21036
Buagas, J., & Cabrera, M. L. (2025). Navigating the abyss: Challenges, coping mechanisms, and insights of science teachers in teaching science to non-decoder junior high school students. Psychology and Education: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 39(3), 376–392. https://doi.org/10.70838/pemj.390308
Department of Education. (2023). MATATAG curriculum: Science (Grades 4 and 7). https://www.deped.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/MATATAG-Science-CG-Grade-4-and-7.pdf
Furtak, E. M., Seidel, T., Iverson, H., & Briggs, D. C. (2012). Experimental and quasi-experimental studies of inquiry-based science teaching: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 82(3), 300–329. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654312457206
Kolb, D. A. (2015). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development (2nd ed.). Pearson FT Press. https://www.pearson.com/en-ca/subject-catalog/p/experiential-learning-experience-as-the-source-of-learning-and-development/P200000000384/9780133892406
Laid, S. M. T., & Adlaon, M. S. (2025). A systematic review of innovative teaching strategies in science: Exploring hands-on learning, technology integration, and student-centered approaches. Acta Pedagogia Asiana, 4(2), 101–114. https://doi.org/10.53623/apga.v4i2.645
Mayer, R. E. (2021). Multimedia learning (3rd ed.). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316941355
National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K–12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/13165
Raymundo, M. (2023). Hands-on activities in science for Grade 7. Psychology and Education: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 14(1), 73–81. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8392572
Shanahan, T., & Shanahan, C. (2008). Teaching disciplinary literacy to adolescents: Rethinking content-area literacy. Harvard Educational Review, 78(1), 40–59. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.78.1.v62444321p602101
Tomlinson, C. A. (2021). So each may soar: The principles and practices of learner-centered classrooms. ASCD. https://www.ascd.org/books/so-each-may-soar
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. (2020). Global education monitoring report 2020: Inclusion and education—All means all. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000373718
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman, Eds.). Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvjf9vz4
Wade, C. B., Koc, M., Searcy, A., Coogle, C. G., & Walter, H. L. (2023). STEAM activities in the inclusive classroom: Planning and practice. Education Sciences, 13(11), Article 1161. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13111161