Effects of Hands-on Laboratory Approach on Academic Performance and Learning Engagement in Grade 11 Earth and Life Science

In today’s rapidly evolving educational landscape, fostering active student engagement and improving academic performance remain critical priorities, particularly in the sciences. Earth and Life Science, a core subject in the grade 11 curriculum, presents complex concepts that often challenge learners’ understanding when taught solely through traditional, lecture-based instruction. When students are encouraged to connect classroom lessons with practical experiments, they develop a richer appreciation for science and its real-world applications. Introducing hands-on laboratory not only makes the learning environment more dynamic and interactive but also helps students gain a firmer grasp of topics in earth and life sciences. This engaging approach can boost their confidence, spark curiosity, and ultimately lead to improved academic performance.

Earth and Life Science

1. Abdurakil, A., Hassan, M. A., & Ajijul, M. S. (2024). Hands-on laboratory activities and science performance of Grade 12 STEM students of MSU-Sulu. Mindanao State University Research Repository. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Achuthan, K., Raghavan, D., Shankar, B., Francis, S., & Kolil, V. (2021). Impact of remote experimentation, interactivity and platform effectiveness on laboratory learning outcomes. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-021-00272-z [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Agustian, H. (2024). Recent advances in laboratory education research. Chemistry Teacher International. https://doi.org/10.1515/cti-2024-0071 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Bae, C., & Lai, M. (2020). Opportunities to participate in science learning and student engagement: A mixed methods approach to examining person and context factors. Journal of Educational Psychology, 112, 1128–1153. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000410 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Bhagavathula, V., Moinis, R., & Chaudhuri, J. (2021). The integration of prelaboratory assignments within neuroanatomy augment academic performance, increase engagement, and enhance intrinsic motivation in learners. Anatomical Sciences Education, 15. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.2084 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Brown, A., Smith, L., & Taylor, R. (2020). Hands-on learning in science education: A systematic review. Journal of Educational Research, 78, 245–259. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Deslauriers, L., et al. (2019). Measuring actual learning versus feeling of learning in response to being actively engaged in the classroom. PNAS. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Dessie, E., Gebeyehu, D., & Eshetu, F. (2023). Enhancing critical thinking, metacognition, and conceptual understanding in introductory physics: The impact of direct and experiential instructional models. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/13273 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Dulinayan, R. A., & Antonio, G. A. (2021). Physics laboratory learning environment as predictors of self-engagement and achievement in electricity and magnetism: Towards the development of supplementary laboratory activities. PAPSI International 3-Day Research Conference Proceedings, 2(1). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Erickson, M., Marks, D., & Karcher, E. (2020). Characterizing student engagement with hands-on, problem-based, and lecture activities in an introductory college course. Teaching and Learning Inquiry, 8, 138–153. https://doi.org/10.20343/teachlearninqu.8.1.10 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Fitrianti, R., & Irawan, B. (2024). The influence of laboratory services on students’ learning effectiveness in physics education. Journal of Physics: Conference Series. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Forcino, F. L. (2013). The effects of hands-on laboratory activities on student learning in an introductory geology course. Journal of Geoscience Education, 61(2), 147–156. https://doi.org/10.5408/12-353.1 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Fredricks, J. A., et al. (2016). Student engagement: Contemporary perspectives. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59–109. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001059 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Gericke, N., Högström, P., & Wallin, J. (2022). A systematic review of research on laboratory work in secondary school. Studies in Science Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2022.2090125 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Grissom, K., Czajka, C. D., & McConnell, D. A. (2015). Increasing inquiry in introductory geology laboratory classes: Impacts on student learning and engagement. Journal of Geoscience Education, 63(4), 318–330. https://doi.org/10.5408/15-079.1 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Idris, N., Talib, O., & Razali, F. (2022). Strategies in mastering science process skills in science experiments: A systematic literature review. Jurnal Pendidikan IPA Indonesia. https://doi.org/10.15294/jpii.v11i1.32969 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Ifqiren, S., Bouzit, S., Kouchou, I., & Selmaoui, S. (2023). Modelling in the scientific approach to teaching life and earth sciences. Journal of Education and e-Learning Research. https://doi.org/10.20448/jeelr.v10i4.5003 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Jones, A. L., & Stapleton, M. K. (2017). 1.2 million kids and counting—Mobile science laboratories drive student interest in STEM. PLOS Biology, 15(5), e2001692. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. King, C. (2021). Teaching and learning about rocks and minerals through hands-on approaches. School Science Review, 102(379), 75–82. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Koessler, M. J. (2014). The impact of online pre-laboratory activities on student success in earth science laboratory exercises. Journal of College Science Teaching, 43(6), 70–77. https://www.jstor.org/stable/43631840 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Kolb, D. A. (2015). Experiential Learning: Experience as the source of learning and development (2nd ed.). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Kolil, V. K., & Achuthan, K. (2024). Virtual labs in chemistry education: A novel approach for increasing students’ laboratory educational consciousness and skills. Education and Information Technologies, 29, 25307–25331. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12858-x [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Laid, S., & Adlaon, M. (2025). A systematic review of innovative teaching strategies in science: Exploring hands-on learning, technology integration, and student-centered approaches. Acta Pedagogia Asiana. https://doi.org/10.53623/apga.v4i2.645 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Lazaro, R. T., & Paglinawan, M. J. (2025). Laboratory resource availability and students’ engagement in science: A study in a public senior high school in Bukidnon. International Journal of Research and Innovation in Applied Science, 10(3), 55–61. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Luketic, C. D., & Dolan, E. L. (2013). Factors influencing student perceptions of high-school science laboratory environments. Learning Environments Research, 16(1), 37–41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-012-9107-5 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Maglines, A. L. (2020). Students’ learning experiences and preference in performing science experiment using hands-on and virtual laboratory. The Journal of Education and Research for Technological Management, 5(2), 18–27. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Mihret, Z., Alemu, M., & Assefa, S. (2023). Effectiveness of blended physics laboratory experimentation on pre-service physics teachers’ understanding of the nature of science. Pedagogical Research, 8(1), em0144. https://doi.org/10.29333/pr/12607 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Miner-Romanoff, K., Rae, A., & Zakrzewski, C. (2019). A holistic and multifaceted model for ill-structured experiential problem-based learning: Enhancing student critical thinking and communication skills. Journal of Problem-Based Learning in Higher Education, 7, 70–96. https://doi.org/10.5278/OJS.JPBLHE.V7I1.3341 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Ntawuhiganayo, J., & Nsanganwimana, F. (2022). Effects of laboratory practical activities on learners’ academic achievement and attitudes towards biology in Rwanda. African Journal of Educational Studies in Mathematics and Sciences, 18(1), 45–57. https://doi.org/10.4314/ajesms.v18i1.4 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Orion, N. (2018). The future challenge of Earth science education research: The relationship between cognitive and affective aspects of learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 55(5), 669–683. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Orion, N., & Hofstein, A. (2022). Factors that influence learning during a scientific field trip in a natural environment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 59(2), 234–256. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Paraiso, A. F. (2008). Effectiveness of lecture-laboratory alternate exposure schedule on students’ field study competencies. TIP Quezon City Research Journal, 5(1). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. Pareek, R. (2019). An assessment of availability and utilization of laboratory facilities for teaching science at the secondary level. Science Education International, 30(1), 75–81. https://doi.org/10.33828/sei.v30.i1.9 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. Peninsulares International Journal of Innovations and Sustainability. (2024). Effectiveness of virtual laboratory environment in teaching earth and space science. Peninsulares International Journal of Innovations and Sustainability, 2(1), 1–15. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. Schmidt, J., Rosenberg, J., & Beymer, P. (2018). A person-in-context approach to student engagement in science: Examining learning activities and choice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 55, 19–43. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21409 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. Seda Cetin, P., Eymur, G., Southerland, S. A., Walker, J., & Whittington, K. (2018). Exploring the effectiveness of engagement in a broad range of disciplinary practices on learning of Turkish high-school chemistry learners. International Journal of Science Education, 40(5), 473–497. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2018.1432914 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. Skinner, E. A., Pitzer, J. R., & Steele, J. S. (2017). Engagement and disaffection in the classroom: Part of a larger motivational dynamic. In A. J. Elliot, C. S. Dweck, & D. S. Yeager (Eds.), Handbook of Competence and Motivation (2nd ed., pp. 331–347). Guilford Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

39. Taranikanti, V., Srinivasan, D., & Inuwa, I. (2022). Fostering learners collaborative learning through innovative integrated assessments in a laboratory setting. The FASEB Journal, 36. https://doi.org/10.1096/fasebj.2022.36.s1.0i615 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

40. Urquidi-Martín, A., Tamarit-Aznar, C., & Sánchez-García, J. (2019). Determinants of the effectiveness of experiential learning in critical thinking development. Sustainability. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11195469 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

41. U-Senyang, S. (2024). Experiential learning in action: Analyzing outcomes and educational implications. Journal of Education and Learning Reviews. https://doi.org/10.60027/jelr.2024.771 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

42. Walker, J., Sampson, V., Southerland, S., & Enderle, P. (2016). Using the laboratory to engage all students in science practices. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 17, 1098–1113. https://doi.org/10.1039/C6RP00093B [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Green Synthesis of Calcium Oxide Nanoparticles from Pigeon Eggshells for Cement Composites
• Needs Analysis: Development of an Interactive Digital Storybook in Teaching Mixtures and their Characteristics among Grade 6 Learners
• Thickness Dependent Structural, Optical, Electrical and Gas Sensing properties of ZnO thin film
• Forensic Chemistry Laboratory Works from Home: Challenges Encountered by Criminology Students During the Conduct of their Laboratory Activities at Home
• The Concept of Wellness Club and How it Differs from the Present Gym?