Journal of Turkish Science Education, 2021, 18(4), 605-621.

DOI no: 10.36681/tused.2021.93

Effectiveness of Hands-On Activities to Develop Chemistry Learners’

Curiosity in Community Secondary Schools in Tanzania
Esther S. Kibga1, John Sentongo2, Emanuel Gakuba3

1University of Rwanda-College of Education, Rwanda, ORCID ID: 0000-0003-2020-8936.

2Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda, ORCID ID: 0000-0002-8693-2639.
3University of Rwanda-College of Education, Rwanda, ORCID ID: 0000-0002-6130-8565

ABSTRACT ARTICLE
Learners’ curiosity is among the affective domains of learning that has a great potential to INFORMATION
take learning to higher levels and meet the demands of the 21st-century teaching and Received:
12.03.2020
learning process. This paper assesses how hands-on activities performed using learning
Accepted:
materials from learners’ immediate environment can enhance learners’ curiosity in 10.12.2021
chemistry lessons. Observing students’ hands-on activities during chemistry lessons
enabled researchers to monitor the development and expression of curiosity in the actual KEYWORDS: Hands-
learning environment. The study involved 169 senior three chemistry students on activities,
purposively selected from three intact science classes in three community secondary learners’ curiosity,
schools from Dar es salaam, Tanzania. We performed a Design-Based Research (DBR) in a and
convergent mixed method design following a pragmatic stance. We found that learners learning chemistry.

can better express their curiosity when they collaboratively learn using materials that
they are familiar with. Besides, the paired samples t-test performed on the means
curiosity indicators from pre and post-intervention Students Self-Reporting
Questionnaire (SSRQ) gave t (127) = 22.25, p<0.0005, and the effect size of 0.80 while pre
and post-intervention Teacher Rating Scale (TRS) shown t (168) = 13.427, p<0.0005 and
effect size of 0.62. Based on these findings it is recommended that educators should put
learners at the center of every step of the learning process through hands-on activities to
stimulate their learning curiosity.

Introduction

Activity-based learning strategies that embrace hands-on activities have gained a legacy in
science and mathematics education in recent decades (Louca & Zacharia, 2012). Through hands-on
activities, students acquire knowledge, apply the taught concept, and may develop a feasible solution
to the problem (Hirça, 2013; Pirttimaa et al., 2015). Besides, activity-based learning is identified to
consist of a range of pedagogical approaches in which learning is based on some hands-on and mind-
on activities (Lui, 2012). By employing activity-based strategies, educators foster the 21st-century skills
that learners ought to have for them to be successful academically (Louca & Zacharia, 2012).
According to Fuad et al. (2018) and Hirça (2013), hands-on activities encourage the affection of lifelong
learning as well as motivate learners to explore and discover new facts. Alkan (2016) and Pirttimaa et
al. (2015) pointed out that when learners are fully engaged in hands-on activities they are likely to
appreciate and learn what they are being taught. Holstermann et al. (2010) highlight further that well-
designed hands-on activities focus learners on the world around them, spark their curiosity, and
Journal of Turkish Science Education

guide them through engaging experiences. Thus, activity-based learning strategies can promote
authentic learning and allow learners to highly thrive for being better and true scientists.
Activity-based learning strategy has been proposed as a means to increase learners’
understanding of scientific concepts through manipulating objects which may make abstract
knowledge more concrete and clearer (Holstermann et al., 2010). Scholars identify a hands-on
approach to be the instruction where learners are guided to gain knowledge and skills through
experience (Hirça, 2013; Holstermann et al., 2010). According to Alkan (2016) and Sikandar, (2016),
any relevant knowledge or information can be considered to be experiential as it somewhat relates
either directly or indirectly to the prior experience of the individual learner. Therefore, when
principles of learning by doing are applied concerning spontaneous activities of learners’ experience,
meaningful learning can be guaranteed.
A key goal of schooling and learning is to prepare learners for the world beyond school and
transfer the acquired knowledge outside the classroom context. According to Lamnina and Chase
(2019), this occurs when learners learn content deeply which mostly happens when they are highly
curious. Highly curious learners are said to be sensitive to environments that value their preference
for novelty, intellectual challenge, and growth potential (Kashdan & Yuen, 2007). Harackiewicz et al.
(2016) and Lindholm (2018) demonstrated that school environments that support learners’ desires to
be independent learners are positively related to learners’ effort, the persistence as well as coping
ability. This kind of environment in turn can facilitate learners’ engagement, interest and curiosity
which may lead to greater academic success (Lamnina & Chase, 2019). Curiosity boosts the learner’s
ability to acquire and retain new information (Ruiz-Alfonso & León, 2019). Therefore, creating a
classroom environment which can stimulate learners’ curiosity should be the major focus of teaching
and learning concerning the education challenges of the 21 st century.
While a scientific consensus on how to define curiosity operationally has not yet achieved,
Hon-Keung et al. (2012), Kidd and Hayden (2015), and Lindholm (2018) considers a state of curiosity
to be mostly associated with the psychological drive for activities or stimuli that are surprising, novel,
of intermediate complexity, or characterized by a knowledge gap or by errors in prediction
(Borowske, 2005; Oudeyer et al., 2016). Ostroff (2016) argued that curiosity is a multi-dimensional
concept that has no single definition and overlaps extensively with related concepts including
creativity, inquisitiveness, and openness to experience. Nevertheless, Von Stumm et al. (2011) define
curiosity as a form of intrinsic motivation that is key in fostering active learning and spontaneous
exploration. Therefore, curiosity as a desire and drive for learning can aid the acquisition of
knowledge in subjects like chemistry that are considered to be difficult by most learners (Overton &
Randles, 2015).
Daniel Berlyne is widely regarded as the most influential contributor to theory and research
on curiosity (Litman & Spielberger, 2003; Oudeyer et al., 2016). He did exploration and differentiated
between two types of curiosity mainly perceptual and epistemic (Pluck & Johnson, 2011; Ruiz-Alfonso
& León, 2019). The two types are major concern in this work, though other scholars have identified
more types of curiosity. According to Von Stumm and colleagues, epistemic curiosity is referred to as,
the individual difference in seeking out for engagement and acquiring knowledge (Von Stumm et al.,
2011); whereas perceptual curiosity is induced by visual, auditory and physical stimulation towards
experience and feel (Pluck & Johnson, 2011; Ruiz-Alfonso & León, 2019). Therefore, when a learner is
stimulated towards a particular experience, a desire for engagement and acquisition of knowledge
and skills can be achieved.
Chemistry, being the oracle of modern science, serves as a link between other science subjects
such as physics, biology, and sometimes geography and mathematics (Nbina & Mmaduka, 2014).
Chemistry is a fundamental subject, which applies to different careers and industrial processes.
Högström, Ottander, and Benckert (2010) highlight that careers such as agriculture, geology,
pharmacy and medicine among others are hinged on chemistry; hence individuals who seek
accomplishments in these careers must have a good grasp of chemistry as a subject (Ngatijo et al.,
2019). Overton and Randles (2015) argued that despite its importance, chemistry proves a difficult

606
 Kibga, Sentongo & Gakuba, 2021

subject for many science learners. Scholars have asserted that chemistry curricula mostly incorporate
abstract concepts (Bodner, 2015; Ngatijo et al., 2019), which are central to further instructions in both
chemistry and other sciences (Högström et al., 2010). Hence, chemistry teachers should beware of the
instructional strategies and procedures they use to deliver intended content (Ngatijo et al., 2019); so
that meaningful learning of these abstract and complex chemistry concepts can be accomplished.
An experimental study was done by Opara and Waswa (2013) on “enhancing learners’
achievement in chemistry through the Piagetian model” identified the mole concept among difficult
chemistry concepts to most learners. However, despite the mole concept being difficult, they managed
to get positive outcomes on learners’ achievements in their experiments. In addition, the findings from
Pluck and Johnson (2011)’s study on stimulation of curiosity to enhance learning revealed that the
nurtured curiosity can be profitably employed to guide teaching practice in a range of educational
contexts. These studies give a clue on the crucial impact of learners’ curiosity on the learning process
especially when knowledge is constructed from learners’ experiences. Therefore, a good interpretation
of human behavior and learner curiosity is needed especially in a range of educational contexts (León
et al., 2015).
Some previous research indicated the importance of learners’ curiosity (Jirout & Klahr, 2012;
Kashdan & Yuen, 2007; Lindholm, 2018; Litman & Spielberger, 2003; Pluck & Johnson, 2011) and how
it can be necessary for science education. However, despite curiosity being the important aspect of
learning especially in science, it is indicated that little work is done in the context of education.
Besides, the major achievement attained on the provision of quality education as stipulated in the
fourth sustainable development goal SDG4 is that students can exhibit skills like curiosity. For these
reasons, new empirical research on the development of ordinary level chemistry students’ curiosity is
presented in this paper. This research was done through assessment of the effectiveness of hands-on
activities in chemistry lessons on the development of learners’ curiosity.

Aim and Research Questions

This study aimed to investigate the effectiveness of hands-on activities performed using
instructional materials designed from the learners’ environment to enhance their chemistry learning
curiosity. Therefore, this research answered the following questions:

1. How can hands-on activities be used to stimulate learners’ curiosity during chemistry lessons?
2. What is the role of chemistry teachers in the enhancement of learners’ curiosity through
hands-on activities?
3. How can searching for instructional materials from a home-based environment play part to
stimulate learners’ curiosity?

Methodology
Research Design and Approach

This study was design-based research (DBR) in form of an intervention design (Bozkurt Altan
& Tan, 2020), to bridge the gap between research, design, and practice (Gutiérrez, 2018; Scott et al.,
2020; Štemberger & Cencič, 2016). DBR is considered to be a systematic but flexible research
methodology that aims at improving educational practices through iterative analysis of a problem
(Štemberger & Cencič, 2016), design, development and implementation of a solution, based on
collaboration among practitioners and researchers in a real-world environment (Gutiérrez, 2018; Scott
et al., 2020). Based on scope and focus of this study, only two phases of the first alteration circle
presented in this work. However, this research employed a convergent mixed-method approach
following a pragmatic philosophical world view (Creswell, 2014). The intent was to seek common
understanding through triangulation of multiple sources of data from both qualitative and
quantitative research approaches (Creswell, 2014; Mertens, 2010).

607
Journal of Turkish Science Education

Participants

A total of 169 learners (101 boys, 60% and 68 girls, 40%) were purposively selected from three
intact science classes of senior three in three different community secondary schools. According to the
Tanzanian education system, senior three is the third year of the ordinary level of secondary
education. The three community schools were also purposively sampled from 142 public schools in
Dar es Salaam, which is the capital city of the United Republic of Tanzania. This total number of
public secondary schools in Dar es Salaam includes 132 public secondary schools and 10 non-
community schools. The selected learners had a mean age range of 16.12 with a standard deviation of
0.854. All 169 learners went through an intervention that enhanced their curiosity by empowering
them to perform hands-on activities in chemistry lessons using learning aids from their home
environment.

Research Instruments

Research instruments used for data collection in this research project were lesson observation
schedule, semi-structured interview, and Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) guides for the qualitative
part of the study, while the quantitative data was collected using Pre and post-intervention Students’
Self-Report Questionnaire (SSRQ) as well as pre and post-intervention Teacher-Rating Scale on
learners’ curiosity.
The observation schedule was divided into five sections which are; planning, teaching
strategy, instructional materials, indicators of curiosity, and learners’ ability to develop learning aids.
Under each section, some categories included detailed information for each lesson observed. Under
part one, the observation focused on the way lessons were planned and introduced to students using a
Competency-Based Curriculum (CBC). In the second part, the strategies that teachers used to deliver
and facilitate the learning of the mole concept and volumetric analysis were observed. Besides, under
each lesson observed, resources used by teachers and learners were identified. In all of these, our
attention was centered on the way learners’ curiosity was developed under teachers’ guidance and
learners interacting with hands-on activities. Lastly, our observation was based on learners’
interaction and collaboration during hands-on activities carried out using locally made learning
apparatus from their home environment materials.
The observation schedule, teacher interview guide, learners' FGDs guide were checked by
different research experts for their accuracy and inter-rater reliability. The inputs made by the raters
were incorporated before the instruments were used in the field. Also, the three instruments were
piloted to check for clarity and whether the questions were understood by the respondents. In
addition, SSRQ and teacher rating scales were piloted to check their reliability coefficients. Similar
questions were asked in both pre and post-intervention SSRQ and teacher rating scales. The pre-tests
were meant to test the level of students’ curiosity before the intervention while the post-tests assessed
the development of learners’ curiosity after the intervention. The Cronbach Alpha reliability test
results for the pilot studies were 0.83 for SSRQ and 0.72 for the teacher rating scale respectively.

The Research Intervention

Many researchers in the education context identify insufficient teaching and learning
materials as well as inappropriate teaching strategies (Machumu, 2011; Nbina & Mmaduka, 2014) to
be among the limitations of the provision of quality education. However, based on the urgent need for
the provision of quality education, this research was designed to show the effectiveness of hands-on
learning as an important part of any instructional model. The purpose was to empower chemistry
learners with practical skills to search and design learning resources as well as perform hands-on

608
 Kibga, Sentongo & Gakuba, 2021

activities in chemistry lessons, which can later enhance their curiosity for chemistry learning. This
intervention was designed by the researchers and the practitioners who were chemistry teachers.
In addition, the intentions and success criteria for the intervention were (a) learners’
participation in lesson preparation through searching of the instructional materials that corresponds
to lesson content learned, (b) learners’ ability to relate the content learned with materials in their
surroundings, (c) learners’ ability to manipulate the materials in the class to enhance their curiosity
and (d) learners’ ability to actively interact and collaborate with their peers and their teachers to
enhance curiosity. The listed success criteria were the guidelines for learners to design and bring
materials appropriate to the lesson content taught as listed in (Table 1 and 2).

Table 1

Learning Aids and Hands-on Activities Performed for Mole Concept Topic
Topic Sub-topic Learning aids made from Hands-on activities involved
low-cost materials
Mole concept Mole as a unit Different materials that can Group discussions
 Compare mole with other units represent measures in Students in groups
 Measure molar quantities of kilograms pair, dozens, performing various
different substances gross, distance, and time measurements
Application of mole concept such as sand, water, pens,
 Convert known masses of coins, Group discussions on given
elements, molecules, or ions to activities related to mole
moles Chart representing basic unit concept calculations
 Convert known volumes of gases measurements
at standard Individual students
temperature and pressure S.T.P to attempting the activities
moles given on the boards
 Change masses of solids or
volumes of known gases to the
actual number of particles
 Molar solutions of various soluble
substances
 Calculations based on the mole
concept and balanced equations

Note. S.T.P Standard Temperature and Pressure

Table 2

Learning Aids and Hands-on Activities Performed for Volumetric Analysis Topic
Topic Sub-topic Learning aids made from Hands-on activities involved
low-cost materials
Standard volumetric apparatus Different apparatuses are Practice using the locally
Volumetric  The concept of volumetric made from local materials made apparatuses
analysis analysis such as clothes pegs, syringes
 Use of volumetric apparatus of different sizes, empty Perform acid-base titration
Standard solutions water bottles, rubber bands, using locally made
 Steps in preparation of standard white papers. These apparatuses
solutions apparatus were worked as
 Acid-base titration beaker, dropper, burette, Perform group activities on a
 Standardize common mineral funnel, white tiles calculation related to
acids titration
 Find the relative atomic mass of Charts showing different
the unknown element in an acid apparatus The individual trial attempt
or alkali of titration related
 Calculate percentage purity of an calculation
acid or an alkali

609
Journal of Turkish Science Education

Students came into the class with already made materials from outside the classroom after
orientation. The intervention was successfully done in two phases. Figure 1 below is an illustration of
students working in groups in the process of designing locally made apparatus.

Figure 1

Learners Designing Some Locally Made Apparatus During Orientation (Consented for Publication)

Data Collection Procedures

After obtaining the research permit from the responsible officials and three Principals whose
schools participated in the study, consent was sought from both the chemistry teachers and senior
three learners to voluntarily participate in this study. Then three days’ orientation workshop was held
between the researchers and the teachers to discuss the details of the study. The workshop discussions
were aimed at discussing modalities for designing the intervention. During the discussions, teachers
gave their views on how the intervention could be conducted to suit the context of their teaching
environment. Besides, teachers practiced the use of locally made materials through micro-teaching
among themselves so that it could be easier for them to introduce the whole process to learners. This
was because the major and intended participants of the study were the students.
After the teachers' workshops, teachers taught the identified subject matter to their respective
classes. At the onset of PHASE I of the intervention, learners who were involved in the study filled
pre-intervention SSRQ to establish the level of their curiosity before the intervention. Apart from
SSRQ, the teachers of these students filled the pre-intervention teacher rating scale to triangulate
(Cohen et al., 2007; Creswell, 2014) the information given by learners in SSRQ. Also, learners were
motivated and enhanced with the skills to use learning aids using low-cost materials from their local
environments. A total of 24 lesson observations, 12 FGDs, and 12 teacher interviews were conducted
in PHASE I of the intervention in all schools. Both the interviews and FGDs were audio-recorded and
additional field notes were taken, too. Finally, at the end of PHASE I of the intervention, the teachers
met for one day to share knowledge on the intervention as well as work hand in hand with the
researchers to refine the designed intervention.
PHASE II of data collection continued immediately after the end of PHASE I. PHASE II has
done in three weeks whereby a total of 18 lesson observations, 9 teacher interviews, and 9 FGDs have
done in this phase in all three schools. At the end of PHASE II, learners and teachers filled post-
intervention SSRQ and teacher rating scale to assess whether the intervention had any impact on
learners’ curiosity. In all the lessons observed, the researchers took a non-participatory position
(Creswell, 2014; Houghton et al., 2013) to avoid influencing the process of data collection. Apart from

610
 Kibga, Sentongo & Gakuba, 2021

that, both students’ FGDS and teachers' interviews were semi-structured (Mertens, 2010) to ensure the
flexibility of research participants and the data collected. Furthermore, the study being DBR did not
involve a control group (Bakker & van Eerde, 2015). Therefore, all learners who were involved in the
study were subjected to the intervention.

Data Analysis

The analysis of the data collected in this work was done concurrently with the data collection
process (Creswell, 2014) daily. Constant reflection on the information obtained from lesson
observations was done to monitor the ongoing process of data collection and identify issues that
needed clarity and follow-up during the intervention process. All the qualitative data were analyzed
thematically (Braun et al., 2016; Ormanci, 2020) where the whole process began by transcription of
audio data, translation, and organization of the information obtained from the three instruments.
Thereafter, the information was organized hand in hand with the field notes and data from classroom
observation to develop raw data for the coding process (Yin, 2009). Then the coded information was
sorted and sifted through to identify similar and coherent phrases (Braun et al., 2016), relationships
between constructs, patterns, and themes to differentiate distinct and common sequences of categories
about the research question (Creswell, 2014; Mertens, 2010). Lastly, meaningful information that gave
a better interpretation of research questions was obtained from the developed themes and sub-themes
(Nowell et al., 2017)
The analysis of quantitative data from SSRQ and teacher rating scale was done using the
Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS), version 20. The analysis involved descriptive (mean,
standard deviation, and percentage) as well as inferential (dependent samples t-test and effect size)
statistics (Cohen et al., 2007; Pallant, 2020; Reid et al., 2014). Further, the interpretation of the results
obtained was done using the SPSS guide by (Pallant, 2020) to answer the proposed research questions.

Findings

Three themes were developed from the information obtained using lesson observation
schedule, teachers’ interviews, and FGDs. The three themes are as follows, teaching strategies (TS),
Learning resources (LR), and development of curiosity (DC).

Theme 1: Teaching Strategies (TS)

One of the questions asked to teachers in the interviews required them to air out their views
about the learner-centered teaching approach, which involves learners in different activities in
chemistry lessons. Teachers at the beginning of the intervention mostly reported that the approach
was good but it consumed time and their learners mostly relied on rote learning. Teachers preferred
not to engage learners in learning activities to save time and to ensure the planned content for a
particular lesson was accomplished.
For example one of the teachers commented that: “when we use the learner-centered approach that
engages learners in lesson activities; too much time of the lesson is consumed and sometimes the planned lesson
content was not accomplished”. (Interview, Teacher C)
Contrary to this comment both teachers and learners praised this teaching approach and
hands-on teaching strategy a few weeks after the commencement of the intervention because
according to the teachers it reduces teacher workload and increases learners’ engagement in the lesson
activities.
One of the teachers said that: “engaging students in lesson activities enable them to take part in the learning
process which also reduces our workload”. (Interview, Teacher A)
Apart from that students emphasized that: “teachers should continue to motivate us to participate
in learning activities so that we can help one another to understand the lesson content”. (FGD, School B)

611
Journal of Turkish Science Education

This can be true because normally classes comprise students of different learning abilities.
Nonetheless, based on the fact that hands-on activities were emphasized more in the course of the
intervention. Both students and teachers were seen to appreciate the strategy with time and become
accustomed to hands-on activities as productive teaching and learning strategies. For instance,
learners in FGDs pointed out that learning by doing makes them active and become engaged in the
learning process. The discussion below is the testimony to that as follows:
Researcher: “How did you perceive hands-on activities when the strategy was introduced to you for the first
time?”
Puljet: “For me, I used to find it difficult …because he was leaving us to perform everything.”
Researchers’ follow-up question: “Why do you say the teacher was leaving you to do everything? ...does it
mean he was not giving you any guidance?”
Puljet: “He was guiding us but we were not used to that.”
Mjuni adds: “You know our teachers used to teach and provide us with notes only….we were not involved in
classroom activities before”.
Researcher: “Then what happened?”
Timothy: “When you came everything changed.”
Jeremiah: “For example, our teacher is telling us to bring learning aids …which was not happening before.”
Dativa: “These days when the teacher comes in the class he does not use more time to teach…. But guide us to
participate fully in our respective groups”. (FGD, School A)
Hands-on activities were mostly done in groups of not more than six students individual
learners to participate in different activities within a respective lesson by cooperating with their fellow
learners. These activities involved manipulation of the learning resources brought and made by
students and discussion among learners with the guide of their teachers. Solutions for different
chemistry activities that correspond to the investigated topics and sub-topics were derived among
students themselves.

Theme 2: Learning Resources (LR)

It was pre-assumed that there could be varieties of learning resources in classes such as
blackboard, textbooks, commercial materials, low-cost materials, and some IT resources. Yet, it was
observed that materials mostly used in chemistry lessons were those that learners made and brought
from their homes (Figure 2 and 3). Since learners had little experience of using textbooks due to their
scarcity, they rather mostly relied on teachers’ notes. Also, the teachers used different ways to
introduce the lesson to prepare students for learning the intended content. Success criteria and
learning intentions for a particular lesson were shared with students at the beginning of the lessons. In
addition, at the end of every chemistry lesson teachers were accustomed to sharing success criteria
and learning intentions for the next lesson to enable students to search for appropriate instructional
materials from their home environment. Thus, when the planning of the lesson is well done, it enables
students to endeavor to learn and teachers deliver the lesson well.
Besides, the designed intervention contributed much to learners working and making an
effort to seek resources for their learning. Searching these materials forced students to read and
discuss the respective content basing on the lesson objectives shared so that they can get appropriate
instructional materials related to the particular content. The materials were designed in the classes
collaboratively during orientation and later students did the whole process outside the classroom.
Also, the intervention was planned to be implemented in this mode so that to avoid interruption of
normal lesson routine.
When the majority of students in FGDs were asked whether they enjoy searching for their
learning materials; these are what they said:
Farris: “Searching for our learning materials is vital and it enhances understanding of lesson content… Because
we are using materials that we are familiar with.” (FGD, School B)

612
 Kibga, Sentongo & Gakuba, 2021

Monica: “I agree with her… Using these materials in the class become like revising as we made efforts to
understand the content related to these materials before searching and designing them from materials in our
home environment”. (FGD, School C)

Figure 2

Burette and pipette locally made by students

Figure 3

Locally Made Funnel and Beaker

while others invested much of their effort to make durable materials that can be used in other coming
lessons. However, the extent to which chemistry teachers shared learning intentions and success c

Learners demonstrated different levels of their abilities to make learning aids from materials
that can be easily obtained from their home environment. This was evident in the quality of the
learning aids prepared. Some learners brought materials just for the sake riteria for the next lesson had
a great impact on the learning aids prepared by students. When teachers shared the learning

613
Journal of Turkish Science Education

objectives clearly to learners with more clarifications, students made an effort to search for
appropriate instructional materials. For some lessons where it was difficult to get materials to
manipulate, learners used books to draw and give some examples on the manila sheets. Some of the
learning materials prepared by the learners are listed in Tables 1 and 2 above with their
corresponding topics and sub-topics.

Theme 3: Development of Curiosity (DC)

Despite the mole concept being considered to be one of the difficult chemistry topics with
abstract concepts, which learners seemed not to be interested in, the intervention gave promising
results. This was revealed in most of the lesson observations done. Learners enjoyed interacting within
their groups, manipulating the instructional materials made from low-cost materials as well as asking
questions that was not their custom at the beginning of the intervention. Also, they were able to go
beyond the teachers’ guidance and expectations in a class by doing chemistry activities on their own
without the guidance of their teachers. For instance, in school B the teacher did not instruct students to
put an indication of volume on the designed beakers, but students reminded one another to indicate
the calibration of volume on the sides of the beakers. This was verified by the teacher in the interview
session “I was surprised to see that some students remembered to label the beakers with the specific volume
which I had not tell them to do”. (Interview, Teacher B)
Teachers encouraged students to ask one another and help each other where they did not
understand. Not only ask questions among themselves but they were also free to raise any query to
their teachers during the lessons. Students asked questions for clarifications and/or explanations in
cases where they wanted to know more. On one of the occasions, one student wanted to understand
more on the concept of the number of mole and molarity and asked for the difference between 2 moles
and 2M”. Then, the teacher clarified by giving clarification and illustration on the chalkboard that;
“when talking of moles it means the amount of substance, such that 2 moles are equal to (2 X 6.03 x
1023) molecules/particles/atoms. But 2M means it is 2 moles of a substance in one litre, which means it
is (2 X 6.03 x 1023) molecules/particles/atoms in one litre. For instance, substances are things like water,
salt, sugar, etc.”. However, such kinds of questions that needed more clarifications were asked to
teachers who provided satisfactory feedback. Therefore, this close relationship between students and
their teachers encouraged students’ active engagement during lessons and enhanced the development
of curiosity.
Apart from the observations done, the information obtained from FGDs also revealed some
element of elevation of learners’ curiosity. The discussions were as follows:
The researcher: “What can you say about the system of learning where you are involved in hands-on
activities?”
Gadi: “It has taken time for most of us to get used to be involved in the lesson… But it has been the best
experience for me because nowadays it’s my pleasure to handle things on my own rather than waiting for others
to do for me and just stand looking at them.” (FGD, School C)
Eunice: “The same applies to me… This learning system has helped me to find out the ways to solve a problem
by myself rather than being told how to do it by my fellow students.” (FGD, School C)
Kelvin: “These days our chemistry teachers encourage us to be involved in discussions and cooperate in different
activities of the lesson… In these discussions, I don’t just sit and listen but it has been an opportunity to learn
about new objects by touching them and relate them with what we learn from chemistry” (FGD, School A)
One of the teachers complimented the information given by students as follows;
Teacher: “Although much of the effort has been done to engage learners in the lesson and taking them through
the process of searching for materials to be used in the lesson… I can boldly say that the effort done is worthy as
you can personally witness the way my learners are now active in the lesson”. (Interview, Teacher B)
With time; interactive teaching methods like group discussions paired with some hands-on
activities were adopted. Teachers allocated students in groups before the lessons based on students’
needs andabilities as well as ensured gender balance. During the group discussions, students were

614
 Kibga, Sentongo & Gakuba, 2021

observed to be able to solve some problems on given activities of the lessons within their groups and
they were sometimes told to answer directly or make attempts on the blackboard. Also, individual
students could collaborate with other group members to ensure that the apparatus was designed
based on the learning intentions and objectives of a particular lesson. Besides, students were able to
freely move around to check on the materials prepared by other peers and how they were able to
manipulate the prepared equipment. Also, students were able to ask questions to each other for
clarification. For example, in school C students from other groups wanted to know from their
colleagues how they knitted well the materials to make durable pipettes and burettes. They went
further and explored more on how they got the idea of using the clinical syringe to make well-
calibrated burettes. This influenced us to purchase more clinical syringes of different sizes to be used
by other students from other groups because their colleagues who had access to the syringes from
their parents who were health workers had already paved the way. Nevertheless, both the teachers
and students gave their views regarding this trend of the adjustment towards the hands-on strategy
introduced to them, and below are their views:
Researcher: “It has been a while now since you began to effectively involve your students in hands-on
activities… What can you say about this teaching strategy? … Is it helpful to you and your students?”
Teacher: “Engaging students in lesson activities enables them to take part in the learning process which also
reduces our workload” (Interview, Teacher B).
Teacher: “… As you can see these days my students do not need to be pushed to engage in the lesson. The
emphasis we put on the use of hands-on activities in the lesson has been more helpful especially to engage
students… Not only that but these days my students are now familiar with me than it was before” (Interview,
Teacher C).
The statements given by the teachers were complemented by the students is FGDs as follows:
Hongera: “Teachers should continue to motivate us to participate in learning activities… So that we can help
one another to understand the lesson content.”(FGD, School A)
Khaitham: “When we are involved in hands-on activities it is not only motivating us to learn but we must
explore further what we are supposed to learn and think of the materials that will best fit with what the teacher
told us to be learned in the coming lesson.” (FGD, School C)
Mwanaasha: “If this system continues it will not only help us in learning chemistry but also other subjects…
By the way it will be better if teachers from other subjects learn from our chemistry teacher because as you can
see we are now engaged in the lesson more than before.” (FGD, School B)
Therefore, with the information given by both students and the teacher, it is assumed that the
intervention contributed to the development of learners’ curiosity because of the changes seen before
and after the intervention.
In addition to lesson observations, the learners’ FGDs and teacher interviews which were used
to assess the development of learners’ curiosity, pre and post-intervention SSRQ and TRS were used
to obtain quantified information. SSRQ and TRS were meant to measure the level of learners’ curiosity
before and after the intervention. The overall score of students in pre-intervention SSRQ was (mean
3.17 ± 0.47 SD) while post-intervention SSRQ results were (mean 3.86 ± 0.30 SD) obtained from mean
indicators in both pre and post SSRQ. The pre-intervention TRS results were (mean 2.86 ± 0.91 SD)
while those of the post-test were (mean 3.80 ± 0.57 SD). The paired sample t-test performed on the
means of indicators from pre and post-intervention SSRQ gave t (127) = 22.25, p<0.0005, and the effect
size of 0.80 while pre and post-intervention TRS shown t (168) = 13.427, p<0.0005, and effect size of
0.62.

615
Journal of Turkish Science Education

Table 3

A table of Paired Samples T-Test Showing the T-Value of Curiosity İndicators in SSRQ and TRS

Paired Differences
95% C. I of the
T df Sig.
Mean SD SE Difference
Lower Upper
Mean of
indicators A
SSRQ 20.766 10.561 0.933 18.918 22.613 22.246 127 .000
– mean of
indicators

Post-test -
TRS 0.941 0.911 0.07 0.802 1.079 13.427 168 .000
pre-test

The mean difference for both SSRQ and TRS in pre and post-tests reveals that there was a
significant increase in learners’ curiosity as a result of the designed intervention implemented through
the use of learning resources designed from learners environment. Apart from that, also the effect size
of both SSRQ and TRS confirms that there was a large effect size by giving a substantial difference in
learners’ curiosity before and after the intervention.

Discussion

In this study, an intervention of a hands-on instructional model was designed to enhance the
development of learners’ curiosity whereas; both qualitative and quantitative instruments were used
to assess the effectiveness of the designed model. The results of this research are discussed in this
section based on the relevant literature and how information obtained was triangulated to answer the
proposed research question.
The findings obtained from lesson observation revealed that the way lessons are planned
greatly determines the outcomes of the particular lessons. In other words planning of the lesson has
an impact on how it will be introduced and presented to students and later determines the outcome of
the lesson. According to the results obtained, teachers shared the success criteria and learning
intentions of a particular lesson before and after the lesson to enable learners to be familiar with the
lesson content and prepare for the lesson in advance. This can be done through proper and clear
sharing of lesson objectives (Kanellopoulou & Darra, 2018; Yalcin Arslan, 2019). Lesson objectives
include the learning intentions and success criteria of a particular lesson (Kanellopoulou & Darra,
2018).
The unique finding on the aspect of teachers sharing lesson objectives with their students was
that before the intervention this was not happening in the classroom. But, this practice developed due
to the effective implementation of the intervention. The learning intentions and the success criteria
shared by chemistry teachers enabled learners to get well prepared for the incoming chemistry lesson,
which also included searching for the appropriate instructional materials. This is like the teachers
prepare their lessons in collaboration with their students. This finding is similar to what Yalcin Arslan
(2019) reported that when teachers engage in such a process they can develop new understandings of
the lesson that lead to changes in their teaching practices and meet the individual learners’ needs.
Therefore, sharing the lesson objective creates a shared learning atmosphere between teachers and
students which can play part in stirring up the learners’ urge for learning (Khoiriyah et al., 2015;
Tukiran et al., 2017).
The second finding of this study was related to the instructional strategy employed in lesson
delivery. The gesture shown by the learners on the reception and implementation of the hands-on
instructional model designed signifies its vital impact on learners’ drive to know more and

616
 Kibga, Sentongo & Gakuba, 2021

exploration of the environment. Although hands-on activities which were carried out using
instructional materials made from home-based raw materials was seen to have a significant impact on
the development of learners’ curiosity, the results of this study are not meant to substitute other
learner-centered teaching and learning strategies. Rather, this work adds knowledge that can aid to
improve educational practice (Ma & Harmon, 2009). When hands-on learning instruction is integrated
into the process of learning, learners can interact with one another, share experiences, reduce the fear
of trying and develop the inner drive (curiosity) to learning and exploration (Von Stumm et al., 2011).
However, the ability of learners to explore their environment searching for their learning materials
creates an independent generation that can transfer content knowledge into real-life experiences
(Borowske, 2005; Tukiran et al., 2017). These learners will eventually meet the demands of the 21 st-
century growing world’s economy.
In general, students seemed to be actively engaged in hands-on activities which subsequently
stimulated their learning curiosity to learn. The effect size of 0.80 and 0.62 obtained from both SSRQ
and TRS respectively verifies the changes that occurred on learners' curiosity due to the application of
the hands-on intervention model that was designed. This is following Litman (2005) and Von Stumm
et al. (2011), who highlight that when students are actively engaged in the lesson, they develop a
hungry mind for learning, and the process of learning becomes of pleasure to them. This is also in line
with Halpern (2016) and Hazzan et al. (2015), who demonstrated that active learning instructional
strategies motivate learners to learn and enhance the transfer of knowledge from known to unknown.
Therefore, involving learners in hands-on activities can not only enhance the acquisition of intended
learning competencies (Marzuki et al., 2019) but also develop important skills like curiosity.
Moreover, another interesting finding of this study was on the way students were actively
engaged in searching for instructional materials. Learners, being the primary consumer of what
teachers prepare, were well informed on the essence of associating the lesson content with the
materials in their surroundings based on the learners’ needs (Tukiran et al., 2017). This is because
when learners play part in their learning (Ostroff, 2016; Xhomara & Bara, 2020), the learning process
becomes meaningful and students are enabled to invent and acquire new knowledge from their
environment (Kanellopoulou & Darra, 2018; Ngatijo et al., 2019; Yalcin Arslan, 2019).

It can be observed from this finding that learners searching for instructional materials increase
their familiarity with the concept to be learned and remain in a learning mood outside of the
classroom environment. Not only that but also students working hand-in-hand with their teachers in
lesson preparation reduce the workload of the teachers (Louca & Zacharia, 2012). This is more helpful
especially in a context where a teacher has a large number of students in the class (Nbina & Mmaduka,
2014) which is, most of the time, the case in the United Republic of Tanzania as well as in other East
African Countries (EAC). Therefore, the successful engagement of students in searching for
appropriate learning materials is one of the teachers’ achievements towards the attainment of desired
learning outcomes.

Implications and Conclusion

We suggest that the use of a hands-on instructional model should be given priority by the
secondary school teachers teaching chemistry in a similar context because of its nature and
characteristics (Holstermann et al., 2010; Pirttimaa et al., 2015). Moreover, hands-on instruction has
successfully shown to increase learners’ engagement in the lesson inside and outside of the classroom
environment through searching for instructional materials appropriate for their learning. Also, in
essence of enhancing the intervention designed in this study to bring results that are more practical in
education contexts with a similar learning environment to the study sample, researchers and
educators in the field of education should think of implementing the intervention further. Moreover,
future studies ought to integrate the study into a large sample of the population for its
generalizability. Regarding the limitations, this study was limited to only three community secondary

617
Journal of Turkish Science Education

schools. It can further be extended to other rural, urban, public and private secondary schools to
investigate the relationship.
The significant implication of this study is the emphasis done on developing learners’
curiosity in the context of education. The findings of this research are evident and encouraging as they
indicated how curious students can be and to which extent they can express their curiosity when
exposed to hands-on activities. Furthermore, it is evident from the findings that the implementation of
the model used in this study helped students to practically channeling their curiosity in the
association of the content learned with the surrounding environment. Therefore, an intriguing path
for further study would be to explore the association of learners’ curiosity with their ability to
comprehend lesson content as a result improves their performance.
In conclusion, it can be stated that engaging students in the lesson preparation process is
paramount and it is effective in stir-up learners’ desire for learning. This can be done through learners’
familiarization of the lesson content with their home environment and prior experiences. Also, the
learning process becomes more interesting when its facilitation is done using materials that are of
learners’ preferences. Finally, engaging students in hands-on activities can be considered as one of the
ways which can best develop students’ curiosity. Therefore, it is time for researchers in the context of
education to think of doing more studies on learners’ curiosity to enhance their understanding of
learners’ inner drive for learning and exploration.

Reference

Alkan, F. (2016). Experiential Learning: Its Effects on Achievement and Scientific Process Skills.
Turkish Journal of Science Education, 14(2), 15–26. https://doi.org/10.12973/tused.10164a
Bakker, A., & van Eerde, D. (2015). An Introduction to Design-Based Research with an Example from
Statistics Education. In A. Bikner-Ahsbahs, C. Knipping, & N. Presmeg (Eds.). Approaches to
Qualitative Research in Mathematics Education (pp. 429–466).
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9181-6_16
Bodner, G. M. (2015). Research on Problem Solving in Chemistry. In J. García-Martínez & E. Serrano-
Torregrosa (Eds.). Chemistry Education (pp. 181–202). https://doi.org/10.1002/9783527679300.ch8
Borowske, K. (2005). Curiosity and motivation-to-learn. Comunicación Presentada a La ACRL Twelfth
National Conference.
Bozkurt Altan, E., & Tan, S. (2020). Concepts of creativity in design-based learning in STEM education.
International Journal of Technology and Design Education. 20(3), 345–358.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-020-09569-y
Braun, V., Clarke, V., & Weate, P. (2016). Using thematic analysis in sport and exercise research. In
Routledge handbook of qualitative research in sport and exercise (pp. 213–227). Routledge.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education (6th ed). Routledge.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
Approaches (4th ed). SAGE Publications.
Fuad, M., Deb, D., Etim, J., & Gloster, C. (2018). Mobile response system: A novel approach to
interactive and hands-on activity in the classroom. Educational Technology Research and
Development. 66(2), 493–514. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-018-9570-5
Gutiérrez, K. D. (2018). Social Design–Based Experiments: A Proleptic Approach to Literacy. Literacy
Research: Theory, Method, and Practice. 67(1), 86–108. https://doi.org/10.1177/2381336918787823
Harackiewicz, J. M., Smith, J. L., & Priniski, S. J. (2016). Interest matters: The importance of promoting
interest in education. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 3(2), 220–227.
https://doi.org/10.1177%2F2372732216655542
Hirça, N. (2013). The Influence of Hands-on Physics Experiments on Scientific Process Skills
According to Prospective Teachers’ Experiences. European Journal of Physics Education. 4(1).
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1052287.pdf

618
 Kibga, Sentongo & Gakuba, 2021

Högström, P., Ottander, C., & Benckert, S. (2010). Lab work and learning in secondary school
chemistry: The importance of teacher and student interaction. Research in Science Education.
40(4), 505–523. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11165-009-9131-3
Holstermann, N., Grube, D., & Bögeholz, S. (2010). Hands-on activities and their influence on
students’ interests. Research in Science Education. 40(5), 743–757.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11165-009-9142-0
Hon-Keung, Y., Man-shan, K., & Lai-fong, C. A. (2012). The Impact of Curiosity and External
Regulation on Intrinsic Motivation: An Empirical Study in Hong Kong Education. Online
Submission. 2(5), 295–307. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED535728.pdf
Houghton, C., Casey, D., Shaw, D., & Murphy, K. (2013). Rigour in qualitative case-study research.
Nurse Researcher. 20(4), 12–17. https://doi.org/10.7748/nr2013.03.20.4.12.e326
Jirout, J., & Klahr, D. (2012). Children’s scientific curiosity: In search of an operational definition of an
elusive concept. Developmental Review, 32(2), 125–160.
Kanellopoulou, E.-M., & Darra, M. (2018). The Planning of Teaching in the Context of Lesson Study:
Research Findings. International Education Studies. 11(2), 67.
https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v11n2p67
Kashdan, T. B., & Yuen, M. (2007). Whether highly curious students thrive academically depends on
perceptions about the school learning environment: A study of Hong Kong adolescents.
Motivation and Emotion. 31(4), 260–270. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-007-9074-9
Khoiriyah, U., Roberts, C., Jorm, C., & Van der Vleuten, C. P. M. (2015). Enhancing students’ learning
in problem-based learning: Validation of a self-assessment scale for active learning and critical
thinking. BMC Medical Education. 15(1), 140. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-015-0422-2
Kidd, C., & Hayden, B. Y. (2015). The Psychology and Neuroscience of Curiosity. Neuron. 88(3), 449–
460. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2015.09.010
Lamnina, M., & Chase, C. C. (2019). Developing a Thirst for Knowledge: How Uncertainty in the
Classroom Influences Curiosity, Affect, Learning, and Transfer. Contemporary Educational
Psychology. 101785. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2019.101785
León, J., Núñez, J. L., & Liew, J. (2015). Self-determination and STEM education: Effects of autonomy,
motivation, and self-regulated learning on high school math achievement. Learning and
Individual Differences. 43, 156–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2015.08.017
Lindholm, M. (2018). Promoting Curiosity: Possibilities and Pitfalls in Science Education. Science &
Education. 27(9–10), 987–1002. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-018-0015-7
Litman, J. (2005). Curiosity and the pleasures of learning: Wanting and liking new information.
Cognition & Emotion. 19(6), 793–814.
Litman, J. A., & Spielberger, C. D. (2003). Measuring epistemic curiosity and its diversive and specific
components. Journal of Personality Assessment. 80(1), 75–86.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15327752JPA8001_16
Louca, L. T., & Zacharia, Z. C. (2012). Modeling-based learning in science education: Cognitive,
metacognitive, social, material and epistemological contributions. Educational Review. 64(4),
471–492. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2011.628748
Lui, A. (2012). Teaching in the Zone: An introduction to working within the Zone of Proximal
Development (ZPD) to drive effective early childhood instruction. Children’s Progress. 1–10.
Ma, Y., & Harmon, S. W. (2009). A case study of design-based research for creating a vision prototype
of a technology-based innovative learning environment. Journal of Interactive Learning Research.
20(1), 75–93.
Marzuki, M., Wahyudi, W., Putrie, S. D., & Rokhmat, J. (2019). A Strategy of Scaffolding Development
to Increase Students Problem-Solving Abilities: The Case of Physics Learning with Causalitic-
Thinking Approach. Turkish Journal of Science Education, 16(4), 569–579.
https://doi.org/10.36681/tused.2020.8
Mertens, D. M. (2010). Research and evaluation in education and psychology: Integrating diversity with
quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods (3rd ed). Sage.

619
Journal of Turkish Science Education

Nbina, J. B., & Mmaduka, O. A. (2014). Enhancing chemistry teaching in secondary schools: An
alternative teaching approach. AFRREV STECH: An International Journal of Science and
Technology. 3(2), 127–135. https://doi.org/10.4314/stech.v3i2.8
Ngatijo, N., Sulistiyo, U., & Effendi-Hasibuan, M. H. (2019). Inquiry-based Learning in Indonesia:
Portraying Supports, Situational Beliefs, and Chemistry Teachers Adoptions. Turkish Journal of
Science Education, 16(4), 538–553. https://doi.org/10.36681/tused.2020.6
Nowell, L. S., Norris, J. M., White, D. E., & Moules, N. J. (2017). Thematic Analysis: Striving to Meet
the Trustworthiness Criteria. International Journal of Qualitative Methods. 16(1), 160940691773384.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406917733847
Ormanci, Ü. (2020). Thematic Content Analysis of Doctoral Theses in STEM Education: Turkey
Context. Turkish Journal of Science Education, 17(1), 126–146.
https://doi.org/1036681/tused.2020.17
Opara, F., & Waswa, P. (2013). Enhancing Students’ Achievement in Chemistry through the Piagetian
Model: The Learning Cycle. International Journal for Cross-Disciplinary Subjects in Education
(IJCDSE). 4(4), 1270–1278.
Ostroff, W. L. (2016). Cultivating curiosity in K-12 classrooms: How to promote and sustain deep learning.
ASCD.
Oudeyer, P.-Y., Gottlieb, J., & Lopes, M. (2016). Intrinsic motivation, curiosity, and learning: Theory
and applications in educational technologies. In Progress in brain research (Vol. 229, pp. 257–
284). https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.pbr.2016.05.005
Overton, T. L., & Randles, C. A. (2015). Beyond problem-based learning: Using dynamic PBL in
chemistry. Chemistry Education Research and Practice. 16(2), 251–259.
https://doi.org/10.1039/C4RP00248B
Pallant, J. (2020). SPSS Survival Manual: A Step by Step Guide to Data Analysis Using IBM SPSS (7th
ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003117452
Pirttimaa, M., Husu, J., & Metsa¨rinne, M. (2015). Uncovering procedural knowledge in craft, design,
and technology education: A case of hands-on activities in electronics. Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-015-9345-9
Pluck, G., & Johnson, H. L. (2011). Stimulating curiosity to enhance learning. GESJ: Education Sciences
and Psychology. 2.
Reid, A. D., Hart, E. P., & Peters, M. A. (Eds.). (2014). A Companion to Research in Education. Springer
Netherlands.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6809-3
Ruiz-Alfonso, Z., & León, J. (2019). Teaching quality: Relationships between passion, deep strategy to
learn, and epistemic curiosity. School Effectiveness and School Improvement. 30(2), 212–230.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2018.1562944
Schmitt, F. F., & Lahroodi, R. (2008). The epistemic value of curiosity. Educational Theory. 58(2), 125–
148.
Scott, E. E., Wenderoth, M. P., & Doherty, J. H. (2020). Design-Based Research: A Methodology to
Extend and Enrich Biology Education Research. CBE—Life Sciences Education. 19(3), es11.
https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.19-11-0245
Sikandar, A. (2016). John Dewey and his philosophy of education. Journal of Education and Educational
Development. 2(2), 191–201. http://dx.doi.org/10.22555/joeed.v2i2.446
Štemberger, T., & Cencič, M. (2016). Design-Based Research: The Way of Developing and
Implementing Educational Innovation. World Journal on Educational Technology: Current Issues.
8(3), 180–189. https://doi.org/10.18844/wjet.v8i3.621
Tukiran, Suyatno, & Nurul Hidayati. (2017). Developing Teaching Materials of Natural Product
Chemistry to Increase Student’s Life Skills. Turkish Journal of Science Education, 14(2), 28–41.
https://doi.org/doi: 10.12973/tused.10196a

620
 Kibga, Sentongo & Gakuba, 2021

Von Stumm, S., Hell, B., & Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2011). The hungry mind: Intellectual curiosity is
the third pillar of academic performance. Perspectives on Psychological Science. 6(6), 574–588.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1745691611421204
Wang, F., & Hannafin, M. J. (2005). Design-based research and technology-enhanced learning
environments. Educational Technology Research and Development. 53(4), 5–23.
Xhomara, N., & Bara, G. (2020). The effect of student-centered teaching and problem-based learning
on academic achievement in science. Turkish Journal of Science Education,
17(2),180–198. https://doi.org/10.36681/tused.2020.20
Wahyu, W., & Syaadah, R. S. (2018). Implementation of problem-based learning (PBL) approach to
improve student’s academic achievement and creativity on the topic of electrolyte and non-
electrolyte solutions at vocational school. Journal of Physics: Conference Series. 1013, 012096.
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/1013/1/012096/meta
Yalcin Arslan, F. (2019). The role of lesson study in teacher learning and professional development of
EFL teachers in Turkey: A case study. TESOL Journal. 10(2), e00409.
https://doi.org/10.1002/tesj.409
Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed). Sage Publications.

621