This study investigates the interplay of various pedagogical strategies—Student-Centered Pedagogy, Hands-On Learning, Scaffolding, Assessment and Feedback, and Professional Development—and their impact on student outcomes in K-12 science education. Grounded in constructivist learning theory and Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development, the research employed Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling to analyze data from 250 K-12 educators. The findings demonstrate that Student-centered pedagogy and Hands-on learning significantly enhanced student engagement and learning when integrated with scaffolding and timely feedback. Scaffolding was found to be crucial in facilitating complex learning while ongoing formative assessment improved students' ability to self-regulate. Professional development emerged as an essential factor, though indirect, in ensuring teachers’ successful implementation of these pedagogical strategies. The study contributes to the growing body of literature advocating for an integrated, student-centered approach in science education. It provides actionable recommendations for educators, curriculum developers, and policymakers to improve teaching practices and foster deeper student learning in science classrooms.
| [1] | Baniqued, W. & Bautista, R. (2024). Teachers’ preparedness on pedagogical practices in K-12 science education: Foundations for crafting an effective science program. American Journal of Educational Research, 12(8), 291-297.View Article |
| [2] | Anoling, KM., Abella, CRG., Cagatao, PPS., & Bautista, RG. (2024). Critical perspectives, theoretical foundations, practical teaching, technology integration, assessment and feedback, and hands-on practices in science education. American Journal of Educational Research, 12(1), 20-27.View Article |
| [3] | Guerrero, JS., & Bautista, RG. (2023). Inquiry-based teaching in secondary science. International Journal of Social Sciences & Humanities, 8(2), 146-154. View Article |
| [4] | Michael, J. (2016). Where's the evidence that active learning works? Advances in Physiology Education, 40(4), 543-544. |
| [5] | Prince, M., & Felder, R. (2016). Inductive teaching and learning methods: Definitions, comparisons, and research bases. Journal of Engineering Education, 95(2), 123-138.View Article |
| [6] | Supovitz, J. A., & Spillane, J. P. (2015). Challenging standards: Navigating conflict and building capacity in the era of the common core. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.View Article |
| [7] | Ligado, F., Guray, ND., & Bautista, RG. (2022). Pedagogical beliefs, techniques, and practices towards hands-on science. American Journal of Educational Research, 10(10), 584-591.View Article |
| [8] | Vallerio, ZV., Tobias, JC., Tillay, JN., Dumangeng, AP., Pumihic, VT., & Bautista, RG. (2023). Science teaching and learning conceptions towards teachers’ sense of efficacy. American Journal of Educational Research, 11(12), 79-83.View Article |
| [9] | Dagar, V., & Yadav, A. (2016). Constructivism: A paradigm for teaching and learning. Arts and Social Sciences Journal, 7(4), 200.View Article |
| [10] | Swanson, E., & Williams, K. J. (2015). Learning and instruction within the zone of proximal development: A framework for research and practice. Educational Psychology Review, 27(3), 497-520. |
| [11] | Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2016). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Sage Publications. |
| [12] | Hair, J. F., Risher, J. J., Sarstedt, M., & Ringle, C. M. (2019). When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. European Business Review, 31(1), 2-24.View Article |
| [13] | Abella, CRG., Anoling, KM., Cagatao, PPS., & Bautista, RG. (2024). Modelling the interplay of science teaching dimensions from the lenses of science educators. American Journal of Educational Research, 12 (4), 159-163.View Article |
| [14] | Gefen, D., Rigdon, E. E., & Straub, D. W. (2011). An updated assessment of PLS research and directions for future research. In V. V. Venkatesh, J. Y. L. Thong, & X. H. Xu (Eds.), New perspectives in information systems and technology (Vol. 4, pp. 91-104). Springer. |
| [15] | Fearnley, M., & Amora, J. (2020). Learning management system adoption in higher education using the extended technology acceptance model. IAFOR Journal of Education, 8(2), 89-106.View Article |
| [16] | Kock, N. (2020). Harman’s single factor test in PLS-SEM: Checking for common method bias. Data Analysis Perspectives Journal, 2, 1-6. |
| [17] | Kock, Ned. (2015). Common method bias in PLS-SEM: A full collinearity assessment approach. International Journal of e-Collaboration. 11. 1-10. 10.4018/ijec.2015100101.View Article |
| [18] | Teo, T. (2010). Examining the Influence of Subjective Norm and Facilitating Conditions on the Intention to Use Technology among Pre-Service Teachers: A Structural Equation Modeling of an Extended Technology Acceptance Model. Asia Pacific Education Review, 11(2), 253-262. Retrieved September 30, 2024 from https://www.learntechlib.org/p/74599/.View Article |
| [19] | Kennedy, M. M. (2016). How Does Professional Development Improve Teaching? Review of Educational Research, 86(4), 945-980.View Article |
| [20] | Darling-Hammond, L., Hyler, M. E., & Gardner, M. (2017). Effective teacher professional development. Learning Policy Institute.View Article |
| [21] | Kolb, D. A. (2015). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Pearson Education. |
| [22] | Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2018). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 100(2), 46-48.View Article |
| [23] | Bruner, J. (2016). The culture of education. Harvard University Press. |
| [24] | Nicol, D. J., & Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2016). Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 199-218.View Article |
| [25] | Discipulo, LG., & Bautista, RG. (2022). Students’ cognitive and metacognitive learning strategies towards hands-on science. International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education, 11(2), 658-664.View Article |
| [26] | Bagay, MC., Ursua, RR., Abellera, MA., Baldovino, RJ., Concpecion, RA., Galapon, VS., & Bautista, RG. (2023). Problem-based learning in teaching science. Journal of Innovations in Teaching and Learning, 3(1), 7-14. |
| [27] | Guskey, T. R. (2016). Professional development and teacher change. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 22(6), 751-758. |
| [28] | Legaspi, JM., Perhiliana, CO., Camayang, JG., Garingan, EG., Velasco, MKGT., Ursua, JG., & Bautista, RG. (2020). Scientific learning motivations as predictors of pre-service elementary grade teachers’ authentic assessment practices in science. American Journal of Educational Research, 8(3), 150-154. |
| [29] | Shute, V. J. (2018). Formative and interim assessment in the service of learning. In J. Greeno, & S. Goldman (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching (5th ed., pp. 304-329). American Educational Research Association. |
