Skip to main content
Review | Acta Pedagogia Asiana | Volume 4 - Issue 2 - 2025 | 101-114 | https://doi.org/10.53623/apga.v4i2.645
© 2025 by the author(s), and is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) License Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) License

A Systematic Review of Innovative Teaching Strategies in Science: Exploring Hands-on Learning, Technology Integration, and Student-Centered Approaches

Author(s): Shella Mae Tanghian Laid , Mauricio S. Adlaon ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3546-0774
Author(s) information:
Surigao del Norte State University, Surigao City, 8400, Philippines

Corresponding author

Acta Pedagogia Asiana

Volume 4 - Issue 2 - 2025

 About the journal
Submit your article

This systematic review examined the effectiveness of innovative teaching strategies in science education, focusing on hands-on learning, technology integration, and student-centered approaches. Using the PRISMA framework, 18 peer-reviewed studies from 2020 to 2025 were analyzed to identify trends, benefits, and challenges. Findings revealed that hands-on learning enhanced engagement and problem-solving skills but faced resource constraints. Technology integration improved accessibility and visualization but required teacher training and equitable access. Student-centered approaches promoted critical thinking and collaboration but demanded alternative assessment methods. Addressing these challenges through blended learning and policy support was found to enhance science education outcomes.

Read Full-Text
Previous article
Next article

Rahe, R.; Devi, M.R.R.; Koshy, J.M.; Durga Devi, G.; Johnson, W.M.S.; Krishnaveni, S. (2023). Jigsaw method of interactive teaching to unpuzzle neuroanatomy. International Journal of Anatomy and Research, 11(1), 8564–8569. http://doi.org/10.16965/ijar.2022.288.

Aytaç, T.; Kula, S.S. (2020). The effect of student-centered approaches on students' creative thinking skills: A meta-analysis study. International Journal of Contemporary Educational Research, 7(2), 62–80. https://doi.org/10.33200/ijcer.723894.

Kaufman, D.; Brooks, J.G. (1996). Interdisciplinary collaboration in teacher education: A constructivist approach. TESOL Quarterly, 30(2), 231. https://doi.org/10.2307/3588142.

Kayode, O.; Ogundokun, R.; Olorundare, S. (2020). Review of innovative teaching strategies in senior secondary schools' sciences. i-Manager’s Journal of Educational Technology, 17(1), 56. http://doi.org/10.26634/jet.17.1.17018.

Sarkar, B.; Chakraborty, S. (2024). Innovative teaching strategies for enhancing student engagement in the classroom. International Journal of Research Publication and Reviews, 5(7), 4893–4898.

Ahmed, S.; Baloch, M.A.; Karim, H. (2024). Investigating the impact of teaching-learning materials on students’ academic performance. Journal of Development and Social Sciences, 5(1), 538–545. http://doi.org/10.47205/jdss.2024(5-I)49.

Gallardo-Guerrero, A.M.; Maciá-Andreu, M.J.; Conde-Pascual, E.; Sánchez-Sáez, J.A.; Zurita-Ortiz, B.; García-Tascón, M. (2022). From flipped classroom to personalized learning as an innovative teaching methodology in the area of sports management in physical activity and sport sciences. Sustainability, 14(13), 7714. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14137714.

Kerimbayev, N.; Umirzakova, Z.; Shadiev, R.; Jotsov, V. (2023). A student-centered approach using modern technologies in distance learning: A systematic review. Smart Learning Environments, 10, 61. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-023-00280-8.

Xiao, Y.; Watson, M. (2019). Guidance on conducting a systematic literature review. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 39(1), 93–112. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X17723971.

Razali, N.F.; Nasri, N.M. (2023). Innovative teaching methods: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Academic Research in Progressive Education and Development, 12, 1737‒1752. http://doi.org/10.6007/IJARPED/v12-i4/18508.

Kilag, O.K.; Tariman, R.S.; Dela Cruz, R.A.; Cantere Jr., G.S. (2024). Innovative teaching strategies in secondary science education: A systematic review. International Multidisciplinary Journal of Research for Innovation, Sustainability, and Excellence, 1(4), 37–38.

Wang, L. (2023). The impact of student-centered learning on academic motivation and achievement: A comparative research between traditional instruction and student-centered approach. Journal of Education, Humanities and Social Sciences, 22, 346–353. http://doi.org/10.54097/ehss.v22i.12463.

Lisao, C.; Kilag, O.K.; Tamayo, J.M.; Abella, J.; Cañete, N.; Abendan, C.F. (2023). Reimagining science education in the Philippines: A systematic analysis of the 7E Learning Cycle Model's efficacy. Excellencia: International Multi-disciplinary Journal of Education, 1(5), 100–111.

Hursen, C.; Bas, C. (2019). Use of gamification applications in science education. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 14(1), 4. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v14i01.8894.

Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; et al. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71.

Niemiec, R.; Walberg, H.J. (1987). Comparative effects of computer-assisted instruction: A synthesis of reviews. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 3(1), 19–37. https://doi.org/10.2190/RMX5-1LTB-QDCC-D5HA.

Haryani, E.; Cobern, W.W.; Pleasants, B.A.-S.; Fetters, M. (2024). Exploring pedagogical strategies: Integrating 21st-century skills in science classrooms. Journal of Education in Science, Environment and Health, 10(2), 106–119. https://doi.org/10.55549/jeseh.697.

Joy, P.; Panwar, R.; Azhagiri, R.; Krishnamurthy, A.; Adibatti, M. (2023). Flipped classroom – A student perspective of an innovative teaching method during the times of pandemic. Educacion Medica, 24(2), 100790. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edumed.2022.100790.

Tang, K.H.D. (2023). Student-centered approach in teaching and learning: What does it really mean? Acta Pedagogia Asiana, 2(2), 72–83. https://doi.org/10.53623/apga.v2i2.218.

Yunzal, A.N.; Rallos, A.G.; Nanud, M.N.; Picardal, M. (2024). Exploring active learning strategies in science among senior high school STEM learners and teachers. Science Education International, 35(4), 369–381.

Liaqat, N.; Chand, S.; Iqbal, I.; Shah, M.N. (2022). To determine the effectiveness of modular approach in teaching matter and change in its states in general science for elementary classes. International Research Journal of Education and Innovation, 3(2), 93–108. https://doi.org/10.53575/irjei.v3.02(22)10.93-108.

Lombardo, D.; Calandra, P.; Pasqua, L. (2021). A conceptual map for soft condensed matter physics: A basic framework for multidisciplinary and cooperative learning. AAPP Atti della Accademia Peloritana dei Pericolanti, Classe di Scienze Fisiche. Matematiche e Naturali, 99, A25. https://doi.org/10.1478/AAPP.99S1A25.

Nock, D. (2020). “Let’s Bid!” – A modular activity to promote interest in engineering economy. Engineering Economist, 65(3), 195–212. https://doi.org/10.1080/0013791X.2020.1745977.

Barakzai, Q. (2004). Transition from traditional to innovative teaching in and beyond pharmacology at Ziauddin Medical University. Acta Pharmacologica Sinica, 25(9), 1220–1232.

Brinthaupt, T.M.; Cruz, L.; Otto, S.; Pinter, M. (2019). A framework for the strategic leveraging of outside resources to enhance CTL effectiveness. To Improve the Academy, 38(1), 82–94. https://doi.org/10.1002/tia2.20089.

Bugtai, G.; Batilaran, J.; Kilag, O.K. (2024). Enhancing science education in middle schools: A systematic review. International Multidisciplinary Journal of Research for Innovation, Sustainability, and Excellence, 1(2), 7–13.

Chang, C.C.; Wang, C.M. (2008). Factors affecting the integration of information technology into teaching by teachers of vocational high schools in Taipei. Journal of Educational Practice and Research, 21(1), 97–132. http://doi.org/10.1080/14703290500467467.

Moyle, K. (2010). Building Innovation: Learning with Technologies. Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER): Victoria, Australia.

Literature Review in Science Education and the Role of ICT: Promise, Problems and Future Directions. (accessed on 1 January 2025) Available online: https://telearn.hal.science/file/index/docid/190441/filename/osborne-j-2003-r6.pdf.

Mikheeva, T.; Pankova, V. (2021). On the theory of innovative education. E3S Web of Conferences, 273. https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/20212731211.

Miyashita, K. (1995). Case-based knowledge acquisition for schedule optimization. Artificial Intelligence in Engineering, 9, 277–287. https://doi.org/10.1016/0954-1810(95)00001-Y.

Moher, D.; Liberati, A.; Tetzlaff, J.; Altman, D.G.; Altman, D.; Antes, G.; Atkins, D.; et al. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Medicine, 6(7), e1000097. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097.

Read Full-Text
About this article

SUBMITTED: 28 March 2025
ACCEPTED: 26 May 2025
PUBLISHED: 6 June 2025
SUBMITTED to ACCEPTED: 59 days
DOI: https://doi.org/10.53623/apga.v4i2.645

Cite this article
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
Accessed
47
Citations
0
Share this article