JTE Volume 1, Number 1
Journal of Technology Education
Volume 1, Number 1
Do Hands-On, Technology-Based Activities Enhance Learning by
Reinforcing Cognitive Knowledge and Retention?
Anthony R. Korwin
Ronald E. Jones(1)
INTRODUCTION
Technology education has passed through
explicit phases from manual training through
manual arts through industrial arts, to con-
temporary programs in industry and technol-
ogy. These phases have been based on
different psychologies and therefore, have
produced varied rationales. Since the
1900's, one common link has been that the
field is purported to be an important part of
general education and therefore, can provide
a meaningful educational experience.
In St. Louis around 1870, Calvin
Woodward decided that the most effective
method to "...illustrate certain mechanical
principles..." was to have his students con-
struct models out of wood (Barlow, 1967,
p.34). Woodward felt that this particular
hands-on experience demonstrated a practical
use for various engineering precepts. It was
this reliance on objects, tools, and materi-
als to teach mathematical and engineering
theory that produced manual training and
eventually, industrial arts ideology.
Industrial arts, though, evolved more
into a discipline oriented toward developing
skills for the skills themselves rather than
developing a knowledge of industry. Hands-on
activities included building projects that
incorporated the learning of "...technical
processes without conscious concern of the
socio-cultural context in which they
exist..." (Lauda & McCrory, 1986, p.28). In
recent years, technology education has fo-
cused on the use of tools and materials to
help students understand concepts in technol-
ogy and its relationships to various areas of
education.
In the transformation of curricula, the
common denominator has remained hands-on ex-
perimental activities. Industrial arts has
always used various projects to stimulate in-
terest, develop skills, and increase learn-
ing. Technology education has continued to
focus on hands-on activities and modified
them, helping students become technologically
literate by developing problem solving adap-
tation skills and a positive attitude toward
technology (Martin, 1985). However, one
might question the hands-on activity approach
as an appropriate and effective basis for
learning in industrial arts and technology
education.
The purpose of this study was to deter-
mine if hands-on technology-based activities
enhance learning among eighth grade students
by reinforcing cognitive knowledge and im-
proving retention. Generally, it was de-
signed to find out if increases in knowledge
and subject interest were greater for those
students given the opportunity to reinforce
learning through laboratory activities. Spe-
cifically, the study addressed the following
questions:
1. Is there a significant, measurable, know-
ledge increase when technology-based
hands-on activities are used to supple-
ment regular classroom presentations?
RESEARCH HYPOTHESIS #1: Students partic-
ipating in a hands-on group assignment
would have higher scores the day after
instruction than students receiving an
illustrated lecture.
RESEARCH HYPOTHESIS #2: Students partic-
ipating in a hands-on group assignment
would have higher scores (on a test given
after two weeks) than students receiving
an illustrated lecture.
2. Do these hands-on activities establish
greater retention of information pre-
sented?
RESEARCH HYPOTHESIS #3:There would be no
retention loss between the first and sec-
ond post-test for the hands-on method of
instruction.
RESEARCH HYPOTHESIS #4: There would be no
retention loss between the first and sec-
ond post-test for the illustrated lecture
method of instruction.
BACKGROUND
Educational theory supporting
psychomotor activities to aid cognitive
growth had its origins in the 1700's. Though
experiences were often part of personalized
education, such as apprenticeships or trades
passed from generation to generation, Jacque
Rousseau and JoHann Heinrich Pestallozzi pro-
posed that doing was not an end in itself,
but a way of expanding learning (Barlow,
1967). Later, many theorists provided sup-
port in favor of learning experiences that
allowed the student active involvement with
the subject matter. Jean Piaget, who devel-
oped a continuum of cognitive development,
believed that a child could construct a more
permanent knowledge base by experiencing
something rather than just being told
(Schwebel, 1973).
John Dewey, known for his many innova-
tive educational philosophies and support of
industrial arts education, was of the strong
opinion that experiences, specifically
hands-on activities, were imperative in the
educational process. Students could blend
theory and practice, success and failure, and
school and society into a mental foundation
for future thought (1980). Furthermore, ac-
tivities allowed them to see, raise, and seek
out solutions for personal and motivational
questions. Dewey believed, however, that
teaching skill for skill's sake was
"...illiberal and immoral" (1963, p. 260).
His ideas concerning skill training in educa-
tion are summarized as follows:
The educator is to engage pupils in ac-
tivities in such ways that while manual
skill and technical efficiency are
gained and immediate satisfaction found
in the work, together with preparation
for later usefulness, these things
shall be subordinated to education --
that is, to intellectual results and
the forming of a socialized disposi-
tion. (p. 197)
Dewey further commented that "...any mode of
skill which is achieved with deepening of
knowledge and perfecting of judgement is
readily put to use in new situations and is
under personal control" (p. 259).
Bruner (1966, p. 41), a supporter of
varied learning experiences, stated that
"...increasing the manipulability of a body
of knowledge" creates both a physical and
mental optimum learning structure and con-
tended that physical operations create feed-
back of learning that allow children to see
it happen. Lipson and Fischer (1983) sus-
tained this reasoning, stating "Experiences
without words are difficult to integrate, de-
scribe, and retrieve. Yet, words without ex-
perience tend to have limited meaning. The
two reinforce each other and are defined by
one another" (p.254). Martinez (1985) fur-
ther explains this in saying that a student
who is introduced to a concept such as walnut
wood will grasp a different meaning than a
student who actually uses walnut and experi-
ences its properties firsthand.
Human memory has been the basis for much
research and speculation on how information
is processed, saved, and retrieved. Re-
searchers have identified two types of
memory: short term and long term. During the
past ten years, developments in memory re-
search identified four separate memories
within the long and short term. Just as a
computer requires different microchips to
handle screen memory, printer memory, com-
puter language, and so forth, Adams (1976)
identified separate memories each for
auditory, visual, tactile, and body motor
functions. This implies that any information
that more fully utilizes all four memories
would be stronger and more easily retrieved.
Craik and Lockhart (1972) believed that mem-
ory is reliant on the depth that information
is processed by more memories and strengthens
the learning potential. In their research,
Boothby and Alverman (1984) found that visu-
als, used in conjunction with lecture mate-
rial, increased comprehension and retention
of information.
A myriad of studies were found that
dealt with the cognitive, psychomotor, and
affective domains. Many research combina-
tions concerning the three domains were lo-
cated, with the exception of those addressing
the use of psychomotor activities to increase
or enhance cognitive learning and affective
attitudes and motivation. Clark (1967)
studied physical performance as it related to
both cognitive and psychomotor learning ac-
tivities.
A review of literature revealed that
technology education has a basis in using
hands-on activities to relate concepts. Edu-
cational theorists have stated that hands-on
activities or experiences can lead to greater
cognitive gains. Previous research, however,
has not addressed the cause and effect re-
lationships between psychomotor activities
and cognitive results; therein lies the basis
of this study.
METHODOLOGY
The objective was to find out if any
measurable knowledge increases occurred when
hands-on technology-based activities were
used to supplement regular classroom presen-
tations. First, objectives and lesson plans
for two separate teaching environments were
developed by the instructor and validated by
a team of educational and technical experts.
Then, four eighth grade classes in industrial
arts and math were selected to participate,
as they were considered representative groups
of students. The students were randomly di-
vided into two groups. Duplicate enrollees
were scheduled only once, resulting in a sam-
ple of 50 of 72 possible eighth grade stu-
dents.
Two methods of instruction were used by
one instructor in teaching a 40 minute tech-
nical concept on geodesic domes to the 50
students. Group A (25 students) received in-
formation through reading and a hands-on
group assignment, while Group B (25 students)
received information through reading and an
illustrated lecture. The hands-on assignment
involved the construction of a model geodesic
dome, using straws and pipe cleaners, while
the illustrated lecture used slides and
transparencies to show examples of designs
and construction. A post-test was adminis-
tered the day following the lessons to deter-
mine cognitive gains of each group. Two
weeks after the presentations, students were
again given the post-test to measure re-
tention levels. Post-test results were com-
pared to test the hypotheses.
The testing instrument was developed us-
ing the objectives and information to be cov-
ered as guidelines for test questions. An
effort was made to avoid creating a test that
was only repetition of facts. While some
questions did require simple fact recognition
(for example: "Domes were used as early
as...") other questions required mental cal-
culations or thought (example: Which of the
following is not an advantage of using trian-
gles over rectangles?). Questions were pilot
tested by administering them to a seventh
grade reading class. A computer generated
test-item analysis was completed to identify
possible poor discriminators. A re-analysis
of those questions resulted in one item being
removed, leaving the total number of
questions at 22. A Kudar-Richardson analysis
(KR 20) calculated a coefficient of reliabil-
ity of 0.618 for the first post-test scores.
After the first post-test scores were
finalized, the average score of Group A and
Group B was calculated based on the number of
students in each group. These mean values
were compared, (using the Statworks program
for the Apple Macintosh computer,) to calcu-
late an unpaired t-test. Two weeks later,
the second post-test for each group was ad-
ministered and the results were compared us-
ing an unpaired t-test of significance. In
addition, the second post-test scores of each
group were compared with the initial post-
test scores, using a paired t-test, to spec-
ify knowledge retention for each group. The
scores were tested at the .05 level of sig-
nificance using critical values of statis-
tical results based on 48 degrees of freedom
(Hinkle, Wiersma, and Jurs, 1979).
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
Specific questions were posed to study
the effectiveness of hands-on activities ver-
sus stand-alone classroom lecture presenta-
tions. The findings are illustrated in
Tables 1 and 2.
TABLE 1
T-TEST COMPARISON OF THE MEANS FROM THE FIRST
POST-TEST, NEXT DAY
----------------------------------------------------------
Group N Mean SD DF T P
----------------------------------------------------------
A (Hands-on Assignment) 25 14.52 2.74
B (Illustrated Lecture) 25 11.88 3.02 48 3.24 .002
----------------------------------------------------------
TABLE 2
T-TEST OF MEANS OF THE SECOND POST-TEST COMPARISON,
AFTER TWO WEEKS
--------------------------------------------------
Group N Mean SD DF T P
--------------------------------------------------
A 25 13.76 2.91
B 25 11.56 3.54 48 2.40 .020
---------------------------------------------------
QUESTION #1: Is there a significant,
measurable knowledge increase when
technology-based hands-on activities are used
to supplement regular classroom presenta-
tions?
CONCLUSION: As shown in Tables 1 and 2,
Group A had a greater score on both post-
tests. From the statistical comparisons of
Group A and Group B on post-test #1, it can
be stated that there is a significant differ-
ence between learning with and without
hands-on activities. The results suggest
that organized psychomotor participation in-
creases the learning of a given technological
concept. It can be generalized that hands-on
activities are effective learning experiences
for any applicable concept.
QUESTION #2: Do hands-on activities es-
tablish greater retention of information pre-
sented?
CONCLUSION: As shown in Tables 3 and 4,
scores between post tests did not support any
significant loss of knowledge for either
Group A or Group B. It was concluded that
both teaching methods were adequate to enable
students to retain information they had
learned. Group A did lose slightly more in-
formation after two weeks, but still had sig-
nificantly more knowledge than Group B. It
can be generalized that retention abilities
are consistent for most individuals; there-
fore, if one student learns more than another
student, he/she will retain more information
over a period of time.
TABLE 3
T-TEST COMPARISON OF RETENTION, GROUP A
-------------------------------------------------
Post-test N Mean SD DF T P
-------------------------------------------------
Next day 25 14.52 2.74
After two weeks 25 13.76 2.91 24 1.58 .127
-------------------------------------------------
TABLE 4
T-TEST COMPARISON OF RETENTION, GROUP B
--------------------------------------------------
Post-test N Mean SD DF T P
--------------------------------------------------
Next day 25 11.88 3.02
After two weeks 25 11.56 3.54 24 .54 0.591
--------------------------------------------------
IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The results of this research have sig-
nificant implications for general education
and specifically technology education. The
results suggest that hands-on activities en-
hance cognitive learning. Previous studies
neglected to address psychomotor effects on
cognitive growth, even when many educational
theorists, like Dewey, supported learning us-
ing psychomotor experiences. The results
also suggest that technology education has a
strong basis in learning theory in its use of
hands-on activities to relate technological
concepts. This is done in part by improving
short and long term memory retention of in-
formation through greater use of visual,
auditory, tactile, and motor memory storage
areas of the brain.
The study is a foundation on which addi-
tional studies can construct a more concrete
platform of support for the use of hands-on
activities in all educational subject areas.
To aid further research attempts, the author
recommends:
1. other research utilizing various
technology-based hands-on activities
should be conducted to further delineate
the findings of this study;
2. research should be completed using dif-
ferent age levels (K through 12) of sub-
jects; and
3. research should be completed with regard
to levels and degree of cognitive under-
standing, for example, analysis, synthe-
sis, and evaluation.
----------------
1 Anthony Korwin is Coordinator, Industrial Cooperative
Education, East Aurora High School, Aurora, Illinois.
Ronald Jones is Professor, Department of Industrial
Technology, University of North Texas, Denton, Texas.
REFERENCES
Adams, J. A. (1976). LEARNING AND MEMORY:
AN INTRODUCTION. Homewood, IL: Dorsey
Press.
Barlow, M. (1967). HISTORY OF INDUSTRIAL
EDUCATION IN THE UNITED STATES. Peoria,
IL: Bennett.
Boothby, P. R., & Alverman, D. E. (1984). A
classroom training study: The effects of
graphic organizers instruction on fourth
grader's comprehension. READING WORLD,
23(4), 325-329.
Bruner, J. S. (1966). TOWARD A THEORY OF
INSTRUCTION. New York: Longman.
Clark, D. L. (1967). Activity and learning:
An experimental comparison to determine
the efficacy of overt versus convert ac-
tivity on the learning of an industrial
praxiological concept. DISSERTATION AB-
STRACTS INTERNATIONAL, 3549A. (University
Microfilms No. 69-2967)
Craik, F. M., & Lockhart, R. S. (1972).
Levels of processing: A framework for mem-
ory research. JOURNAL OF VERBAL LEARNING
AND VERBAL BEHAVIOR, 11, 671-684.
Dewey, J. (1963). DEMOCRACY AND EDUCATION.
New York: MacMillan.
Dewey, J. (1980). THE SCHOOL AND SOCIETY.
Carbondale, IL: SIU Press.
Hinkle, D. E., Wiersma, W., & Jurs, S. G.
(1979). APPLIED STATISTICS FOR THE BEHAV-
IORAL SCIENCES. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Lauda, D. P., & McCrory, D. L. (1986). A
rationale for technology education. In R.
E. Jones & J. R. Wright (Eds.), IMPLEMENT-
ING TECHNOLOGY EDUCATION (35th Yearbook).
American Council on Industrial Arts
Teacher Education. Bloomington, IL:
Glencoe.
Lipson, J. T., & Fisher, K. M. (1983).
Technology and the classroom: Promise or
threat? THEORY INTO PRACTICE, 22(4),
253-259.
Martin, G. E. (1985). Defining a role for
industrial arts in technology education.
JOURNAL OF EPSILON PI TAU, 11(2), 37-40.
Martinez, P. (1985). Reaction to chapter 9,
"Future research directions in psychomotor
learning and performance." In J. M.
Schemick (Ed.), PERCEPTUAL AND PSYCHOMOTOR
LEARNING IN INDUSTRIAL ARTS EDUCATION
(34th Yearbook). American Council on In-
dustrial Arts Teacher Education.
Bloomington, IL: Glencoe.
Schwebel, M. (1973). PIAGET IN THE CLASS-
ROOM. New York: Basic Books.
Permission is given to copy any
article or graphic provided credit is given and
the copies are not intended for sale.
Journal of Technology Education Volume 1, Number 2 Spring 1990
