Hands-On and Experiential Learning: A Guide for Teachers

There is a kind of lesson that looks terrific from the hallway.

Students are moving around. Materials are spread across the tables. Somebody is measuring something. Somebody else is building something. The room is noisy in what appears to be a productive way.

It certainly looks like learning.

Maybe it is.

Hands-on learning can be extremely useful. So can experiments, simulations, field experiences, projects, models, role-playing, investigations, and other forms of experiential learning.

But activity and learning are not the same thing.

Students can spend 45 minutes cutting, gluing, building, sorting, traveling, measuring, or manipulating materials without thinking very deeply about the thing we hoped they would learn.

That is probably the most important place to begin.

The goal of hands-on learning is not to keep students’ hands busy.

The goal is to give students an experience that helps them think.

What Is Hands-On Learning?

Hands-on learning usually refers to instruction in which students actively manipulate materials, perform a process, investigate something, construct something, or otherwise interact physically with what they are learning.

Examples might include:

conducting a science experiment;
using fraction tiles to compare fractions;
building and testing a simple structure;
sorting objects according to observable properties;
measuring the classroom to calculate area;
creating a model;
using manipulatives to represent a mathematical relationship;
taking apart an object to examine how it works;
or collecting observations outdoors.

There is nothing magical about touching materials, though.

A student can move fraction pieces around randomly and learn very little.

A student can follow the directions for an experiment perfectly and have no idea why the result occurred.

A student can build an impressive model while misunderstanding the concept the model is supposed to represent.

The hands-on part creates an opportunity.

The thinking is what turns the opportunity into learning.

What Is Experiential Learning?

Experiential learning is broader.

Students learn through an experience and then make something intellectually useful out of that experience.

The experience might involve doing something physically, but it doesn’t have to.

A simulation can be experiential.

So can interviewing someone, analyzing a real case, participating in a mock trial, conducting fieldwork, observing a community problem, running a classroom business, performing a piece of music, or working through a realistic professional scenario.

One influential framework associated with David Kolb describes experiential learning as a cycle involving concrete experience, reflection, conceptualization, and further experimentation or application.

In plain English:

Do something.

Think about what happened.

Figure out what it means.

Use what you learned the next time.

That reflection-and-application piece is important.

Going somewhere is not automatically experiential learning.

Neither is building something.

Neither is doing an experiment.

The experience has to connect back to the learning.

Hands-On and Experiential Learning Are Related, but They Aren’t Identical

The terms are often used together because there is plenty of overlap.

A science investigation can be both hands-on and experiential.

Students manipulate materials, observe results, interpret what happened, develop an explanation, and perhaps use that explanation to make another prediction.

But consider a virtual courtroom simulation.

Students may not manipulate many physical objects at all. Yet they may assume roles, examine evidence, make arguments, respond to opposing claims, reflect on what happened, and apply ideas about law or government.

That can be experiential without being especially hands-on.

Or consider students assembling a model from step-by-step instructions.

That is certainly hands-on.

But if the activity requires almost no decision-making, explanation, reflection, or application, the learning experience may be fairly shallow.

I would worry less about which label fits and more about the question:

What thinking is this experience asking students to do?

Start With the Learning Goal, Not the Activity

Hands-on lessons are tempting to plan backward.

You find a neat experiment.

You see an interesting project online.

Someone gives you a box of materials.

You think, “The kids would love this.”

Maybe they would.

The next question should be:

What would they learn from it?

This is where ordinary lesson planning still matters.

Suppose students are studying erosion.

You could have them pour water over trays containing different types of soil.

That sounds suitably hands-on.

But what is the learning goal?

Are students supposed to:

recognize that moving water changes land?
compare rates of erosion?
identify variables?
collect and interpret data?
design a method for reducing erosion?
develop an explanation based on evidence?

Those are different goals.

The same materials could support several of them, but the questions, directions, observations, and follow-up work would need to change.

The activity should serve the learning goal.

Not the other way around.

Make Sure Students Have Something to Figure Out

Some hands-on activities are really elaborate demonstrations in which students happen to be holding the materials.

Every step is prescribed.

Every observation is predicted.

Every answer is practically contained in the directions.

Students complete the procedure successfully, but there isn’t much left for them to think about.

Sometimes that is appropriate.

If students are learning a new laboratory technique or safety procedure, tightly guided practice makes sense.

But when the goal is reasoning, investigation, or problem solving, leave some thinking for the students.

Instead of giving every step, perhaps give them a question.

Instead of telling them exactly what will happen, ask them to predict.

Instead of identifying every important observation, ask what they noticed.

Instead of immediately explaining a surprising result, ask what could account for it.

This overlaps naturally with inquiry-based learning. Inquiry does not mean turning students loose with materials and hoping curiosity handles the rest. It means structuring opportunities for students to ask questions, investigate, use evidence, and develop explanations.

Good hands-on learning often needs both freedom and structure.

Too much structure and students merely follow directions.

Too little and they may spend a lot of time discovering that rubber bands can be launched across the room.

Ask Students to Predict Before They Do

One simple way to increase the thinking in a hands-on activity is to ask for a prediction first.

What do you expect to happen?

Why?

What evidence or prior knowledge supports that prediction?

Then do the activity.

Now the result has something to collide with.

If the prediction was correct, students can examine why.

If it was wrong, even better.

A surprising result creates a reason to rethink the original idea.

This works in more places than science.

Before measuring the room, estimate its dimensions.

Before testing a structure, predict where it will fail.

Before acting out a historical decision, predict the consequences of each choice.

Before using manipulatives to solve a math problem, estimate the answer.

Prediction turns “Let’s see what happens” into “Let’s test what we think.”

That is a small change, but it can make an activity much more intellectually useful.

Build Reflection Into the Experience

This is probably the biggest difference between simply having an experience and learning from one.

After the activity, stop.

Ask what happened.

Then ask why it matters.

Students might respond to questions such as:

What did you notice?
What surprised you?
What changed?
What stayed the same?
What evidence supports your conclusion?
Where did your prediction go wrong?
What would you do differently?
What pattern do you see?
How does this connect to what we learned earlier?
What general rule might explain what happened?
Where else could this idea apply?

Reflection does not have to become a five-paragraph essay every time somebody touches a ruler.

Sometimes three good questions are enough.

Students might discuss them with partners.

They might write a short response.

You might conduct a whole-class debrief.

They could annotate their results or revise an earlier explanation.

What matters is creating a bridge between the experience and the idea.

Without that bridge, students may remember the activity and forget the learning.

Don’t Assume Engagement Means Understanding

Hands-on lessons often have a major advantage: students may genuinely enjoy them.

That’s useful.

Attention matters.

Interest matters.

Motivation matters.

But enjoyment isn’t evidence that students understood the concept.

You have probably seen activities students remember for years while being a little fuzzy on what they were supposed to learn from them.

“The baking soda exploded everywhere!”

Excellent.

What did we learn?

That question still needs an answer.

So build some form of assessment into the experience.

You might ask students to:

explain what happened;
draw and label a model;
use evidence to support a conclusion;
solve a related problem;
compare the result with their prediction;
demonstrate the process independently;
apply the idea to a new situation;
or complete a short exit ticket.

This is where alternative assessment can be especially useful. If the learning goal involves performing, designing, investigating, explaining, or applying something, it may make sense to assess students partly through those same actions.

The product alone is not always enough, though.

A beautiful model can still contain bad science.

A successful group structure may have been designed almost entirely by one student.

An impressive presentation may conceal weak understanding.

Assess the learning you actually care about.

Use Questions to Keep the Thinking With the Students

Hands-on activities create a temptation for teachers too.

A student gets stuck.

We know exactly what needs to happen next.

So we tell them.

Problem solved.

Unfortunately, we may also have solved the interesting part of the task.

Sometimes a question is more useful.

“What have you tried?”

“What do you notice?”

“Which part isn’t working?”

“What evidence do you have?”

“What changed from the first attempt?”

“What could you change without changing everything else?”

“How could you test that idea?”

Good questioning techniques can keep students moving without taking all of the thinking away from them.

There is a balance here.

Letting students remain hopelessly confused for 20 minutes isn’t some noble act of educational purity.

Support them.

But whenever possible, give enough support to restart the thinking rather than enough to finish it for them.

Hands-On Learning in Math

Math manipulatives are probably one of the clearest examples of why hands-on does not automatically equal understanding.

Base-ten blocks, fraction strips, algebra tiles, number lines, counters, and geometric models can make relationships visible.

That can be extremely useful.

But eventually students need to connect the object to the mathematics it represents.

Suppose students use fraction strips to see that 2/4 and 1/2 cover the same amount.

Good.

Now ask:

Why are they equivalent?

How could you show the same relationship without the strips?

Would 3/6 work? What about 5/10?

How could you determine whether two other fractions are equivalent?

The manipulatives helped make the relationship visible.

The goal is not lifelong dependence on the manipulatives.

The goal is understanding the relationship.

Concrete representations are often a bridge.

Make sure students cross it.

For a fuller treatment of how manipulatives, diagrams, mathematical language, and notation can work together, see this practical guide to math teaching strategies.

Hands-On Learning in Science

Science seems like the natural home of hands-on learning, but it is also a place where “doing science” can quietly turn into following a recipe.

Students should certainly learn procedures.

But science learning becomes richer when students also have to reason from evidence.

An investigation might ask students to:

make a prediction;
identify what should be observed or measured;
conduct the investigation;
record results;
identify patterns;
explain the results;
consider other explanations;
and decide what could be tested next.

That turns the experiment from an event into an argument based on evidence.

It also creates natural opportunities for critical thinking.

The most educationally interesting moment may be when the results don’t match what everybody expected.

Hands-On and Experiential Learning in Social Studies

Social studies does not usually have tubs of manipulatives lying around, but experiential learning can still fit naturally.

Students might:

examine reproductions of primary-source documents;
participate in a structured simulation;
conduct an oral-history interview;
analyze competing accounts of the same event;
map a local issue;
participate in a mock legislative process;
examine artifacts;
or make a recommendation about a real community problem.

The caution with simulations is important.

Historical events involved real people and sometimes violence, oppression, trauma, or profound injustice.

Not everything should be turned into a game or role-play.

A simulation should illuminate the content rather than trivialize it.

When it fits, though, having students make decisions with incomplete information can help them understand why historical choices were more complicated than they appear after we already know how everything turned out.

Experiential Learning in Language Arts

Reading and writing may not seem “hands-on,” but they can become highly experiential.

Students can:

write for an actual audience;
interview people and turn the material into an article;
perform a scene and then analyze how interpretation affected meaning;
create arguments around authentic issues;
conduct research for a real purpose;
participate in peer workshops;
produce a class publication;
or adapt a piece of writing for different audiences.

The experience gives the literacy work a purpose beyond turning something in.

Again, authenticity does not automatically make an assignment good.

The learning goal still matters.

A fancy podcast is not a better writing assignment if students spend six hours choosing music and 20 minutes thinking about the writing.

Field Trips Are Not the Only Experiential Learning

The old stereotype of experiential learning involves getting on a bus.

Field trips can be terrific.

They can also involve permission slips, money, transportation, scheduling, lunches, staffing, weather, and the mysterious ability of one missing form to consume half your morning.

Fortunately, experiential learning does not require leaving school.

You can bring authentic experiences into the classroom through:

guest speakers;
interviews;
local data;
case studies;
simulations;
authentic documents;
community problems;
virtual visits;
correspondence with experts;
school-based investigations;
or problems drawn from students’ surroundings.

A math class could analyze actual school energy use.

Students studying persuasive writing could create materials for a real school event.

Science students could collect local weather or environmental data.

Social studies students could investigate a local planning decision.

The “real world” begins considerably closer than the nearest museum.

Maker Spaces Can Be Useful—But Tinkering Needs a Purpose

Maker spaces can support excellent hands-on learning.

They can give students access to materials and tools for designing, building, testing, revising, and solving problems.

But a maker space is a location.

It is not an instructional strategy by itself.

Putting cardboard, tape, electronics, craft supplies, and a 3D printer into a room does not automatically produce meaningful learning.

The useful questions are still the same:

What are students trying to understand?

What problem are they solving?

What decisions must they make?

What constraints are they working within?

What evidence will show that their design works?

What will they do after it fails?

And something will fail.

That is often where the interesting learning starts.

Projects Can Be Experiential Without Becoming Enormous

Project-based learning also fits naturally with experiential learning because students can apply knowledge over time to a meaningful question, problem, or product.

But not every hands-on lesson needs to become a six-week project.

Sometimes a 25-minute design challenge is enough.

Sometimes a two-day investigation is enough.

Sometimes students simply need to manipulate three examples, notice a pattern, discuss it, and move on.

The scale should fit the learning.

Large projects create additional demands involving time, group work, materials, assessment, and organization.

Use them when the depth justifies the cost.

Not because “project” automatically sounds better than “lesson.”

Plan for the Messy Practical Stuff

Hands-on learning has an annoying habit of involving actual hands.

And actual materials.

And actual students.

So logistics matter.

Before the lesson, think about:

where materials will be;
how students will get them;
what needs to be prepared ahead of time;
safety concerns;
cleanup;
movement around the room;
group size;
what each student will be responsible for;
what happens if materials break or run out;
and how students will know when to stop.

A brilliant activity that requires 18 minutes to distribute and 16 minutes to clean up may not be quite as brilliant as it looked online.

Sometimes the instructional improvement is surprisingly mundane.

Put materials into trays beforehand.

Assign one person to collect them.

Display the steps.

Set a timer.

Practice the cleanup routine.

Good classroom routines don’t make experiential learning less creative.

They create more time for the creative part.

Make Sure Every Student Has Access to the Learning

Hands-on does not automatically mean accessible.

A physical task may create barriers for a student with a disability.

A complicated set of verbal directions may disadvantage a multilingual learner even when the underlying activity is perfectly understandable.

Fine-motor demands may interfere with a task that is actually supposed to measure scientific reasoning.

Group roles may allow one student to do all of the interesting work while everyone else watches.

This is where differentiated instruction and thoughtful scaffolding matter.

Ask which parts of the experience are essential to the learning goal and which are simply features of the activity.

If building the model is the skill being learned, then building matters.

If the goal is explaining the relationship represented by the model, there may be more than one reasonable way for a student to demonstrate that understanding.

And no, we do not need to call one child a “kinesthetic learner” to justify using hands-on instruction.

Students can have preferences, but research does not support the idea that they learn better when instruction is matched to fixed visual, auditory, or kinesthetic learning-style labels.

Use hands-on learning because the content and task benefit from it, not because a label supposedly requires it.

Reflection Does Not Have to Be Complicated

Teachers sometimes hear “reflection” and imagine another worksheet.

It doesn’t have to be.

Reflection could be:

“Turn to your partner and explain why your design failed.”

“Write the most important thing you noticed.”

“Draw what happened and label the part you didn’t expect.”

“Which decision would you change next time?”

“What evidence changed your mind?”

“How is this example connected to the rule we learned yesterday?”

Three thoughtful minutes can accomplish more than a page of generic reflection questions.

The purpose is to help students convert an experience into something they can understand and use again.

The Real Test Is Transfer

A student successfully completes the hands-on activity.

Great.

Now change something.

Can the student use the idea again?

If students built one circuit successfully, can they troubleshoot a different circuit?

If they used fraction strips to compare fractions, can they compare new fractions without being led through exactly the same process?

If they designed a structure under one set of constraints, what happens when the constraints change?

If they learned something during a simulation, can they use the underlying principle to analyze a new situation?

Transfer tells us whether the learning escaped from the activity.

Otherwise, students may have learned how to complete that activity.

Those are not necessarily the same thing.

A Simple Planning Framework for Hands-On and Experiential Learning

Before using an activity, experiment, simulation, project, field experience, or other learning-by-doing approach, ask:

What is the learning goal?

What should students understand or be able to do?

Why does an experience help?

What does doing, seeing, manipulating, investigating, performing, or applying make possible that another approach would not?

What thinking will students have to do?

Predict?

Compare?

Design?

Explain?

Analyze evidence?

Make a decision?

Solve a problem?

What support will students need?

Vocabulary?

Background knowledge?

Modeling?

Materials?

Roles?

A worked example?

Safety instructions?

How will I know what students are thinking?

Questions?

Observations?

Student explanations?

Written work?

A product?

A demonstration?

Where will reflection happen?

How will students connect the experience to the concept?

Can students apply the learning somewhere else?

What new example, problem, or context will show whether the learning transfers?

If you can answer those questions, you probably have more than an interesting activity.

You have a lesson.

Learning by Doing Needs the Learning Part

Hands-on and experiential learning can make abstract ideas visible.

It can give students something real to investigate.

It can create reasons to ask questions.

It can give knowledge a purpose.

It can let students test an idea rather than simply hear about it.

Active-learning research, particularly in postsecondary STEM, provides strong evidence that well-designed active participation can improve learning compared with lecture-only instruction, although that evidence should not be stretched into a claim that every hands-on activity works in every classroom.

The important phrase there is well-designed.

Students moving is not enough.

Students touching materials is not enough.

Students having fun is not enough.

Even students successfully completing the activity is not necessarily enough.

What did they notice?

What did they think?

What did the experience help them understand?

What can they do now that they couldn’t do before?

And can they use that learning again when the cardboard, test tubes, fraction tiles, field trip, simulation, or whatever else made the lesson memorable is gone?

That is when learning by doing becomes something more than doing.