EVALUATING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF VIRTUAL, BLENDED AND REAL LABORATORIES IN ENHANCING STUDENTS ' PERFORMANCE, PROFICIENCY AND CONFIDENCE WITH SCIENTIFIC INSTRUMENTS IN REAL CHEMISTRY PRACTICAL
Main Article Content
Abstract
This study investigated the effectiveness of virtual laboratory, blended laboratory, and real laboratory approaches in enhancing students' proficiency, performance, and confidence levels in chemistry practical. The study aimed to determine the impact of these approaches on students' learning outcomes and identify the most effective method for teaching Chemistry Practical. The study adopted a non-equivalent pre-test, post-test, and control group quasi-experimental design. The population consisted of all Secondary School Two (SSII) Chemistry students in Ondo State, with a sample of 42 students selected using a multi-stage sampling procedure. The students were assigned to two experimental groups (Virtual Laboratory and Blended) and a control group (Real Laboratory). The study employed three research instruments: the Titration Laboratory Instrument Proficiency Assessment (TLIPA), Chemistry Practical Performance Test (CPPT), and Chemistry Students’ Confidence Questionnaire (CSCQ). Experts validated the instruments, and their reliability was determined using Cronbach's Alpha for TLIPA (0.69) and CSCQ (0.72), and Pearson Product-Moment Correlation (PPMC) for CPPT (0.79). The findings revealed that students in the Blended Laboratory group achieved the highest proficiency level (x¯ = 22.8333), performance (x¯ = 23.6667), and confidence level (x¯ = 23.4167). The ANOVA results indicated a significant difference in students' proficiency levels (F = 67.136, p < .000), performance (F = 67.136, p < .000), and confidence levels (F = 73.134, p < .000) when exposed to different laboratory activities. The study concluded that Blended Laboratory activities are the most effective approach to enhancing students' proficiency, performance, and confidence levels in chemistry practical. Based on the findings, it was recommended that educators and policymakers incorporate Blended Laboratory activities into chemistry curricula to improve students' learning outcomes.
Downloads
Article Details
Section
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
How to Cite
References
Afolabi, F. (2018). Challenges of teaching and learning chemistry in secondary schools in Nigeria. Journal of Education and Practice, 9(10), 1–9.
Agustina, R., Baila, J., & Pense, B. (2022). The effect of combining a real and virtual laboratory on students' understanding of acid-base titration. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 2116(1), 012023.
Ajayi, T. A., & Olayemi, M. O. (2025). Comparative effects of virtual and physical laboratory practical activities on secondary school students’ achievement in chemistry. Trends in Educational Studies Journal, 17(1).
Akuma, F. V., & Callaghan, R. (2019). A systematic review of factors influencing students' engagement with school science practical activities. International Journal of Science Education, 41(1), 45–67.
Al-Mansoori, A. (2020). Science practical work and its impact on students’ science achievement. ERIC. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1272657.pdf
Babalola, O. A., & Obomanu, B. J. (2018). Laboratory Skills and Titration Performance Test in Acid-base Titration: A Reliability and Validity Study. Journal of Education and Practice, 9(10), 1–9.
Bakas, C., & Mikropoulos, T. A. (2022). The effectiveness of virtual laboratories in science teaching: A meta-analysis. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 31(4), 456–472. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-022-09945-3
Brinson, J. R. (2019). Learning outcome achievement in non-traditional (virtual and remote) versus traditional (hands-on) laboratories: A review of the empirical research. Computers & Education, 131, 218–232.
Chiu, M. H., & Wu, H. K. (2020). Investigating the effects of online quizzes on students' learning outcomes in a chemistry laboratory course. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 29(1), 137–148.
Christian, G. D., Dasgupta, P. K., & Schug, K. A. (2013). Analytical chemistry. John Wiley & Sons.
Corter, J. E., Nickerson, J. V., Esche, S. K., Chassapis, C., Im, S., & Ma, J. (2022). Constructing reality: A study of remote, hands-on, and simulated laboratories. Stevens Institute of Technology. Retrieved from Stevens Research.
de Jong, T., Linn, M. C., & Zacharia, Z. C. (2013). Physical and virtual laboratories in science and engineering education. Science, 340(6130), 305–308.
Ezeh, C. (2020). Safety concerns in chemistry laboratories: A review. Journal of Chemical Education, 97(10), 3421–3434.
Harris, D. C. (2019). Quantitative chemical analysis. W.H. Freeman and Company.
Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. N. (2004). The laboratory in science education: Foundations for the twenty-first century. Science Education, 88(1), 28–54.
Hsieh, L. T., & Lee, W. J. (2018). Characterisation of the air quality index for Wuhu and Bengbu cities, China. Aerosol and Air Quality Research, 18(5), 1198–1220. https://doi.org/10.4209/aaqr.2018.04.0135
Kang, J., & Keinonen, T. (2017). The effect of inquiry-based learning on students’ scientific literacy and attitudes toward science: A meta-analysis. International Journal of Science Education, 39(17), 2343–2361.
Khan, S. (2021). Virtual laboratories: A new era in science education. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 30(1), 1–13.
Laitinen, H. A., & Harris, W. E. (2018). Chemical analysis. Springer.
Luo, T., Liu, G., & Li, M. (2022). The effect of virtual laboratory on students' understanding of complex concepts in chemistry. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 31(1), 1–15.
Miller, J. N., & Miller, J. C. (2018). Statistics and chemometrics for analytical chemistry. Pearson Education.
Nedic, Z., Machotka, J., & Nafalski, A. (2022). Recent developments in the remote laboratory NetLab. University of South Australia. Retrieved from ResearchGate.
Ogunleye, B. O. (2019). Strategies for reducing science learning difficulties at lower educational levels and promoting effective science education in Nigeria. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/337567129
Okon, E. E., & Adeyemi, S. A. (2025). Effectiveness of hands-on practical activities in teaching and learning chemistry in Nigerian secondary schools. African Journal of Educational Studies in Mathematics and Sciences, 23(1). https://www.ajol.info/index.php/ajesms/article/download/261605/246948
Pyatt, K., & Sims, E. (2017). Virtual and physical experimentation in inquiry-based science laboratories: Attitudes and performance. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 26(1), 71–85. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2017.1382012
Ruiz, J. G., Mintzer, M. J., & Leipzig, R. M. (2006). The impact of e-learning in medical education. Academic Medicine, 81(3), 207–212. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-200603000-00002
Saputra, H., & Irwanto, I. (2020). The effect of virtual laboratory on students' understanding of acid-base titration. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1460(1), 012034.
Scheckler, R. K. (2003). Virtual labs: A substitute for traditional labs? International Journal of Developmental Biology, 47(2–3), 231–236. https://doi.org/10.1387/ijdb.031452rs
Skoog, D. A., West, D. M., Holler, F. J., & Crouch, S. R. (2017). Fundamentals of analytical chemistry. Cengage Learning.
Snyder, L. R., Kirkland, J. J., & Dolan, J. W. (2017). Introduction to modern liquid chromatography. John Wiley & Sons.
Tuysuz, M., Tarkin Çelikkiran, A., & Ekiz-Kıran, B. (2020). Providing a set of research-based practices to support preservice teachers’ long-term professional development. Van Yüzüncü Yıl University.
Idiyatmoko, A., et al. (2021). The effectiveness of real laboratory experiences on students' understanding of chemistry concepts. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 30(2), 249–260.
Wu, H. K., & Chiu, M. H. (2021). Investigating the effects of simulation-based learning on students' learning outcomes in a chemistry laboratory course. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 30(1), 53–64.