147

Indonesian Journal of Teaching in Science 1(2) (2021) 147-152

Indonesian Journal of
IJOTIS
Teaching in Science
Journal homepage: http://ejournal.upi.edu/index.php/ IJOTIS/

Students’ Learning Experiences and Preference in

Performing Science Experiments Using Hands-on and
Virtual Laboratory
John Marc S. Bugarso, Ramel E. Cabantugan, Que-ann D. Tapiculin*, Amera C. Malaco

Sultan Kudarat State University-Student, the Philippines

Correspondence: E-mail: [email protected]

ABSTRACTS ARTICLE INFO

This study investigated the hands-on and virtual laboratory Article History:
Received 20 Sep 2021
learning experiences and laboratory preference of 91 Revised 18 Oct 2021
students in performing science experiments. This study Accepted 27 Nov 2021
utilized a descriptive-correlation research design. The study Available online 07 Dec 2021
revealed that students had positive learning experiences ____________________
Keyword:
towards hands-on laboratory in terms of thinking, Hands-on laboratory,
understanding, performing, and reasoning than in the virtual Learning experiences,
laboratory. Moreover, most of them highly preferred hands- Learning preference,
Science experiments,
on laboratories in terms of learning environment, motivation Virtual laboratory.
and enjoyment, stimulation of active learning, comfort, and
convenience. The students’ preferences in the different
laboratory settings were significantly different. Hence, there
was a moderate correlation between students’ learning
experiences and their laboratory preference in the hands-on
laboratory. Meanwhile, there was a strong correlation
between these two variables in a virtual laboratory. It is
recommended to the educational institutions to enhance
and strengthen their supports through providing complete
laboratory facilities to the schools. Additionally, the teachers
should continuously integrate laboratories to support the
theoretical understanding of students in various science
lessons. Importantly, the teachers and students should be
innovative in performing experiments especially due to the
limited instructional resources in this time of new normal.
© 2021 Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia
 Bugarso et al., Students’ Learning Experiences and Preference in … | 148

1. INTRODUCTION

Laboratory experiments have been part of science education for more than a century, and
are considered as an essential component of science teaching (Isozaki, 2017). In the present
time, laboratory experiments continue to play a substantial role in supporting scientific
learning to students by obtaining practical skills through experiments (Aljuhani et al., 2018).
It offers conceptual and theoretical knowledge to learn scientific concepts and methods in
the nature of science (Ottander and Grelsson, 2006). On the other hand, laboratory
experiences provide opportunities for students to express themselves explicitly with the
material world utilizing instruments, data processing methods, models, and science theories.
Over the years, laboratory experiences are constantly changing and this affects the
students' perceptions towards performing laboratory experiments. The traditional laboratory
is the first known type of laboratory setting that has been widely used particularly in science
education until it was equipped with technological tools resulting in the development of an
accessible virtual laboratory. In a traditional laboratory setting, it involves experiments
dealing with hands-on experiments that incorporate physical laboratory equipment in
integrating scientific phenomena.
However, with the recent advancement in information technology, science education in
the 21st century was also integrated with various technological innovations. Science
instructors have a positive impression of technologies as teaching tools. Moreover, in another
context, it was suggested among other things, that primary school teachers adopt the habit
of utilizing a mobile application to teach their students to improve teaching and learning in
Nigerian primary schools (Omolafe, 2021). These innovations lead us to the creation of virtual
laboratories which provide simulated versions of traditional laboratories with objects that are
virtual representations of real objects (Ayoubi and Faour, 2017). Pupils viewed and took direct
measurements through virtual laboratory media, allowing the material offered to be easily
grasped by students. Based on the findings, distance learning via virtual laboratory media
could be one approach for implementing learning such that the spirit of learning is maintained
even when learning is done remotely (Azizah et al., 2021). Thus, some educational institutions
are now equipping their learners with this type of laboratory setting which fulfills the lacking
in the traditional laboratory. Concerning this, teachers are now using virtual laboratories to
support the students' theoretical understanding of science concepts. After they were exposed
to this new type of laboratory, students perceived that it is “stimulating” and “satisfying”
compared to traditional labs (Chan and Fok, 2009). In the Philippines, the common problem
of many schools is that they do not have the essential equipment in their science laboratories.
This result is to limit the student to perform a simple laboratory activity. In addition, due to
lack of laboratory or insufficient instruments hands-on is rarely performed, instead, virtual
labs are explored (Tüysüz, 2010).
Concerning the aforementioned studies, the researchers formulated a study that aimed to
determine the learning experiences and laboratory preference of BSEd major in Science
students in performing science experiments using hands-on and virtual laboratories. Also, to
determine if there is a significant difference in their preference in both laboratory settings.
Lastly, to determine the relationships of the variables. The results of this study provide a
supplemental discovery to the basic and higher education teaching, particularly in science
education.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10. 17509/xxxx.xxxx

p- ISSN 2776-6101 e- ISSN 2776-6152
149 | Indonesian Journal of Teaching in Science, Volume 1 Issue 2 September 2021 Hal 147-152

2. METHODS

Descriptive-correlation design and purposive sampling were used in this study. The
sampling focuses on one particular subgroup in which all the sample members are similar,
such as students who should have experience utilizing both hands-on and virtual laboratories
during their Science (biology, chemistry, and physics) experiments. It involved the purposively
selected 91 Bachelor of Secondary Education major in Science students. Specifically, there
were 19 first-year students, 34 second-year students, and 38 third-year students of the
College of Teacher Education in Sultan Kudarat State University for Academic Year 2020-2021.
The researchers designed two (2) sets of 5-point Likert’s scale survey questionnaires
composed of 88 questions. The first set of the survey questionnaire consists of 40 items
referring to the learning experiences of the student in performing hands-on laboratory and
virtual laboratory experiments. On the second set, the 48 items refer to the students’
laboratory preference in conducting the laboratory experiments. In this setting, the
researchers administered an online survey through Google Form to its respondents to gather
the data needed.
Frequency counts, percentages, means, overall mean and standard deviation were the
statistical tools used in analyzing the students’ learning experiences of Science students in
hands-on and virtual laboratories. The Pearson’s r correlation was used in analyzing the
correlations between the variables of the study. Then, Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for
regression and t-test for significant differences of correlated samples were used.
3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
3.1. Presentation of the significant difference in students’ laboratory preference
The Significant difference in students’ laboratory preference is shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Significant difference in students’ laboratory preferences.
Group N Mean Sd df t p Interpretation

Hands-on 91 4.01 0.43

180 10.75 0.00001 Significant*
Virtual 91 3.20 0.57

Note: n – number of respondents, sd – standard deviation, t – t-value, p – significance value

Independent samples t-test was conducted to determine the significant difference in

students' laboratory preference on two different laboratory settings; hands-on and virtual
laboratory. It is evident in table 1 that based on the perceived learning experiences of BSEd
Science major students the result shows that there is a significant difference between the two
laboratory settings in terms of their laboratory preference. This interpretation was taken from
the computed value of p (0.00001) which is lesser than 0.05 probability value from t =10.75
and the degree of freedom of 180 in scores for Hands-on laboratory (M=4.01, SD=0.43) and
Virtual Laboratory (M=3.20, SD=0.57). Consequently, these values and interpretations
rejected the first hypothesis; there is no significant difference between a hands-on and virtual
laboratory in terms of students’ laboratory preference in performing science experiments.
Hence, it cannot be assumed that the two variables are equal.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17509/xxxx.xxxx
p- ISSN 2776-6101 e- ISSN 2776-6152
 Bugarso et al., Students’ Learning Experiences and Preference in … | 150

3.2 Correlation of students’ learning experiences and their laboratory preference in the
hands-on laboratory.
The result of the test of correlation between the learning experiences of the students and
their laboratory preference towards performing hands-on and virtual laboratory experiments
is shown in Table 2.
Table 2. Correlation of students’ learning experiences and their laboratory preference in the
hands-on laboratory.
Group F Df p R Interpretation

Moderate or substantial
Learning experience x
20.57 90 0.00002 0.43 correlation/positive
preference (Hands-on)
relationship/ significant*

*at .05 level of significance

Note: F – F-test value, df – degrees of freedom, p – probability value, R – Pearson’s R-value

3.3. Correlation of students’ learning experiences and their laboratory preference in a

virtual laboratory.
The result in table 3 reveals that the correlation is moderate or substantial since the
computed r-value is +0.43. According to Ratner (2009), this r value belongs to the range
between ± 0.41 to ± 0.70 which is interpreted as a “Moderate or substantial correlation”.
Results of ANOVA showed a significant difference between the learning experience and
preference in the hands-on laboratory of the students; F (1, 89) =20.57, p<0.001. Thus, the
learning experience and preference in hands-on laboratories are significantly different from
each other. The null hypothesis that there is no significant difference between the two
variables mentioned attained would be rejected.
Table 3. Correlation of students’ learning experiences and their laboratory preference on
Virtual laboratory.
Group F Df p R Interpretation

Strong or high correlation/

Learning experience x
127.13 90 < 0.00001 0.77 positive relationship/
preference (virtual)
significant*

*at .05 level of significance

Note: F – F-test value, df – degrees of freedom, p – probability value, R – Pearson’s R-value
Therefore, that the students’ learning experiences in the hands-on laboratory are
significantly correlated to their preference in terms of the learning environment, motivation,
cognitive, skills processes they can acquire. The result was supported by the findings of Tüysüz
(2010), where he found out that there is a significant relationship between the learning
experiences of students in perceiving knowledge towards performing science experiment and
their preference in performing hands-on laboratory experiments. Also, his study suggested
that there is a statistically significant relationship with the attitude of the students when
performing experiments in hands-on laboratory settings. Additionally, the findings of Pyatt
and Sims (2012), also support the results that there is a significant relationship on the
learner’s performance using expository/hands-on laboratory to their laboratory preference,
which students indicated between the scales of often and sometimes. Moreover, they also

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10. 17509/xxxx.xxxx

p- ISSN 2776-6101 e- ISSN 2776-6152
151 | Indonesian Journal of Teaching in Science, Volume 1 Issue 2 September 2021 Hal 147-152

concluded that there is a significant relationship between students’ attitudes as

consequences of their learning experiences and preference towards performing in an
expository/hands-on laboratory.
4. CONCLUSION

Hands-on and virtual laboratories are learning environments that are viewed by the
students differently. Based on the results, the students were confident that they learned
things in a hands-on laboratory. It includes the skills, process, concept, and knowledge of
Science in doing an experiment. Moreover, students were agreed that they can also learn
these in a virtual laboratory. Therefore, hands-on laboratory and virtual was viewed by the
students as a good learning environment in which they acquire various knowledge, skills,
understanding, and process. In terms of preference, a hands-on laboratory is highly preferred
than a virtual laboratory since it gives the students the different satisfaction that stimulates
their learning that this setting provides.
Thus, there is a significant difference in students’ preference in both hands-on and virtual
laboratories. It was also revealed that the learning experiences of the students are
moderately correlated to their laboratory preference in the hands-on laboratory, while it is
strongly correlated in the virtual laboratory. Therefore, there is a significant relationship
between the learning experience and laboratory preference in both laboratory settings.
5. ACKNOWLEDGMENT

We would like to express their warmest and deepest gratitude to the ASEAN Symposium
for Science, Engineering, Economic, and Education (ASSEEE) for this wonderful opportunity to
showcase this significant study that will give a contribution to the development of science
education in the 21st-century learning not only in Southeast Asia but in other regions around
the globe.
6. AUTHORS’ NOTE

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest regarding the publication of this
article. Authors confirmed that the paper was free of plagiarism.
7. REFERENCES

Abou Faour, M., and Ayoubi, Z. (2017). The effect of using virtual laboratory on grade 10
students’ conceptual understanding and their attitudes towards physics. Journal Of
Education in Science Environment and Health (JESEH), 4(1), 54-68.
Aljuhani, K., Sonbul, M., Althabiti, M., and Meccawy, M. (2018). Creating a Virtual Science Lab
(VSL): the adoption of virtual labs in Saudi schools. Smart Learning Environments, 5(1),
1-13.
Azizah, E. V., Nandiyanto, A. B. D., Kurniawan, T., and Bilad, M. R. (2021) The effectiveness of
using a virtual laboratory in distance learning on the measurement materials of the
natural sciences of physics for junior high school students. ASEAN Journal of Science and
Engineering Education, 1(3), 175-182.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17509/xxxx.xxxx
p- ISSN 2776-6101 e- ISSN 2776-6152
 Bugarso et al., Students’ Learning Experiences and Preference in … | 152

Chan, C., and Fok, W. (2009). Evaluating learning experiences in virtual laboratory training
through student perceptions: a case study in Electrical and Electronic Engineering at the
University of Hong Kong. Engineering Education, 4(2), 70-75.
Isozaki, T. (2017). Laboratory work as a teaching method: A historical case study of the
institutionalization of laboratory science in Japan. Espacio, Tiempo y Educación, 4(2),
101-120.
Omolafe, E. V. (2021). Primary educators experts’ validation of the developed mathematics
mobile application to enhance the teaching of mathematics in Nigeria primary
schools. ASEAN Journal of Science and Engineering Education, 1(3), 157-166.
Ottander, C., and Grelsson, G. (2006). Laboratory work: the teachers' perspective. Journal of
Biological Education, 40(3), 113-118.
Pyatt, K., and Sims, R. (2012). Virtual and physical experimentation in inquiry-based science
labs: Attitudes, performance and access. Journal of Science Education and
Technology, 21(1), 133-147.
Ratner, B. (2009). The correlation coefficient: Its values range between+ 1/− 1, or do they?.
Journal of Targeting, Measurement and Analysis for Marketing, 17, (2), 139-142.
Tüysüz, C. (2010). The effect of the virtual laboratory on students' achievement and attitude
in chemistry. International Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 2(1), 37-53.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10. 17509/xxxx.xxxx

p- ISSN 2776-6101 e- ISSN 2776-6152