Face-To-Face Laboratory Experiments Versus E-Laboratory Experiments on Developing Students’ Basic Science Process Skills and Interest Towards Learning Physics

Rocky C. Valmores^1, and Laila S. Lomibao²

¹Department Science Education, University of Science and Technology of Southern Philippines, Cagayan de Oro City, Philippines

²Department Mathematics Education, University of Science and Technology of Southern Philippines, Cagayan de Oro City, Philippines

Cite this paper:
Rocky C. Valmores and Laila S. Lomibao. Face-To-Face Laboratory Experiments Versus E-Laboratory Experiments on Developing Students’ Basic Science Process Skills and Interest Towards Learning Physics. Journal of Innovations in Teaching and Learning. 2026; 6(1):37-42. doi: 10.12691/jitl-6-1-6

Abstract

This study investigated the effects of face-to-face and e-laboratory experiments on students’ basic science process skills and interest toward learning physics. A quasi-experimental pretest–posttest control group design was employed involving 47 Grade 12 STEM students from the Misamis Oriental Institute of Science and Technology, Inc. Two intact sections were randomly assigned as control group, which was exposed to face-to-face laboratory experiments, and an experimental group, which engaged in e-laboratory experiments. Data were gathered using two validated instruments: a 26-item researcher-made science process skills test involving concepts on Kinematics and Newton's Laws of Motion with acceptable internal consistency of KR-20 = 0.77, and an adapted questionnaire to quantify interest in learning physics. Descriptive statistics, including mean and standard deviation, summarized the science process skills and interest scores, while Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) tested differences between groups. After the intervention, students in the face- to – face laboratory experiment increased in basic science process skills, while the students in the e- laboratory experiments slightly decreased. ANCOVA confirmed a significant effect of laboratory method on students’ basic science process skills. The results suggest that the face-to-face laboratory experiments was more effective in developing basic science process skills compared to e-laboratory experiments. In contrast, students’ interest toward learning physics showed minimal changes, and ANCOVA results indicated no significant difference between the students' interest towards physics. These findings suggest that face-to-face laboratory experiments are more effective for developing basic science process skills, while both methods yield similar outcomes in student interest toward learning physics. Hence, it is recommended that schools should establish well-equipped laboratories to provide students with hands-on learning experiences that develop their basic science process skills and interest towards learning physics.

Keywords:
basic science process skills physics interest face-to-face laboratory e-laboratory quasi-experimental design

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

References:

[1]	Hofstein, A., and Lunetta, V. N. The laboratory in science education: Foundations for the twenty-first century. Science Education, Wiley, 88(1) (2004).
[2]	Hofstein, A., and Mamlok-Naaman, R. The laboratory in science education: The state of the art. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, Royal Society of Chemistry, 8 (2007).
[3]	Reid, N., and Shah, I. The role of laboratory work in university chemistry. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, Royal Society of Chemistry, 8 (2007).
[4]	Oliveira, H., Spear, A., and Baptista, M. Practical work in science education: A systematic literature review. Frontiers in Education, Frontiers Media SA, 8 (2023).
[5]	Wästberg, B., Eriksson, T., Karlsson, G., et al. Design considerations for virtual laboratories: A comparative study of two virtual laboratories for learning about gas solubility and colour appearance. Education and Information Technologies, Springer, 24 (2019).
[6]	Shambare, B. Exploring the integration of virtual laboratories in science education. Science Education Research, Elsevier, (2024).
[7]	Ambusaidi, A., Al Musawi, A., Al-Balushi, S., and Al-Balushi, K. The impact of virtual lab learning experiences on 9th grade students’ achievement and their attitudes towards science and learning by virtual lab. Journal of Turkish Science Education, Journal of Turkish Science Education Publishing, 15(2) (2018).
[8]	OECD. Virtual laboratories in STEM education. OECD Publishing, OECD, (2019).
[9]	Jaakkola, T., and Nurmi, S. Fostering elementary school students’ understanding of simple electricity by combining simulation and laboratory activities. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, Wiley, 24(4) (2007).
[10]	Zacharia, Z. C., and Olympiou, G. Physical versus virtual manipulative experimentation in physics learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, Wiley, 45(9) (2008).
[11]	Wang, C.-Y., and Tseng, Y.-C. Comparing the effects of physical, virtual, and hybrid labs on primary school students’ conceptual learning of heat and temperature. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 34(3) (2018).
[12]	Zacharia, Z. C., and Michael, M. Using physical and virtual manipulatives to improve primary school students’ understanding of concepts of electric circuits. New Developments in Science and Technology Education, Springer (2016).
[13]	Bybee, R. W. Achieving scientific literacy: From purposes to practices. Heinemann (1997).
[14]	Celik, S. Chemical literacy levels of science and mathematics teacher candidates. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 39(1) (2014).
[15]	Minner, D. D., Levy, A. J., and Century, J. Inquiry-based science instruction—What is it and does it matter? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(4) (2010).
[16]	Yeam, K. P. Steps in the achievement and implementation of science skills among teachers. Master’s thesis, Universiti Sains Malaysia (2007).
[17]	Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Foy, P., Kelly, D. L., and Fishbein, B. TIMSS 2019 international results in mathematics and science. TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College (2020).
[18]	Cornejo, E. M. Least mastered competencies in science of Grade 9 students: Basis for an intervention program. Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences Studies, 4(2) (2022).
[19]	Tumanguil, M. C. Assessment of science process skills among secondary school students: A basis for a development plan. Cagayan State University (2021).
[20]	Ozden, M. The effect of content knowledge on pedagogical content knowledge: The case of teaching phases of matter. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 8(2) (2008).
[21]	Özgüç, C. S., and Cavkaytar, A. The effects of a family-integrated science process skills program on the science process skills of students with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Education and Practice, 6(25) (2015).
[22]	Redish, E. F. Teaching physics with the physics suite. Wiley (2003).
[23]	Angell, C., Guttersrud, Ø., Henriksen, E. K., and Isnes, A. Physics: Frightful, but fun. Pupils’ and teachers’ views of physics and physics teaching. Science Education, 88(5) (2004).
[24]	Osborne, M., Collins, S., Ratcliffe, M., Millar, R., and Duschl, R. Students’ changing attitudes and aspirations towards physics during secondary school. Research in Science Education, 49 (2019).
[25]	Zhao, Q., and Perez-Felkner, L. Perceived abilities or academic interests? Longitudinal high school science and mathematics effects on post-secondary STEM outcomes by gender and race. International Journal of STEM Education, 9(42) (2022).
[26]	Perez, T., Wormington, S. V., Barger, M. M., Schwartz-Bloom, R. D., Lee, Y., and Linnenbrink-Garcia, L. Science expectancy, value, and cost profiles and their proximal and distal relations to undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and math persistence. Science Education, 103 (2019).
[27]	Lee, M. C., and Sulaiman, F. The effectiveness of practical work on students’ interest towards learning physics. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science Invention, 7(8) (2018).
[28]	Abrahams, I., and Millar, R. Does practical work really work? A study of the effectiveness of practical work as a teaching and learning method in school science. International Journal of Science Education, 30(14) (2008).
[29]	Ma, J., and Nickerson, J. V. Hands-on, simulated, and remote laboratories: A comparative literature review. ACM Computing Surveys, 38(3) (2006).
[30]	James, F., Ibrahim, F. B., Otun, J., Ajayi, O. A., and Ameh, G. Modifying water quality monitoring laboratory experience: A comparative analysis of in-person vs. online delivery for environmental engineering students. Disciplinary and Interdisciplinary Science Education Research, 7(19) (2025).
[31]	Dela Cruz, J. P., Lejano, M. V., Martin, J., Marquez, S. J. R., Fernandez, A. R. S., and Bautista, R. G. Virtual laboratories in enhancing experimental skills and scientific understanding among high school learners. American Journal of Educational Research, 13(6) (2025).
[32]	De Jong, T., Linn, M. C., and Zacharia, Z. C. Physical and virtual laboratories in science and engineering education. Science, 340(6130) (2013).
[33]	Harper, C. V., McCormick, L. M., and Marron, L. Face-to-face vs. blended learning in higher education: A quantitative analysis of biological science student outcomes. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 21 (2024).
[34]	Gryczka, P., Klementowicz, E., Sharrock, C., Maxfield, M., and Montclare, J. K. Student engagement and learning in a virtual laboratory environment. Journal of Chemical Education, 93(12) (2016).
[35]	Smetana, L. K., and Bell, R. L. Computer simulations to support science instruction and learning: A critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science Education, 34(9) (2012).
[36]	Papalazarou, N., Lefkos, I., and Fachantidis, N. The effect of physical and virtual inquiry-based experiments on students’ attitudes and learning. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 33 (2024).
[37]	Bahtiar, B., and Azmar, A. The effect of using a virtual laboratory on students’ motivation and learning outcomes in physics learning. Jurnal Pendidikan Fisika, 10(1) (2022).
[38]	Adanır, G. A., Akmatbekova, A., and Muhametjanova, G. University learners’ motivation and experiences in using virtual laboratories in a physics course. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 48(2) (2022).
[39]	Mostajo Radji, M. A. Why online science education falls short. iScience, 28(9) (2025).
[40]	Brinson, J. R. Learning outcome achievement in non-traditional (virtual and remote) versus traditional (hands-on) laboratories: A review of the empirical research. Computers & Education, 87 (2015).
[41]	De Jong, T., Linn, M. C., and Zacharia, Z. C. Physical and virtual laboratories in science and engineering education. Science, 340(6130) (2013).
[42]	Zacharia, Z. C., Olympia, G., and Papaevripidou, M. Effects of experimenting with physical and virtual manipulatives on students’ conceptual understanding in heat and temperature. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(9) (2008).
[43]	Tatlı, Z., and Ayas, A. Virtual laboratory applications in chemistry education. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 9 (2010).
[44]	Santos, M. L., and Prudente, M. S. Virtual laboratories in science education: A meta-analysis. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 21(4) (2022).
[45]	Liu, J. The effect of peer relationship on academic performance in high school students. Lecture Notes in Education Psychology and Public Media, 13 (2023).
[46]	Hidi, S., and Renninger, K. A. The four-phase model of interest development. Educational Psychologist, 41 (2006).
[47]	Aktaş, İ., and Karamustafaoğlu, O. The effect of guided inquiry-based virtual and physical laboratories on science learning outcomes. Research in Science & Technological Education, 43(4) (2025).
[48]	Lazarowitz, R., and Tamir, P. Research on using laboratory instruction in science. In Gabel, D. (Ed.), Handbook of Research in Science Teaching and Learning, Macmillan Publishing Company, New York, NY, pp. 94–128 (1994).
[49]	Brakhage, H., Gröschner, A., Gläser-Zikuda, M., and Hagenauer, G. Fostering students’ situational interest in physics: Results from a classroom-based intervention study. Research in Science Education, 53(5) (2023).
[50]	Kamal, F. S., Oktamaypasha, R., Kusmiatun, A., Astuti, T. S., Sihono, S., and Waraz. The influence of physics laboratory standardization on the learning interest in physics. COPE: Caraka Olah Pikir Edukatif, 29 (2025).
[51]	Morris, D. L. Rethinking science education practices: Shifting from investigation-centric to comprehensive inquiry-based instruction. Education Sciences, 15(1) (2025).