The Effect of Virtual Laboratories on the Academic Achievement of Undergraduate Chemistry Students: Quasi-Experimental Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Experimentation is crucial in chemistry education as it links practical experience with theoretical concepts. However, practical chemistry courses typically rely on real laboratory experiments and often face challenges such as limited resources, equipment shortages, and logistical constraints in university settings. To address these challenges, computer-based laboratories have been introduced as a potential solution, offering electronic simulations that replicate real laboratory experiences. OBJECTIVE: This study examines the effect of virtual laboratories on the academic achievement of undergraduate chemistry students and evaluates their potential as a viable alternative or complement to traditional laboratory-based instruction. METHODS: A quasi-experimental design was implemented to examine the cause-and-effect relationship between instructional methods and student outcomes. The study involved 60 fourth-year BSc chemistry students from Dilla University, divided into 3 groups: a real laboratory group (n=20), which performed real laboratory experiments; a virtual group (n=20), which used virtual laboratory simulations; and a lecture group (n=20), which received lecture-based instruction. Quantitative data were collected through tests administered before and after the intervention to assess academic performance. The data analysis used descriptive and inferential statistics, such as means and SDs, 1-way ANOVA, the Tukey honestly significant difference test, and independent-sample t tests (2-tailed), with a P value of .05 set for determining statistical significance. RESULTS: =18.429; P<.001). The Tukey post hoc test further revealed that the real laboratory group significantly outperformed the lecture-only group (mean difference 18.88; P<.001), while the virtual laboratory group also performed significantly better than the lecture-only group (mean difference 11.7; P=.001). However, no statistically significant difference was found between the real laboratory and virtual laboratory groups (mean difference 7.12; P=.07). In addition, gender did not significantly influence performance in the virtual laboratory group (P=.21), with no substantial difference in posttest scores between male and female students. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that computer-based laboratories are a viable and effective alternative when real laboratories are unavailable, enhancing learning outcomes when compared with traditional lecture-based methods. Therefore, universities should consider integrating computer-based laboratories into their practical chemistry curricula to provide students with interactive and engaging learning experiences, especially when physical laboratories are inaccessible.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,010 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».