FABIOLAS, OLIRIC C. PROF.

JERVIE OLIVEROS
MAT – CHEMISTRY

MAT 501 STATISTICS IN EDUCATION

Linking Learning: The Role of Virtual Laboratories in Overcoming Resource

Limitations in STEM Classrooms

I. INTRODUCTION

Laboratory activities are an essential component of chemistry education, providing

students with hands-on experience that deepens their understanding of theoretical
concepts. Through experiments, learners develop critical thinking, problem-solving
skills, and an appreciation for the scientific method. In an article by Hofstein (2004), he
stated that school laboratory activities have special potential as media for learning that
can promote important science learning outcomes for students. Laboratory activities in
schools are more than just a part of the science curriculum - they’re a doorway to
discovery, creativity, and a deeper understanding of the world. These hands-on
experiences allow students to move beyond textbooks and lectures, letting them see,
feel, and engage with the concepts they’ve learned.
Problem-solving is at the core of science. Problem-based learning has shown to be
a promising approach for learning conceptual as well as procedural knowledge (Leite &
Durado, 2013). It empowers students to approach challenges with curiosity, logic, and
determination, equipping them with tools to make sense of a rapidly changing world.
However, one of the biggest challenges many schools face is the lack of sufficient
laboratory materials and resources. Without the proper equipment, it becomes difficult
for students to fully engage in hands-on experiments and practical lessons. This shortage
limits their ability to explore concepts through inquiry-based learning, making it harder
for them to connect theory with real-world applications.
In classrooms with limited resources, teachers often have to rely on demonstrations
or theoretical lessons instead of letting students conduct hands-on experiments. While
these methods are valuable, they can make it harder for students to truly grasp key
chemistry concepts and lose their excitement for the subject. On top of that, the lack of
materials makes it difficult to incorporate modern teaching methods, like project-based
learning or green chemistry experiments. This issue is especially challenging in schools
in economically disadvantaged areas, where funding for lab resources is often scarce,
leaving students with fewer opportunities to engage in meaningful, interactive learning.
The shortage of laboratory materials doesn’t just impact students' grades—it also
creates inequalities in education. Without access to proper lab facilities, students may
struggle to develop the skills and confidence needed to pursue careers in science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). Tackling this problem calls for
creative solutions, such as using low-cost experiments, introducing virtual labs, and
pushing for more funding to support science education. By doing so, we can give all
students, regardless of their school's resources, the chance to explore their potential and
thrive in STEM fields.
This paper explores the impact of virtual laboratories in revolutionizing the way
chemistry is taught in a laboratory with insufficient material. Specifically, this paper aims
to:
1. investigate how virtual laboratories can supplement traditional hands-on
experiments in chemistry classes where laboratory materials are limited, and
their impact on students' learning outcomes;
2. assess the effectiveness of virtual laboratories in providing equal access to
practical chemistry education for students in schools with inadequate
laboratory resources; and
3. examine the role of virtual laboratories in enhancing student engagement,
critical thinking, and problem-solving skills in chemistry education in
classrooms facing resource shortages.
The theoretical framework draws upon the philosophical and psychological
foundation of education that support the use of virtual laboratories in chemistry
education.
1. Constructivist learning theory - The constructivist approach emphasizes that
learning is an active process in which students build new knowledge based on
their prior understanding and experiences. Virtual laboratories align with this
theory by providing an interactive environment where students: experiment with
virtual tools to construct their understanding of chemical concepts, engage in
problem-solving tasks, such as hypothesizing, testing, and analyzing data, and
 explore chemistry concepts at their own pace, reinforcing self-directed and
experiential learning.
2. Experiential learning theory - Kolb's experiential learning cycle—Concrete
Experience, Reflective Observation, Abstract Conceptualization, and Active
Experimentation—is fundamental to understanding the role of virtual labs. In a
VL setting, students gain Concrete Experience by performing simulated
experiments. They engage in Reflective Observation by reviewing the outcomes
of their actions. Abstract Conceptualization occurs when they relate experiment
results to theoretical principles. Finally, they use Active Experimentation to
apply concepts in new scenarios or refine experimental approaches.
3. Cognitive load theory - This theory focuses on optimizing the mental effort
required for learning. Virtual laboratories can reduce extraneous cognitive load
by offering guided simulations that eliminate unnecessary complexities,
providing visualizations of molecular interactions and chemical processes,
helping students better grasp abstract concepts, and allowing repeated
practice, which enhances long-term retention and mastery.

II. METHODOLOGY
This study employed qualitative data collection to investigate the role of virtual
laboratories.
Participants: The study involved STEM students from Senior High School within
Bacoor Elementary School, Bacoor City, Cavite. A total of 52 students participated the
study.
Instrument: A pretest and posttest were designed to measure students’ knowledge
and skills before and after using virtual laboratory. Additionally, surveys were conducted
to gather perceptions from the students.
Procedure:
• Participants were divided into two groups: the experimental group (using
virtual laboratory) and the control group (using traditional teaching
methods).
• Both groups covered the same topics, which includes dilution.
 • Virtual laboratory session utilized the platform ChemCollective.
Data Analysis. Quantitative data from tests were analyzed using independent t-
tests to determine the effectiveness of virtual laboratories.

III. RESULTS
Through quantitative method, students’ perception on the use of virtual laboratory
were analyzed. The following presents a summary analysis of the data collected through
survey and pretest and posttest.

Demographic Profile

Male Female

48%
52%

Figure 1. Sex Profile of SHS within BES Grade 11 STEM Students

The figure above shows the percentage of respondents from the grade 11 STEM
students of SHS within BES. Fifty two percent (52%) of the respondents are male and forty
eight percent (48%) are female.
 Laboratory Usage

Yes No

23%

77%

Figure 2. Number of students who had laboratory activities in JHS

The figure above shows the number of respondents who had laboratory activities
in Junior High School. Only 12 or 23% of the respondents had the chance to do laboratory
activities in Junior High School and majority of them or 77% (40 respondents) were not
able to do any laboratory activities.

Yes No

0%

100%

Figure 3. Number of students who have used virtual laboratories

The figure above shows the number of students who have used any virtual
laboratories before. All the respondents answered No and do not have any background
information of what a virtual laboratory is and how it is accessed and used.
 In the next presentation of data, the following will be used to interpret the results.
Table 1. Table of Interpretation
Score Interpretation
4.21 – 5.00 Strongly Agree
3.41 – 4.20 Agree
2.61 – 3.40 Neutral
1.81 – 2.60 Disagree
1.00 – 1.80 Strongly Disagree

The survey questionnaire was given to the experimental group of students who
used the virtual laboratory ChemCollective after the discussion.

Table 2. Effectiveness of Virtual Laboratories

Indicator Average Interpretation
The virtual laboratory effectively addresses the lack of 4.85 Strongly Agree
physical laboratory materials and chemicals.
The virtual laboratory allows me to conduct experiments 4.81 Strongly Agree
that would otherwise be impossible without physical
resources.
Virtual laboratories simulate real-life chemistry 4.92 Strongly Agree
experiments accurately.
The absence of physical materials does not hinder my 4.77 Strongly Agree
ability to learn when using virtual laboratories.
The virtual laboratory compensates well for the lack of 4.81 Strongly Agree
hands-on experience in physical laboratories.
General Average 4.83 Strongly Agree

The table above shows the responses of the experimental group of students who
used virtual laboratories after the lesson. All the indicators show a strongly agree
interpretation and a general average of 4.83 which is also interpreted as strongly agree.
This means that the use of virtual laboratory is effective in lieu of the lack of physical
laboratory materials and chemicals.

Table 3. Engagement and Motivation

Indicator Average Interpretation
The virtual laboratory makes learning chemistry more 4.92 Strongly Agree
interesting despite the lack of physical resources.
The interactive nature of the virtual laboratory keeps me 4.96 Strongly Agree
engaged.
I feel motivated to explore more chemistry topics through 5.00 Strongly Agree
the virtual laboratory.
Virtual laboratories foster creativity and critical thinking in 4.88 Strongly Agree
solving chemistry-related problems.
The use of a virtual laboratory encourages me to learn 4.92 Strongly Agree
more about chemistry on my own
General Average 4.94 Strongly Agree

The table above shows the responses of the experimental group of students on the
engagement and motivation of using virtual laboratory. All the indicators show a strongly
agree interpretation and a general average of 4.94 which is also interpreted as strongly
agree. Students felt motivated and engaged in learning chemistry concepts while using
virtual laboratory.

Table 4. Learning Outcomes

Indicator Average Interpretation
Using virtual laboratories improves my understanding of 4.85 Strongly Agree
chemistry concepts despite the absence of physical
materials.
The simulations in the virtual laboratory help me visualize 4.92 Strongly Agree
chemical reactions more clearly.
 Virtual laboratories enhance my ability to connect 4.81 Strongly Agree
theoretical knowledge to practical applications.
Performing experiments virtually helps me retain 4.88 Strongly Agree
information better.
I feel prepared for assessments and practical applications 4.65 Strongly Agree
through the use of virtual laboratories.
General Average 4.82 Strongly Agree

The table above shows the responses of the experimental group of students on their
learning outcomes after using virtual laboratory. All the indicators show a strongly agree
interpretation and a general average of 4.82 which is also interpreted as strongly agree.
This means that the used of virtual laboratory helped the students in improving their
abilities and knowledge in visualizing the concepts in chemistry and made them
confident enough in answering assessments and performing experiments.

Table 5. Accessibility and Convenience

Indicator Average Interpretation
The virtual laboratory is easy to access and use, even 4.50 Strongly Agree
without prior experience.
The absence of physical laboratory materials does not 4.81 Strongly Agree
make the virtual laboratory difficult to understand.
The virtual laboratory works well on the available 3.15 Agree
technology and devices I use.
Internet access is not a significant barrier to using the 2.58 Disagree
virtual laboratory effectively.
The virtual laboratory is a practical solution for schools 4.92 Strongly Agree
lacking laboratory facilities.
General Average 3.99 Agree

The table above shows the responses of the experimental group of students on the
accessibility and convenience of using virtual laboratory. Three indicators show a
strongly agree interpretation, one indicator with an agree interpretation, and one
indicator with a disagree interpretation. The general average is 3.99 with an interpretation
of agree. One of the downsides of using virtual laboratories is the internet accessibility of
the students and their available technology and devices. Majority of the students in
public schools belong to the low-income family. They have limited to no access in the
internet and most of them do not have a good device in aiding their studies.

Table 6. Overall Perception

Indicator Average Interpretation
Virtual laboratories should be used as a primary tool when 4.88 Strongly Agree
physical materials and chemicals are unavailable.
I feel that the virtual laboratory provides a satisfactory 4.85 Strongly Agree
alternative to traditional laboratories.
Using the virtual laboratory inspires confidence in my 4.92 Strongly Agree
ability to perform real-life experiments in the future.
Teachers effectively integrate virtual laboratories into 4.92 Strongly Agree
lessons to make up for the absence of physical materials.
Virtual laboratories are essential in providing quality 4.96 Strongly Agree
chemistry education in resource-limited settings.
General Average 4.91 Strongly Agree

The table above shows the responses of the experimental group of students on their
overall perception of using virtual laboratory. All the indicators show a strongly agree
interpretation and a general average of 4.91 which is also interpreted as strongly agree.
Students see the use of virtual laboratory as an alternative way of providing them quality
chemistry education despite having a resource-limited setting.
Table 7. Pretest and Posttest Results
N Pretest SD Posttest SD
Experimental 26 54.1% 8.5 84.5% 6.7
Group
Control Group 26 53.4% 9.1 72.8% 7.5

The table above shows the results of the pretest and posttest of the experimental
group and control group. The experimental group used virtual laboratory after the
discussion and the control grouped used traditional teaching method. Both the
experimental and control groups show an increase in average scores from pretest to
posttest. The experimental group shows significantly higher average scores on the
posttest compared to their pretest scores indicating that the virtual laboratory approach
led to greater learning gains.
To determine whether the use of virtual laboratory was effective, independent t-test
was performed. The result shows that there is a significant improvement in the
experimental group with t(50) = 6.87 for the posttest scores.

IV. DISCUSSION
The study underscores the potential of virtual laboratories in transforming STEM
classroom in resource-limited settings. By simulating real-world laboratory
environments, these tools offer students opportunities to experiment, analyze, and learn
in ways that traditional methods cannot. The significant improvement in test scores and
the statistical results highlights their effectiveness in enhancing learning outcomes.
Furthermore, the high level of student engagement demonstrates their appeal to a tech-
savvy generation. The role of virtual laboratories enhanced student engagement, critical
thinking, and problem-solving skills in chemistry education in classrooms facing
resource shortages. Nevertheless, challenges such as access to reliable internet and the
need for teacher training must be addressed to ensure widespread adoption.
Virtual laboratories present a promising solution to the persistent issue of resource
limitations in STEM classrooms. By providing a cost-effective, engaging, and versatile
platform for scientific exploration, they empower students and teachers to overcome
barriers to quality education.
V. REFERENCES

Bazie, H., Lemma, B., Workneh, A., & Estifanos, A. (2024). The effect of Virtual
Laboratories on the Academic Achievement of Undergraduate Chemistry
Students: A Quasi-Experimental Study at Dilla University, Southern Ethiopia
(Preprint). JMIR Formative Research, 8, e64476. https://doi.org/10.2196/64476

Koehler, E. (2021). The Effect of Virtual Labs on High School Student Attitudes Towards
Chemistry. Dissertations, Thesis, and Projects. 540.
https://red.mnstate.edu/thesis/540

Integration of technology in chemistry education at university level. (n.d.).

ResearchGate.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/382597266_Integration_of_Technology
_in_Chemistry_Education_at_University_Level

Leite, L., & Dourado, L. (2013). Laboratory activities, science education and problem-
solving skills. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 106, 1677–1686.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.12.190

The laboratory in chemistry education: Thirty years of experience with developments,

implementation, and research. (n.d.). ResearchGate.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/255745908_The_laboratory_in_chemist
ry_education_Thirty_years_of_experience_with_developments_implementation_a
nd_research
 SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE

This survey questionnaire intends to identify the effectiveness of virtual laboratories in

enhancing STEM education, particularly in addressing the challenges posed by limited
access to physical laboratory facilities and materials. This survey aims to gather insights
into your experiences, perceptions, and opinions about the implementation and
effectiveness of virtual laboratories in teaching and learning.

Instructions:
1. Read each statement carefully.
2. Use the Likert scale below to indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree
with each statement:
1 = Strongly Disagree
2 = Disagree
3 = Neutral
4 = Agree
5 = Strongly Agree

3. Put a check mark on the number that best represents your opinion for each
statement.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Part I Demographic Profile

Name (optional): ______________________________________________________________

Sex: Male Female Section: _______________________________

Part II Role of Virtual Laboratories

Effectiveness of Virtual Laboratories 1 2 3 4 5

1. The virtual laboratory effectively addresses the lack of
physical laboratory materials and chemicals.
2. The virtual laboratory allows me to conduct experiments
that would otherwise be impossible without physical
resources.
3. Virtual laboratories simulate real-life chemistry
experiments accurately.
4. The absence of physical materials does not hinder my
ability to learn when using virtual laboratories.
5. The virtual laboratory compensates well for the lack of
hands-on experience in physical laboratories.
Engagement and Motivation 1 2 3 4 5
1. The virtual laboratory makes learning chemistry more
interesting despite the lack of physical resources.
2. The interactive nature of the virtual laboratory keeps me
engaged.
3. I feel motivated to explore more chemistry topics
through the virtual laboratory.
4. Virtual laboratories foster creativity and critical thinking
in solving chemistry-related problems.
5. The use of a virtual laboratory encourages me to learn
more about chemistry on my own
Learning Outcomes 1 2 3 4 5
1. Using virtual laboratories improves my understanding of
chemistry concepts despite the absence of physical
materials.
2. The simulations in the virtual laboratory help me
visualize chemical reactions more clearly.
3. Virtual laboratories enhance my ability to connect
theoretical knowledge to practical applications.
4. Performing experiments virtually helps me retain
information better.
5. I feel prepared for assessments and practical
applications through the use of virtual laboratories.
Accessibility and Convenience 1 2 3 4 5
1. The virtual laboratory is easy to access and use, even
without prior experience.
2. The absence of physical laboratory materials does not
make the virtual laboratory difficult to understand.
3. The virtual laboratory works well on the available
technology and devices I use.
4. Internet access is not a significant barrier to using the
virtual laboratory effectively.
5. The virtual laboratory is a practical solution for schools
lacking laboratory facilities.
Overall Perception 1 2 3 4 5
1. Virtual laboratories should be used as a primary tool
when physical materials and chemicals are unavailable.
2. I feel that the virtual laboratory provides a satisfactory
alternative to traditional laboratories.
3. Using the virtual laboratory inspires confidence in my
ability to perform real-life experiments in the future.
4. Teachers effectively integrate virtual laboratories into
lessons to make up for the absence of physical
materials.
5. Virtual laboratories are essential in providing quality
chemistry education in resource-limited settings.
 PRETEST AND POSTEST

Instructions: Read each question carefully and choose the correct answer.

1. What is dilution in chemistry?

a. Adding solute to a solvent to increase concentration
b. Reducing the concentration of a solution by adding more solvent
c. Mixing two solutions of the same concentration
d. Evaporating the solvent to increase concentration
2. Which of the following equations is used to calculate dilution?
a. 𝑀1 𝑉1 = 𝑀2 𝑉2
𝑛
b. 𝐶 = 𝑉
c. 𝑃𝑉 = 𝑛𝑅𝑇
𝑚
d. 𝑀 = 𝑛
3. A solution with an initial concentration of 2 M is diluted from 100 mL to 200 mL. What is the
new concentration?
a. 1 M
b. 0.5 M
c. 4 M
d. 2 M
4. When 50 mL of water is added to 150 mL of a 1 M solution, what happens to the
concentration?
a. It doubles
b. It remains the same
c. It decreases
d. It becomes zero
5. What happens to the number of moles of solute during a dilution process?
a. It increases
b. It decreases
c. It remains constant
d. It depends on the solvent
6. How much water must be added to 100 mL of a 3 M solution to dilute it to 1 M?
a. 100 mL
b. 200 mL
c. 300 mL
d. 400 mL
7. You have 500 mL of a 0.5 M solution. If it is diluted to 1 L, what is the new concentration?
a. 0.25 M
b. 0.5 M
c. 1.0 M
d. 0.75 M
8. What is the primary purpose of dilution in laboratory experiments?
a. To prepare solutions of higher concentration
b. To reduce the toxicity of chemicals
c. To decrease the amount of solute
d. To create a standard solution of desired concentration
9. If 20 mL of a 6 M stock solution is diluted to 120 mL, what is the final concentration?
a. 1 M
b. 2 M
c. 3 M
d. 6 M
10. Which of the following factors remains unchanged during a dilution process?
a. Volume of the solution
b. Concentration of the solution
c. Moles of solute
d. Amount of solvent