Introduction
Theoretical framework
Methods
Participants
Phase I: Determination of factors influencing experimental self-efficacy
# No. | Experiment | Factors | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
CU | LH | PC | SR | ||
1 | Acid-base titration | 59% | 98% | 61% | 42% |
2 | Determination of viscosity of solvents | 65% | 63% | 97% | 43% |
3 | EMF measurements of cells | 94% | 56% | 72% | 48% |
4 | Flame-photometry | 75% | 58% | 95% | 98% |
- Acid-Base titration: Acid-base titration is a commonly conducted laboratory experiment in all UG classes that deals with the determination of the concentration of acids or bases by neutralizing the acid or base (Atkins and De Paula 2017; Yadav 2010). In laboratory work, students should handle the glass apparatus like burette (a graduated glass tube with a tap at one end), pipette (a tube with bulb used to measure small amount of liquids), beaker (a cylindrical glass container), erlenmeyer flask (a glass container which features a flat bottom, a conical body, and a cylindrical neck) to neutralize the acid or base. Mishandling the glass apparatus will lead to the breakage of apparatus and 98% (Table 1) of the respondents felt this experiment impacted their self-efficacy from the perspective of laboratory hazards (LH).
- Determination of viscosity of solvents: Viscosity is the internal property of a fluid indicative of its resistance to flow as a function of several factors and measured by the Ostwald Viscometer (Yadav 2010). One needs to identify the time of flow of fluid, volume of the fluid, hydrostatic pressure, and the distance traveled by the fluid during time t (Poiseuille’s equation) to determine the viscosity of the solvents. The procedural complexity is relatively high in this experiment as confirmed by 97% (Table 1) of the respondents.
- Electromotive force (EMF) Measurements of cells: EMF measurement deals with the difference in potential of electrodes (anode and cathode) and the electric current (Atkins and De Paula 2017; Yadav 2010). To construct the electro-chemical cell and determine the EMF, students need to understand the concepts of oxidation potential and reduction potential at electrode-electrolyte surface, salt-bridge, Gibbs free energy, equilibrium constant and the spontaneity of the cell reaction. Students often lack conceptual understanding of the fundamental governing principles in this experiment as gathered from 94% (Table 1) of the respondents.
- Flame-photometry: Flame-photometry is an application of atomic absorption spectroscopy for determination of the concentration of alkali and alkaline earth metals (Trojanowicz 2000) using the flame-photometer. Students have to understand the concepts of thermal excitation of metals and emission of light in the visible region of the electromagnetic spectrum. The intensity of emitted light is used to determine the concentration of alkali and alkaline earth metals in ppm (parts per million) level (Scheibe-Lomakin equation) (Trojanowicz 2000). Students perform this experiment in groups due to insufficient resources to do this experiment individually leading to lower self-efficacy as indicated by 98% (Table 1) of the respondents. In addition, the procedural complexity was perceived to be high by 95% of respondents in this experiment.
Phase II: Design of virtual laboratory experimentation
Phase III: Development of experimental self-efficacy instrument
Factors | Items | Questions | SD | α |
---|---|---|---|---|
CU | 1 | I believe I have a sound grasp of the theory behind | 0.93 | 0.76 |
laboratory experiments before performing experiments. | ||||
2 | Experimental concepts become clearer to me as | 0.87 | ||
I perform the experiment. | ||||
3 | I am confident that I understand the underlying | 0.88 | ||
chemical phenomena in the experiment. | ||||
LH | 4 | I can usually handle the glass apparatus in the laboratory | 0.86 | 0.82 |
on my own without any fear of breakage and injury. | ||||
5 | I am confident of working in the laboratory without | 0.86 | ||
chemical spillage. | ||||
6 | I am always alert in the laboratory and have | 1.05 | ||
minimal accidents. | ||||
PC | 7 | After an experiment, I have no difficulty figuring out how | 0.86 | 0.89 |
my calculation procedures and errors affected my results. | ||||
8 | When presented with laboratory results, I know how | 1.04 | ||
to interpret them and draw relevant conclusions from them. | ||||
9 | I do not struggle with processing information in background | 1.04 | ||
articles and relating them to my own laboratory procedures and results. | ||||
SR | 10 | I find it easy to complete the exercise in the laboratory | 1.03 | 0.72 |
even though there is limited personal participation in performing experiments. | ||||
11 | It is easy for me to understand theory and concepts properly | 1.03 | ||
in spite of limited availability of physical instruments. | ||||
12 | I do not find it challenging to understand an experiment even | 0.93 | ||
if there is only one try due to limited availability of chemicals. |
Item | Factor 1: PC | Factor 2: LH | Factor 3: CU | Factor 4: SR |
---|---|---|---|---|
1 | .189 | .008 | .735 | .047 |
2 | -.035 | .078 | .851 | -.072 |
3 | -.007 | .122 | .863 | -.070 |
4 | .075 | .876 | -.005 | .031 |
5 | .109 | .852 | .095 | -.136 |
6 | .050 | .817 | .129 | -.163 |
7 | .818 | .182 | .195 | -.323 |
8 | .875 | .097 | .015 | -.279 |
9 | .861 | -.004 | -.025 | -.251 |
10 | -.278 | -.013 | .069 | .792 |
11 | -.345 | -.195 | -.079 | .753 |
12 | -.442 | -.151 | -.176 | .543 |
Number of items | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 |
Item variance | 0.96 | 0.85 | 0.80 | 0.99 |
Cronbach’s Alpha (α) | 0.89 | 0.82 | 0.76 | 0.72 |
Phase IV - Characterization of experimental self-efficacy
Results and Discussion
Experimental self-efficacy of students
Groups | ESE-pre | ESE-post | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
M | σ | t | p | M | σ | t | p | |
CG | 23.04 | 5.57 | 0.20 | 0.84 | 38.76 | 12.84 | -5.71 | 0.00* |
EG | 22.82 | 5.31 | 50.22 | 6.08 |
Groups | Gender (N) | ESE-pre | ESE-post | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
M | σ | t | p | M | σ | t | p | ||
CG | Male(245) | 22.90 | 5.51 | 0.14 | 0.89 | 40.4 | 14.44 | -0.70 | 0.49 |
Female(367) | 23.13 | 5.70 | 37.67 | 11.78 | |||||
EG | Male(245) | 23.05 | 6.06 | -0.24 | 0.81 | 50.45 | 5.95 | -0.22 | 0.83 |
Female(368) | 22.67 | 4.86 | 50.07 | 6.25 |
CG | EG | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
ESE-pre | ESE-post | ESE-pre | ESE-post | ||
Factor 1: Conceptual understanding | |||||
CG | ESE-pre | 0.000 | |||
ESE-post | 0.581 | 0.000 | |||
EG | ESE-pre | 0.000 | 0.542 | 0.000 | |
ESE-post | 0.988 | 0.409 | 1.000 | 0.000 | |
Factor 2: Laboratory hazards | |||||
CG | ESE-pre | 0.000 | |||
ESE-post | 0.562 | 0.000 | |||
EG | ESE-pre | 0.000 | 0.594 | 0.000 | |
ESE-post | 0.922 | 0.366 | 1.000 | 0.000 | |
Factor 3: Procedural complexity | |||||
CG | ESE-pre | 0.000 | |||
ESE-post | 0.637 | 0.000 | |||
EG | ESE-pre | 0.000 | 0.582 | 0.000 | |
ESE-post | 1.000 | 0.411 | 0.943 | 0.000 | |
Factor 4: lack of sufficient resources | |||||
CG | ESE-pre | 0.000 | |||
ESE-post | 0.591 | 0.000 | |||
EG | ESE-pre | 0.000 | 0.576 | 0.000 | |
ESE-post | 0.998 | 0.439 | 1.000 | 0.000 |