A curriculum-based laboratory kit for flexible teaching and learning of practical chemistry

Introduction

Laboratory practical plays an important role for effective learning of science. Woolnough and Allsop (1985) infers that laboratory activities are exercises aid to develop practical skills in students giving them the ‘feel’ for phenomena, and to be actively and immensely involved as a ‘problem-solving scientist’.

Malaysia adapted British educational framework after its independence in 1957 (Suminotono, 2015). The curriculum has evolved incorporating culture and religion of multiracial society in Malaysia leading to formation of the Integrated National Curriculum for Primary School (KBSR) and Secondary School (KBSM). This curriculum was introduced in 1980s, emphasizing on reading, writing and arithmetic skills in balance with spiritual, emotion and physical development, inculcating life-long learning (Lee, 1992). The curricular structure was later revised and replaced with KSSR (Standard Based Curriculum for Primary School) and KSSM (Standard Based Curriculum for Secondary School), shifting towards student-centered learning with focus on the 21st century skills such as communication, critical thinking, problem solving, innovation etc. (Malaysia Education Blueprint).

One of the changes upon reformation of curriculum from KBSM to KSSM is the re-introduction of practical assessment in Malaysian Certificate of Education (SPM). The practical assessment was fully implemented in 2021 replacing the written test; students are expected to conduct experiments individually. This is to ensure students demonstrate mastery of science process and manipulative skills which include handling of apparatus, implementing the experiment, recording the observation, analyze and evaluate the data.

To conduct practical assessment can be challenging, especially for schools in the rural areas. Some schools do not even have a laboratory or the laboratories are too old with shortage of chemicals and consumables (ASM Advisory Report, 2011). This situation is exacerbated during the COVID (Coronavirus Disease) pandemic; classes were forced online causing another level of challenge for less privileged schools. Some teachers have innovatively delivered the practical lesson via online video demonstration however this approach does not warrant a similar experience with hands-on exposure (Bradley, 1999). When the practical test was implemented in 2021, students and parents continuously expressed their concerns over the learning of students and their readiness for practical assessment. A SPM student articulated her concern saying, “This is an important exam (SPM) for me and, as a science student, I am sitting for nine subjects. However, the paper 3 for all my science subjects cover lab work and we hardly did them during online classes” (TheVibes.com, 2021).

A breakthrough is motivated to overcome the challenge of maintaining practical classes when schools are closed or when laboratory facilities are unavailable. In the traditional setting, laboratory classes are carried out within the school timetable with teachers facilitating the lessons. The conventional laboratory lessons for Chemistry inherits two major limitations – it is inflexible and it incurs high maintenance cost. A readily available solution is the science kit which is often sold as a learning tool. Most of the kits are designed to provide entertaining experience in the learning of science. These kits aims to stimulate interest, enhance learners’ understanding and create positive habits of mind for science (Hodson, 1993; Hofstein & Lunetta, 2004). The learning process is unstructured, informal and ungoverned by a syllabus. The microscale apparatus can be an alternative for experimental learning however they are expensive and are usually designed to teach very specific topics. Given the high laboratory maintenance cost and the needs for hands on experiment, a practical kit is hence developed based on the syllabus of KSSM for Chemistry. It offers flexibility as it can be deployed in schools with laboratory constraints or to be used outside the school settings. The kit is affordable, safe and environmental-friendly providing individualized hands-on exposure. The effectiveness of the kit for learning of chemistry was evaluated through pre and post-test and questionnaires.

Materials and methods

Development of kit

Scopes of learning

The kit is designed based on Chemistry syllabus of Form 4 and Form 5, equivalent to Year 10 and Year 11 in Cambridge curriculum. Table 1 shows the scopes of the syllabus; a total of twelve (12) experiments were identified and incorporated in the kit. A manual was prepared to provide background, objective and experimental procedure with columns for records of observations/results and post-lab activity. The manual was prepared in bilingual (English and Malay language) and was completed with access to Materials Safety Data Sheet.

Table 1:

Syllabus of Chemistry and experiments for Form 4 and Form 5.

Form	Theme	Scopes of learning	Experiment
4	Importance of chemistry	Introduction to chemistry
	Basic chemistry	Matter and atomic structure Mole, chemical formula and chemical equations Periodic table Chemical bonding
	Interactions between matters	Acid, base and salts Chemical reactions	To prepare a standard solution Dilution Solubility of salt in water Precipitation (double decomposition reaction) Preparation of insoluble salts The role of water in showing acidic property The role of water in showing alkaline property
	Industrial chemistry	Manufacturing industry
5	Chemistry process	Redox reactions	Displacement reaction
	Organic chemistry	Carbon compounds
	Heat	Thermochemistry	Exothermic and endothermic reactions Heat of displacement Heat of precipitation Heat of neutralization between strong alkali and weak acid
	Technology in chemistry	Polymer Consumer chemistry and industry

Optimization and design of kit

The procedures were optimized to ensure minimal quantity of chemicals were used to observe the experimental changes. The optimization takes into account of the chemicals used, the amount made available to the users, the suitable apparatus size and type, safety as well as disposal of the chemicals. This is to ensure that the kit is meets the criteria of reasonable cost, minimum hazard to users and no wastage. The chemicals are stored in individual screw cap vials and the experiment manual is included. Personal protective equipment including gloves and safety googles are provided. A mercury free thermometer is supplied to ensure users are not exposed to any hazardous risk. All chemicals and apparatus provided in the kit are summarized in Table 2. The chemicals and apparatus are provided in a kit of dimensions 32 cm (Length) × 23 cm (Width) × 16 cm (Height) as shown in Figure 1.

Table 2:

List of chemicals and apparatus provided in the kit for the experiments.

No.	Chemicals/Apparatus	Quantity provided
1	Ammonium sulphate, (NH4)2SO4	1.5 g
2	Barium chloride, BaCl2	0.5 g
3	Barium sulphate, BaSO4	0.5 g
4	Calcium carbonate, CaCO3	0.5 g
5	Copper (II) sulphate, CuSO4	5.0 g
6	Lead (II) chloride, PbCl2	0.5 g
7	Lead (II) nitrate, Pb(NO3)2	3.3 g
8	Oxalic acid, C2H2O4	5.5 g
9	Potassium iodide, KI	2.7 g
10	Sodium carbonate, Na2CO3	2.6 g
11	Sodium hydroxide, NaOH	5.0 g
12	Zinc metal, Zn	2 pcs
13	Beaker (50 mL)	2 units
14	Brush	1 unit
15	Conical flask (50 mL)	1 unit
16	Dropper	2 units
17	Filter funnel (40 mm)	1 unit
18	Filter paper (90 mm)	10 units
19	Glass rod	1 unit
20	Hand gloves	2 pairs
21	Litmus paper (red)	1 unit
22	Litmus paper (blue)	1 unit
23	Measuring cylinder (25 mL)	1 unit
24	Note book	1 unit
25	Pipette	1 unit
26	Pipette pump	1 unit
27	Pocket weighing scale (200 g/0.1 g)	1 unit
28	Polystyrene cup with lid	2 units
29	Reagent bottle (50 mL)	1 unit
30	Spatula	1 unit
31	Thermometer	1 unit
32	Volumetric flask (25 mL)	1 unit
33	Volumetric flask (50 mL)	1 unit
34	Washing bottle (250 mL)	1 unit
35	Weighing boat (rhombus) 55 × 35 mm	2 units
36	Safety goggles	1 unit

Figure 1:

Photo of the laboratory practical kit.

Evaluation of the kit for learning of chemistry

The kit was subjected to three-stage of evaluation. The kit was first introduced to two selected students of Year 11 and Form 5 from Lodge International School and SMK Jalan Arang [“SMK” refers to the national secondary school in Malay language (Sekolah Menengah Kebangsaan)]. The preliminary assessment aims to assess the adequacy of the kit (whether the chemicals/apparatus are appropriate and sufficient) and the manual clarity. The students were provided with the kit to try out. After experiencing the kit, the students provided their feedback on the manual along with a reflection report. The kit was improved based on the feedback gathered.

The kit was then evaluated by 10 Chemistry teachers with more than 10 years of teaching experience from 9 schools around Kuching: SMK Kuching High (1), SMK Bandar Kuching No.1 (1), SMK Seri Setia (1), SMK Jalan Arang (1), SMK Padungan (2), SMK Siburan (1), SMK Paku (1), SMK Matang Jaya (1), SM Sains Kuching (1). Their feedback and suggestions were collected for improvement of the kit.

The final stage involves a total of 30 Form 5 students from 3 town schools and 1 rural school: SMK Jalan Arang (town, 13 students), SMK Pending (town, 1 student), SMK Stampin (town, 1 student) and SMK Paku (rural, 15 students). Note that a rural school is defined as a school located in areas with total population less than 10,000 according to the Ministry of Education. All the schools participated in this study are equipped with laboratories. Figure 2 shows the locations of the schools where teachers and students were involved in the assessment of the kit. The kits were delivered to the students and were given 2 months to complete the experiments at home. The students were given an assessment before and after using the kit. The pre- and post-test was conducted to evaluate the level of theoretical and empirical knowledge. It consists of 4 components – handling of materials and apparatus, theoretical fundamental, practical knowledge and laboratory safety. The score of each respondent was tabulated for statistical analysis. A questionnaire was disseminated to appraise the students’ perceptions on practical learning before and after using the kit. This study was conducted in 2021 during the COVID pandemic when schools were online. The pre- and post-test and the questionnaire were carried out using Google Form. The questionnaire was designed based on Vermaak (1997) to gauge the students’ interest in performing practical, satisfaction in practical experience, opinions and values on the importance of practical in learning of chemistry. The responses are a 5-point Likert scale of 5: Strongly Agree, 4: Agree, 3: Neutral, 2: Disagree and 1: Strongly Disagree. The responses obtained was analyzed using t-test to determine whether there is any significance difference in the followings before and after using the kit (α = 0.05):

1. the knowledge level of students;

2. the attitude of students towards learning of chemistry;

3. the knowledge level of students in rural and town schools;

4. the attitude of students in rural and town schools.

Figure 2:

Locations of schools involved in assessment of the practical kit.

The process of evaluation was facilitated where demonstration videos were uploaded in YouTube (https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLj4JnmNj-rhPLO7uMrQ8FUnwHQ8yWfm0U) and the learning was guided via Google Meeting.

Results and discussion

The practical kit received positive responses from two selected students during the preliminary assessment. The students expressed that the practical experience makes their learning in the classroom relatable.

“There were many activities that were very relatable to what I have been studying in textbooks.”

“The kit helps me in understanding reaction and analyzing chemical reaction in a different way”.

The teachers’ responses on the kit were highly encouraging. All teachers agree that the manual is easy-to-read, and the procedure is easy-to-follow. The list and description of apparatus help the students to recognize common glassware used in the laboratory. The background knowledge provided in each experiment serves to remind the students on the related fundamental. The materials and apparatus in the kit are adequate and easy to find. The post-lab questions can be used to evaluate the students’ learning after the experiment.

The mean scores of pre- and post-test are summarized in Table 3. There is a significant improvement in the overall score after using the kit in which the improvements were recorded in all components including handling of materials, practical knowledge and the safety awareness, except theoretical fundamental. Studies evidenced that the achievement of students is profoundly governed by the science process skills which allows students to involve directly in conducting experiments, interpreting data and solving problems (Baser & Durmus, 2010; Irwanto et al., 2018).

The performance of the pre- and post-test was examined based on types of schools (town and rural schools). The mean scores according to schools are shown in Table 4. Both rural and town schools demonstrate a marked increase in the overall mean scores in the post-test with improvements exhibited in handling of materials and safety understanding (p < 0.05). Likewise, no statistical difference (p > 0.05) is found in the theoretical knowledge of students from both school types, before and after using the kit. In the aspect of practical knowledge, students from the rural school attain a lower score (mean score = 13.00) compared to those from the town schools (mean score = 16.67). After using the kit, the mean score in practical knowledge achieved by students from both schools showed a significant improvement with a comparable mean score of 23.33. The National Science Education Standards in the United States and other contemporary science education literature ascertained that practical is an important medium to introduce students to central conceptual, procedural knowledge and skills in science (Bybee, 2000).

The attitude of the students towards learning of chemistry, before and after using the kit, was examined. The mean score of attitude according to factors are tabulated in Table 5. The results indicate that the practical kit has boosted the students’ interest in learning chemistry. This positive experience of laboratory work in promoting learning of chemistry is corroborated in numerous studies (Hofstein and Lunetta, 2004; Lunetta et al., 2007; Thompson & Soyibo, 2002). Tesfamariam et al. (2014) supports that a small scale kit allows the students to perform experiments individually, enhancing active learning rendering chemistry classes more interesting and enjoyable. Given the opportunities to handle the equipment and materials, students are able to construct the knowledge of phenomena and make the scientific concept relatable (Tobin, 1990). Laboratory activities play a central role in the science curriculum; educators have consistently supported the benefits accrue from engaging students in the laboratory activities. The practical experience also fosters the development of skills in cooperation and communication (Hofstein and Lunetta, 2004).

The perceptions of students from rural and town schools towards laboratory practical, before and after using the kit, are summarized in Table 6. There is an improvement in affection for chemistry among students from both school types where a greater increment is recorded in the rural school. The level of satisfaction has also increased when performing practical using the kit. Students find practical work relatively useful and enjoyable compared to other teaching and learning activities (Cerini et al., 2003).

The opinions of students on the usefulness of the kit are shown in Table 7. For item 1, 2, 6 and 13, 100% of students agree that the practical kit has helped to improve their skills in handling chemicals and apparatus in the practical exam. It is agreed that the kit provides more opportunity for hands-on and has improved their understanding on the fundamental. For item 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15 and 16, above 75% of the students acknowledge increase in their interest for chemistry and they appreciate the experience of working like a chemist. They are willing to do more experiments and indicate that the experiments can be completed quickly without problems in capturing the observations.

Students also express their learning experience in chemistry after using the kit. Some of the comments are extracted below. Students’ attitudes toward chemistry are positive and they have developed science process skills through the practical experience. The learning process is shifted to become “student-centered” rather than “teacher-centered”.

“By having a chance doing my own experiment, it increases my interest in Chemistry. I feel like I am a scientist!”

“It enhances and makes me more interested in handling experiment on my own with the guidance of the teacher.”

“I don’t like to do experiment because I’m sacred to handle the chemicals but the kit helps me to overcome that. This kit boosts my love for chemistry.”

“It gives me confident when it comes to chemistry practical. It is great to do the experiment for the preparation of SPM next year.”

“Everything needed is just packed a box. I never thought of doing experiments at home before! I believe this kit will help students since we cannot do the experiments at school.”

“through this practical kit, I can learn Chemistry by theories and also by doing experiments.”

The kit is designed for inquiry-based learning similar to the traditional lab, emphasizing on psychomotor experience involving physical investigation. Research shows that hands-on experiences in science laboratory play a central role in scientific education (Hofstein & Lunetta, 2004; Hofstein & Mamlok-Naaman, 2007; Ma & Nickerson, 2006; Satterthwait, 2010; Singer, Hilton, & Schweingruber, 2006; Tobin, 1990). It contributes to better assimilation of knowledge and help students to acquire critical reasoning skills (Gros, 2012; Lamba, 2015).

Scott (2009) revealed that students who completed science courses using non-traditional lab (virtual and remote) demonstrated significantly lower mean course grades and a lower passing rate than those with traditional labs (hands-on). Sicker et al. (2005) likewise suggests that students with traditional lab experience has out-performed those exposed to virtual laboratories. Although in this study, we observed positive outcomes from the hands-on practical, there are studies demonstrating comparable or greater outcome achievements in non-traditional delivery over the traditional lab (Brinson, 2015; Farrokhnia & Esmailpour, 2010; Frederick, 2013; Hawkins & Phelps, 2013; Tzafestas et al., 2006). Chan et al. (2021) advocates that virtual chemical laboratories can be as effective or even better than the conventional hands-on laboratory. Despite that, Colorado DOHE (2012) compared students who completed biology, chemistry and physics with non-traditional and traditional laboratory learning concluding that the latter group achieved significantly better grades in biology and chemistry with no statistical difference in physics. Various technologically-mediated approaches are made available to substitute or to be blended with the traditional laboratory learning. Nevertheless, the laboratory skills and experience with the specific equipment and supplies are not transferrable via online delivery. Chan et al. (2021) concluded that better learning outcomes are a result of combination of virtual and hands-on laboratory learning.

Conclusions

The laboratory kit developed based on the National Curriculum of Chemistry for Secondary School offered positive learning experience and increased the motivation for learning in students from rural and town schools. In time that schools are closed due to the COVID pandemic, it is an alternative to expose students to laboratory learning. The kit is designed to provide structured learning with flexibility in learning spaces and paces. It can be a take-home laboratory kit or to be used in the classroom setting. The kit is affordable, cost saving and environmental friendly.