Tool Development and Validation for the Evaluation of Video Demonstration Presentation for a General Biology Laboratory Activity

Kevin Herson Gomez; Gemima Abayan Estrabillo

doi:10.30998/xdpy9m98

Authors

Kevin Herson Gomez Holy Angel University Author
Gemima Abayan Estrabillo Holy Angel University Author

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.30998/xdpy9m98

Keywords:

Video demonstration presentation method, cellular respiration, grade 12 STEM, tool development, tool validation

Abstract

This study aimed to develop and validate an evaluation tool for a video demonstration–based General Biology laboratory activity on cellular respiration using feedback from Grade 12 Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) students at Holy Angel University during School Year 2021–2022. Students’ perceptions of facility of use, satisfaction, and self-reported laboratory competencies were examined to support instrument construction. A total of 260 Grade 12 STEM students enrolled in General Biology, all with prior exposure to laboratory-based science instruction, participated in the study. A quantitative evaluative research design was employed. The instrument consisted of two sections: (1) three open-ended questions capturing students’ learning experiences, and (2) 26 Likert-type items measuring science process skills adapted from Safaah et al. (2017). A pilot test was conducted among Grade 12 General Academic Strand (GAS) students before administration to the main sample. Descriptive statistics, including means, standard deviations, and percentages, were used to summarize responses. Construct validity was assessed using the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) Measure of Sampling Adequacy and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity, while internal consistency reliability was examined using Cronbach’s alpha. Results showed acceptable levels of facility, satisfaction, and competency based on predefined scale descriptors. Factor analysis yielded two components with a KMO value of 0.91, indicating excellent sampling adequacy. Items 1, 3, 4, and 15 were removed due to low communalities and weak factor loadings, improving construct clarity. The final instrument demonstrated high reliability (α = 0.92, pilot; α = 0.97, post-test), supporting its validity for evaluating video-based biology laboratory activities.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Abbey, B. (2020). Lab experiments moved online or mailed. La Trobe University.

https://www.latrobe.edu.au/news/articles2020/opinion/lab-experiments-moved-online-or-mailed

Ahdika, A. (2017). Improvement of quality, interest, critical, and analytical thinking ability of students through the application of research-based learning in introduction to stochastic processes. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 12, 167–191. https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/608

Al Natour, S., & Woo, C. (2021). Determinants of learner satisfaction with online video presentation methods. Internet Research, 31(1), 234–261. https://doi.org/10.1108/INTR-04-2019-0155

American Chemical Society. (2019). The importance of hands-on laboratory science.

https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/policy/publicpolicies/education/computersimulations.html

Aronne, L., Nagle, C., Styers, J., Combs, A., & George, J. A. (2019). The effects of video-based pre-lab instruction on college students’ attitudes and achievement. Electronic Journal of Science Education. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1234449.pdf

Babincakova, M., & Bernard, P. (2020). Online experimentation during COVID-19 secondary school closures: Teaching methods and student perceptions. Journal of Chemical Education, 97(9), 3295–3300. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c00748

Bretz, S. L. (2019). Evidence for the importance of laboratory courses. Journal of Chemical Education, 96(2), 193–195. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.8b00874

Chaytor, J. L., Al-Mughalaq, M., & Butler, H. (2017). Development and use of online prelaboratory activities in organic chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 94(7), 859–866.

Cobb, S., Corcoran, O., Heaney, R., & Henderson-Begg, S. (2009). Learning gains and student perceptions of a Second Life virtual lab. Bioscience Education, 13. https://doi.org/10.3108/beej.13.5

Cresswell, S. L., Loughlin, W. A., Coster, M. J., & Green, D. M. (2019). Development and production of interactive videos for teaching chemical techniques. Journal of Chemical Education, 96(5), 1033–1036. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.8b00647

Gamage, K. A. A., Wijesuriya, D. I., Ekanayake, S. Y., Rennie, A. E. W., Lambert, C. G., & Gunawardhana, N. (2020). Online delivery of teaching and laboratory practices during COVID-19. Education Sciences, 10(10), 291. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci10100291

Gross, H. (2020). With lab courses shifting online, students worry about losing hands-on experience. The Daily Pennsylvanian.

https://www.thedp.com/article/2020/03/online-labs-penn-student-reactions-chemistry-biology-physics

Hofstein, A., & Naaman, R. (2007). The laboratory in science education: The state of the art. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 8(2), 105–107.

Iuliano, E., et al. (2021). Student satisfaction with online workshops replacing practice-oriented activities. Education Sciences, 11(10), 600. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11100600

Kapilan, N., Vidhya, P., & Gao, X.-Z. (2020). Virtual laboratory as a boon to engineering education during COVID-19. Higher Education for the Future, 8(1), 31–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/2347631120970757

Kay, R., Goulding, H., & Li, J. (2018). Assessing the impact of a virtual lab in an allied health program. Journal of Allied Health, 47(1), 45–50.

Kovacs, M., Holcombe, A., Aust, F., & Aczel, B. (2021). The importance of tool development for research efficiency. Information Services & Use, 41(1–2), 123–130. https://doi.org/10.3233/ISU-210109

Padilla, M. J. (2022). Science process skills. NARST.

https://narst.org/research-matters/science-process-skills

Petillion, R. J., & McNeil, W. S. (2021). Student satisfaction with synchronous online organic chemistry laboratories. Journal of Chemical Education, 98(9), 2861–2869. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.1c00549

Safaah, E. S., Muslim, M., & Liliawati, W. (2017). Teaching science process skills using the learning cycle. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 895, 012106.

Tavakol, M., & Dennick, R. (2011). Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha. International Journal of Medical Education, 2, 53–55.

Yildirim, F. S. (2021). The effect of virtual laboratory applications on students’ achievement. Journal of Education in Science, Environment and Health, 7(2), 171–181.