















































 
 
  

 

97 
 
 

p-ISSN: 2722-399X;  e-ISSN: 2722-1857 
SiLeT, Vol. 3, No. 1, April 2021: 97-106 

©2022 Studies in Learning  
and Teaching 

 

Studies in Learning and Teaching 
Homepage: https://scie-journal.com/index.php/SiLeT 
Email: silet@scie-journal.com 

Studies in Learning and Teaching 
https://scie-journal.com/index.php/SiLeT 

 

Blended Approach to Physics Problem-Solving Using Conventional and 
Virtual Labs: A Survey of Student’s Perception 

*M Pal1, Rinki1 
1Department of Teacher Education, Central University of South Bihar, India 

Article Info  ABSTRACT 

Article history: 

Received March 26, 2022 
Revised April 27, 2022 
Accepted May 17, 2022 
Available Online May 18, 2022 

Physics education entails rigorous problem-solving. But physics is 
full of abstraction and mathematical representations, which are 
hard to visualize. Hence, understanding the problems requires 
constant lab activities essential to physics problem-solving. But due 
to limited equipment and limited periods of usage in conventional 
labs, virtual labs are an alternative with their own set of limitations. 
So, a blend of the two virtual and conventional labs is a better 
option for problem-solving. A mixed-method approach was 
adopted to know the perception of higher secondary students 
towards this blended approach. For this, 150 CBSE board higher 
secondary students of science stream selected using convenient 
sampling from Lucknow were surveyed using a Likert-type 
perception scale comprising 15 items followed by an unstructured 
interview to know the preferred mode for physics problem-solving. 
The data so obtained were expressed in percentages. The study 
revealed that most students agreed with the overall perceived 
benefits of using conventional and virtual labs separately. But due 
to the inherent problems of these labs separately, students 
perceived the benefits offered by the blend of conventional and 
virtual labs in physics problem-solving more than using them 
separately. A blend of conventional and virtual labs should be used 
more often. 

Keywords: 

Perception 
Higher secondary students 
Problem-solving 
Blend 
Conventional and virtual labs 

 
https://doi.org/10.46627/silet  

INTRODUCTION 
Problem-solving is an indispensable, inevitable, and inseparable part of science education 
(Ceberio et al., 2016; Ibrahim & Rebello, 2012). It is central to physics education also as physics 
is one of the main components of science education (Adams & Wieman, 2015; Docktor & 
Mestre, 2014; Docktor et al., 2010). It is a mechanism incorporated into learning physics to judge 
whether the concept has been learned (Docktor et al., 2016; Ceberio et al., 2016). A lot many 
versions of the definition of problem-solving exist. Some defined it as a form of discovery 
learning that acts as a bridge between a learner’s prior knowledge and the solution of a problem 
(Ausubel, 1971). Some others viewed it as a cognitive process directed towards achieving a goal 
when there is no obvious solution to the problem (Meyer, 1992). It instills among the learners 
critical thinking, which is essential for decision-making skills (Ritchie & Thompson, 1988). 

But, problem-solving in physics is a Herculean task as it involves abstract concepts that are 
hard to realize (Çildir, 2005). So, it requires constant experimentation to enable the visualization 
of concepts, thereby reducing the abstractness (Ceberio et al., 2016). Hence, when conventional 
lab experiences support these, problem-solving becomes easy. These labs not only help students 
to understand concepts but also enable them to define and explain the laws and theories 
through hands-on activities (Bajpai, 2013). But these conventional labs are sometimes hard to 

http://u.lipi.go.id/1586183902
http://u.lipi.go.id/1587708325
https://scie-journal.com/index.php/SiLeT
mailto:silet@scie-journal.com
https://scie-journal.com/index.php/SiLeT
https://doi.org/10.46627/silet


Blended Approach to Physics Problem-Solving Using Conventional and Virtual Labs: A Survey of Student’s 

Perception 

https://doi.org/10.46627/silet.v3i1.102 

 

98 
 

 

Studies in Learning and Teaching 
https://scie-journal.com/index.php/SiLeT 

 

access and lack sufficient physical equipment (Yang & Heh, 2007) that are either very costly or 
require a lot of maintenance, thus, rendering lab activities unviable and costly affair. 

So, there arises a need to look for alternatives, and the virtual lab is one such alternative. 
These laboratories have striking features that make them unique, like being safe to use without 
any constraints of time involved (De-Jong et al., 2013; Ceberio et al., 2016). Their design is such 
that they provide sufficient problem-solving activities to the students that may vary to a degree 
(Yuliati et al., 2018). Apart from these, students also have the flexibility to work either alone or 
in small groups towards completing lab activities and receive immediate feedback from the 
computer simulations (Darrah et al., 2014). 

Hence, virtual labs play an indomitable role in problem-solving. But these labs also have 
certain limitations, such as less face-to-face interaction (Asal & Blake, 2006) and less recognition 
by accrediting agencies (Pyatt & Sims, 2007; Darrah et al., 2014). So, there is a need to 
implement a combination of these two, conventional as well as virtual labs, to solve the 
problems in physics. These invigorations of the features of both complement each other, thus 
making the combination of the two an invincible one. This combination that takes into account 
both online activities and face-to-face learning is called the blended approach to learning (Allen 
et al., 2007). So, students learn face-to-face in the classroom and concomitantly online outside 
the classroom. Therefore, in the present study, students of higher secondary stage study the 
physics problems content in the conventional labs as well as in virtual labs. Though the blended 
approach to learning has been very effective in increasing the performance outcome, 
motivation, and science communication skills in Physics courses (Rahmawatiet al., 2017), their 
usefulness in physics problem-solving is yet to be established. Even more specifically, the role 
of the blended approach in problem-solving through experimentation in conventional labs and 
virtual labs and the perception of higher secondary stage students about this is yet to be 
explored that is dealt with in this study. 

Problem-solving skill is a higher-order and complex cognitive process (Docktor & Mestre, 
2014; Yuliati et al., 2018) that is attained by a person when he understands the concepts well. 
Consequently, students find it hard to derive the meaning of the problem and hence cannot link 
it to their knowledge structure for that particular content area. Therefore, this was identified to 
be the basic reason by many researchers (Nakhleh, 1993). In physics education, it is concerned 
with abstract symbols rather than the physical meaning of the concepts. Due to the abstract 
nature of concepts in physics, it is difficult to realize the problems (Jian-Hua & Hong, 2012). 
Hence, these abstract concepts must be related to more concrete descriptions for students to 
understand the symbolic representations (Rosengrant et al., 2009; Yuliati et al., 2018).  

So, problem-solving, when accompanied by lab activities, improve problem-solving skills 
(Hofstein, 2004) and is vital to physics teaching and learning. Conventional labs provide hands-
on activities that give students procedural skills and develop among them an inquiry skill with 
which they explore the world around them. In addition, these labs also develop a positive 
attitude (Yeşilyurt et al., 2005) and a scientific perspective (Orbay et al., 2003). But it has its own 
set of disadvantages. They are hard to maintain and are a costly affair. Further, inadequate 
equipment prevents desired level of learning among the learners (Ayas et al., 2002), and 
limitations on hours of usage (Demir et al., 2011).  

So, virtual labs are a fruitful endeavor that technological advances have offered. Physical 
labs are not sufficient to fulfill the various needs of diverse learners, so virtual labs emerged as 
an alternative. These labs are platforms that contain simulated experiments that are remotely 
triggered, and students learn the scientific concepts that govern the experiments through 
visualization and practice (Jones, 2018). They mock conventional physical labs, and they 
overcome many of the obstacles faced by students, such as safety, flexibility in conducting 
experiments and affordability, and no constraints in conducting experiments (Tüysüz, 2010). 
These labs positively affect students’ lab experiences (Asikoy & Isek, 2017). They also help to 
visualize the concepts and allow one to answer the questions (Shih et al., 2016). 

https://doi.org/10.46627/silet.v3i1.102
https://scie-journal.com/index.php/SiLeT


Blended Approach to Physics Problem-Solving Using Conventional and Virtual Labs: A Survey of Student’s 

Perception 

https://doi.org/10.46627/silet.v3i1.102 

 

99 
 

 

Studies in Learning and Teaching 
https://scie-journal.com/index.php/SiLeT 

 

Virtual labs are found to be effective in problem-solving of the students as they cater to 
different learning styles of students (Gunawan et al., 2017). They also found these labs to be 
more effective in problem-solving than conventional labs and enhance problem-solving ability, 
thereby making them far better planners and motivated to implement problem-solving more 
frequently. At the same time, the problem-solving ability of students is greatly enhanced by 
feedback in online learning activities reported by Demiraslan-Çevik et al. (2015). Besides this, 
students’ literacy skills, such as those in designing graphs and predictions, are improved by 
experiments using computer programs (Subali et al., 2017). Though these labs have some 
noteworthy benefits yet have their own set of limitations such as idealized data, lack of 
collaboration, and the absence of interaction with real equipment (Hofstein & Lunetta, 1982; 
Nedic et al., 2003), less face-to-face interaction (Asal & Blake, 2006), less approved by 
accrediting agencies (Pyatt & Sims, 2007; Darrah et al., 2014). 

So, it is advantageous to use a blend of conventional and virtual labs in problem-solving. 
This allows one to overcome the limitations of both by complementing each other. Learning 
with virtual labs has the advantage of making the invisible appear and also providing multiple 
representations of the concepts that are abstract (Ceberio et al., 2016). This paper is dedicated to 
this problem to know the perception of higher secondary students towards this approach. 

The perception of higher secondary students matters the most as it is an important stage in 
the Indian education system which acts as a bridge between school and university education 
(National Council of Educational Research and Training, n.d). At this stage, students streamline 
themselves towards their careers. Hence, the perception of the students plays a critical role in 
problem-solving. In this regard, Koç (2015) reported a significant relationship between primary 
school students’ perceptions of problem-solving skills and their learning process need for help. 
Not only this, female students see themselves all the more emphatically as far as problem-
solving skills than their male counterparts. 

So, from the literature review, it is concluded that though abundant literature exists on 
problem-solving that has focused its attention on it as a standalone problem, it is either none or 
very little in the context of conventional and virtual labs. The investigator also found a dearth of 
studies using the blended approach of conventional and virtual labs on physics problem-
solving. So, this is a pertinent problem to know the perception of students about such an 
approach to problem-solving. At the same time, no such study was found to be conducted in 
India, particularly in Lucknow. Apart from this, problem-solving is an inseparable part of 
physics education, so it should be dealt with serious thought as the technological advancement 
of any nation depends on how its citizens make use of their learning in solving problems of 
day-to-day life. Therefore, the objections of this research are: 

1. To find the perceptions of higher secondary students towards problem-solving in physics 
using a conventional lab. 

2. To find the perceptions of higher secondary students towards problem-solving in physics 
using virtual labs. 

3. To find the perceptions of higher secondary students towards problem-solving in physics 
by using a blend of conventional and virtual labs. 

4. To find the preferred mode of physics problem-solving among conventional labs, virtual 
labs, and blended approaches. 

RESEARCH METHOD 
The population for this descriptive research comprised of higher secondary students of 
Lucknow city. Out of this, a sample of 150 class XI science stream students of Lucknow was 
selected using convenient sampling studying in CBSE boards that included both boys and girls. 
Only students studying in the higher secondary stage were included in the study. They were 
then surveyed for data collection using a questionnaire of Likert-type. An unstructured 
interview was also conducted to know the preferred mode of physics problem-solving by the 

https://doi.org/10.46627/silet.v3i1.102
https://scie-journal.com/index.php/SiLeT


Blended Approach to Physics Problem-Solving Using Conventional and Virtual Labs: A Survey of Student’s 

Perception 

https://doi.org/10.46627/silet.v3i1.102 

 

100 
 

 

Studies in Learning and Teaching 
https://scie-journal.com/index.php/SiLeT 

 

students. The data obtained from the survey were analyzed using percentages and frequency 
counts. They were then presented in the form of tables and graphs, and interpreted. 

The study is divided into four sections. The first section dealt with perception towards 
problem-solving in conventional labs, while the second section was to know the perception of 
higher secondary students towards the use of virtual labs for problem-solving in physics. The 
third section revealed the perception of higher secondary students towards the use of a blend of 
conventional and virtual labs in problems-solving in physics. The fourth section represents the 
data resulting from the interview that was intended to know students' preferred choices for 
physics problem-solving among conventional labs, virtual labs, and blended approaches. 

The tool used for data collection 
A 15-item perception scale developed by the research scholar was used for data collection. The 
scale items were Likert-type, ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. The scale was 
developed on three dimensions, namely,  

• Perception of higher secondary students towards the use of conventional labs for 
problem-solving in physics 

• Perception of higher secondary students towards the use of virtual labs for problem-
solving in physics 

• Perception of higher secondary students towards the use of a blend of conventional and 
virtual labs in problems-solving in physics  

It had 13 positives and two negative items. The positive items were scored 5 for strongly 
agree and 1 for strongly disagree, while the negative items were scored 5 for strongly disagree 
and 1 for strongly agree.  
An unstructured interview was also conducted to know the preferred mode for physics 
problem-solving among conventional labs, virtual labs, and blended approaches. 

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 
The data obtained from the survey were tabulated in three tables and were interpreted. 

Table 1. Perception towards physics problem-solving in conventional labs 

No. Item Agree (percentage) Disagree (percentage) Neither (percentage) 

1 The lab activities are 
quite engaging 

65.3 28 6.7 

2 They provide hands-
on activities 

80 6 14 

3 They develop 
decision-making skills 

65.3 15.4 19.3 

4 They develop 
planning skills 

73.3 12 14.7 

As much as 65.3% of students agreed with the fact that lab activities keep students 
engaged, while 28% expressed disagreement with it. Besides this, 80% of students were found 
to be supportive of the fact that conventional labs provide hands-on activities. However, hardly 
6% of students felt otherwise. Additionally, 65.3% of students agreed that traditional labs 
developed decision-making skills when others disagreed with the fact, and they accounted for 
15.4%. Also, 73.3% of students supported the fact that conventional labs develop planning 
skills, whereas 12% did not support this (Table 1). 

Table 2. Perception towards physics problem-solving in virtual labs 

No. Items Agree (percentage) Disagree (percentage) Neutral (percentage) 

1 It reduces abstraction 
in concepts 

69.4 18.7 12 

2 It does not increase the 36 56.7 7.3 

https://doi.org/10.46627/silet.v3i1.102
https://scie-journal.com/index.php/SiLeT


Blended Approach to Physics Problem-Solving Using Conventional and Virtual Labs: A Survey of Student’s 

Perception 

https://doi.org/10.46627/silet.v3i1.102 

 

101 
 

 

Studies in Learning and Teaching 
https://scie-journal.com/index.php/SiLeT 

 

visualization of 
problems in physics 

3 It makes 
experimentation less 
feasible 

43.3 50 6.7 

4 It is more economical 63.3 18.6 18 
5 It encourages 

experimentation 
70.6 17.4 12 

Though, 69.4% of students supported the fact that virtual labs reduce abstraction in the 
concepts, while 18.7% disagreed with it. When speaking of visualization of the concepts, 56.7% 
of students expressed disagreement that virtual labs do not increase visualization of the 
complex phenomenon, and only 36% of students agreed with it. Furthermore, 43.3% of students 
agreed that virtual labs make experimentation less feasible, but half of the students disagreed 
with this. Meanwhile, 63.3% of students perceived virtual labs to be more economical, but 18.6% 
opposed them. At the same time, 70.6% of students felt that virtual labs encourage 
experimentation, while 17.4% discarded this view (Table 2). 

Table 3. Perception of students towards physics problem-solving using a blend of conventional and 
virtual labs 

No. Item Agree 
(percentage) 

Disagree 
(percentage) 

Neutral 
(percentage) 

1 The blend boosts confidence for 
problem-solving in physics 

66.7 16.7 16.7 

2 The blend encourages problem-
solving in physics collaboratively 

70.6 13.4 16 

3 The blend develops higher-order 
thinking skills by problem-solving 

73.4 12.7 14 

4 The blend develops novel ideas for 
problem-solving in physics 

64.7 24.0 11.3 

5 The blend will change the outlook 
of students towards problem-
solving in physics 

71.3 13.4 15.3 

6 The blend of conventional and 
virtual labs is more successful in 
problem-solving than traditional. 

74.7 12 13.3 

Out of the total, 66.7% agreed to the fact that the blend of virtual labs and traditional labs 
will contribute to a boost in confidence for problem-solving in physics, whereas 16.7% 
disagreed with it. In addition to this, 70.6% of students accepted the view that a blend of virtual 
and traditional labs surely encourages students to solve problems in physics with their peers 
collaboratively. On the other hand, 13.4% of students expressed disagreement. Furthermore, 
73.4% of students agreed with the fact that the blend of virtual and traditional labs contributes 
to the development of higher-order thinking skills, whereas 12.7% of students disagreed with it. 
Besides this, 64.7% accepted the point that the blend of virtual and traditional labs helps 
develop novel ideas for problem-solving in physics, while 24% were against it. Moreover, 71.3% 
of students supported that the combination of virtual and traditional labs will change the 
outlook of students toward problem-solving in physics, and a mere 13.4% of students did not 
accept this. Notably, 74.7% of students agreed to the fact that the blend of conventional and 
virtual labs will be more successful in problem-solving than just the traditional labs or virtual 
labs (Table 3). 

An unstructured interview was also conducted to know the preferred mode of physics 
problem-solving among conventional, virtual, and a blend of these two among higher 

https://doi.org/10.46627/silet.v3i1.102
https://scie-journal.com/index.php/SiLeT


Blended Approach to Physics Problem-Solving Using Conventional and Virtual Labs: A Survey of Student’s 

Perception 

https://doi.org/10.46627/silet.v3i1.102 

 

102 
 

 

Studies in Learning and Teaching 
https://scie-journal.com/index.php/SiLeT 

 

secondary students and the reason behind their preference. The results are as follows in figure 
1: 

 
Figure 1. Students preferred mode for physics problem-solving 

Eighty students preferred the blended approach for problem-solving and were highly 
preferred, while 37 students chose virtual labs and reasoned that they combine features of both 
conventional and virtual labs. However, only 33 students opted for conventional labs that were 
least preferred and opined that they gain real experiences that nothing can replace and be a 
substitute. But 37 students opted for virtual labs and concluded that they provide visualization 
of the abstract concepts that are hard to realize otherwise (Figure 1). 

In the study, students perceived conventional lab activities to be engaging. They provide 
students an opportunity for hands-on activities as they get a chance to manipulate physical 
equipment. It also allows them to experience the subtleties of experimentation. Additionally, 
working with real equipment enhances the decision-making skills of the students (Okeke, 1995) 
while making them be better planners of the task. All these features of conventional labs help 
students to be better problem-solvers by enabling them to solve the problem by doing. But the 
limitations of space and time, the cost associated with the conventional labs, insufficiency of 
equipment, limited laboratory hours, and safety (Yang & Heh, 2007; Ullah et al., 2016; 
Rodríguez et al., 2012) make it hard to use them all the time. Therefore, it was the least 
preferred for problem-solving. So, virtual labs pose to be an alternative. 

Most of the students perceived virtual labs to reduce abstractionism in concepts by 
providing mental models of the concepts, and also keep the students actively engaged in their 
learning processes (Finkelstein, 2005; Junglas, 2006). So are very useful in learning the concepts 
(Docktor et al., 2016; Ceberio et al., 2016). Additionally, it enhances the visualization by 
providing multiple representations of the phenomena supported by Ceberio et al., (2016). The 
virtual labs also make experimentation more feasible since no time bounds are imposed (De-
Jong et al., 2014; Ceberio et al., 2016). These are accessible from anywhere and anytime without 
the worries of space and time. Also, these labs are far more economical (De-Jong et al., 2013) as 
only the initial cost accrued in developing the software. So they are less pricey than 
sophisticated instruments in conventional labs. But these have some noteworthy limitations too. 
Owing to the benefits, it was the second choice of the students. 

Thus, the study revealed that students perceived a blended approach of experimentation 
using virtual and conventional labs to instill and boost confidence among the students as the 
students can either practice the experiments before entering the physical lab (Dyrberg et al., 
2016; Kolil et al., 2020) or use them for practicing the experiments after working with physical 

33
37

80

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Conventional labs Virtual labs Blended approach

N
u

m
b

e
r 

o
f 

st
u

d
e

n
ts

Mode preferred for physics problem-solving

https://doi.org/10.46627/silet.v3i1.102
https://scie-journal.com/index.php/SiLeT


Blended Approach to Physics Problem-Solving Using Conventional and Virtual Labs: A Survey of Student’s 

Perception 

https://doi.org/10.46627/silet.v3i1.102 

 

103 
 

 

Studies in Learning and Teaching 
https://scie-journal.com/index.php/SiLeT 

 

equipment in conventional labs. Moreover, they can repeat them whenever they wish to (Herga 
et al., 2016). Hence it hones the problem-solving ability of the students while performing 
physical experiments (Avramiotis & Tsaparlis, 2013) and sharpens their critical thinking skills 
(Mashami & Gunawan, 2018). This deepens the knowledge that leads to a better understanding 
of physics problems. So, students are encouraged to problem-solving in physics collaboratively. 
Hence the students develop higher-order thinking skills and look for novel ideas for solving the 
physics problem. Most prominently, students also believed the approach to change the 
complete outlook toward problem-solving and predicted this combination to be more 
successful in physics problem-solving than either conventional or virtual labs alone. Hence, the 
blended approach is a novel approach that overcomes the limitations of both the conventional 
and virtual approaches giving students a chance to explore the problems from different angles 
and making it the highest in preference in comparison to either conventional labs or virtual 
labs. Thus, enabling the students to approach the problem in multiple ways. Thereby making 
physics problem-solving much more interesting, leading to meaningful learning. Therefore, it is 
of far more value in science education (De-Jong, Linn, and Zacharia, 2013). So, this was the first 
preference of the students for physics problem-solving. 

CONCLUSION 
The study revealed that students perceived virtual labs as effective tools for problem-solving in 
physics. But due to the limitations that the virtual labs pose, it is highly recommended to use a 
mix of the two, conventional and virtual labs, to benefit from the unique and striking features of 
both that complement each other. This study recommends that future researchers use the 
blended approach of conventional and virtual labs to solve physics problems using different 
approaches as much as possible for a clear understanding of the concepts and role of problem-
solving in conceptual mastery. Although lab activities are crucial to physics education, it is not 
implemented rigorously into it. Henceforth, this study will motivate researchers to conduct 
research concerning the need and role of laboratories in various contexts, such as in developing 
higher-order thinking skills; and reasonable and logical understanding. So, it is imperative to 
integrate laboratory activities that are a blend of both conventional and technology-based labs. 
It can also be implemented in different other scientific areas. 

But which option, the conventional or virtual lab, should be introduced when a question is 
to be explored further? It is also recommended that virtual labs should be designed carefully. 
Due care should be given to the lesson plans and unit plans keeping in mind the blended 
approach of virtual and conventional labs.  

REFERENCES  
Adams, W. K., & Wieman, C. E. (2015). Analyzing the many skills involved in solving complex 

physics problems. American Journal of Physics, 83(5), 459-467. 
Allen, I. E., Seaman, J., & Garret, R. (2007). Blending in: the extent and promise of blended 

education in the United States. Methodology, 1-29.  
Asal, V., & Blake, E. L. (2006). Creating simulations for political science education. Journal of 

Political Science Education, 2(1), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1080/15512160500484119 
Asikoy, G., & Isek, D. (2017). The impact of the virtual laboratory on students’ attitudes in a 

general physics laboratory. IJOE, 13(4). https://doi.org/10.3991/ijoe.v13i04.6811 
Ausubel, D. P. (1971). The psychology of meaningful learning. Grune and Stratton. 
Avramiotis, S., & Tsaparlis, G. (2013). Using computer simulations in chemistry problem-

solving. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 14(3), 297–311. 
https://doi.org/10.1039/C3RP20167H 

Ayas, A., Karamustafaoğlu, S., Sevim, S., & Karamustafaoğlu, O. (2002). Genel kimya laboratuar 
uygulamalarının öğrenci ve öğretim elemanı gözüyle değerlendirilmesi. [Academicians' 

https://doi.org/10.46627/silet.v3i1.102
https://scie-journal.com/index.php/SiLeT
https://doi.org/10.1080/15512160500484119
https://doi.org/10.3991/ijoe.v13i04.6811
https://doi.org/10.1039/C3RP20167H


Blended Approach to Physics Problem-Solving Using Conventional and Virtual Labs: A Survey of Student’s 

Perception 

https://doi.org/10.46627/silet.v3i1.102 

 

104 
 

 

Studies in Learning and Teaching 
https://scie-journal.com/index.php/SiLeT 

 

and students' views of general chemistry laboratory applications]. Hacettepe University 
Journal of Education, 23, 50-56. 

Bajpai, M. (2013). Developing concepts in physics through virtual lab experiment: An 
effectiveness study. Techno Learn: An International Journal of Educational Technology, 3(1), 43-
50.  

Ceberio, M., Almudi, J. M., & Franco, A. (2016). Design and application of interactive 
simulations in problem-solving in university-level physics education. Journal of Science 
Education and Technology, 25, 590-609. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-016-9615-7 

Çildir, I. (2005). Identification of high school students’ misconception about electric current by concept 
maps. [Master’s thesis, Hacettepe University]. https://acikbilim.yok.gov.tr/handle/20.500. 
12812/481317 

Darrah, M., Humbert, R., Finstein, J., Simon, M., & Hopkins, J. (2014). Are virtual labs as 
effective as hands-on labs for undergraduate physics? A comparative study at two major 
universities. Journal of Science Educational Technology, 23, 803–814. 
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-014-9513-9 

De-Jong, T., Linn, M. C., & Zacharia, Z. C. (2013). Physical and virtual laboratories in science 
and engineering education. Science, 340(6130), 305-308. 
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1230579 

Demir, S., Böyük, U., & Koç, A. (2011). Fen ve teknoloji dersi öğretmenlerinin laboratuvar 
şartları ve kullanımına ilişkin görüşleri ile teknolojik yenilikleri izleme eğilimleri. [Opinions 
of science and technology teachers about laboratory conditions and usage and trends in 
monitoring technological innovations]. Mersin University Journal of the Faculty of Education, 
7(2), 66-79. 

Demiraslan-Çevik, Y., Haslaman, T., & Çelik, S. (2015). The effect of peer assessment on 
problem-solving skills of prospective teachers supported by online learning activities. 
Studies in Educational Evaluation, 44(1), 23–35. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2014.12.002 

Docktor, J. L., Strand, N. E., Mestre, J. P., & Ross, B. H. (2010). A conceptual approach to physics 
problem-solving. American Institute of Physics, 1289(1), 137-140. 
https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3515180 

Docktor, J. L., & Mestre, J. P. (2014). Synthesis of discipline-based education research in physics. 
Physical Review Special Topics-Physics Education Research, 10(2), 0201191-02011958. 
https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.10.020119 

Docktor, J. L., Dornfeld, J., Frodermann, E., Heller, K., Hsu, L., Jackson, K. A., Mason, A., Ryan, 
Q. X., & Yang, J. (2016). Assessing student written problem solutions: A problem-solving 
rubric with application to introductory physics. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 
12(1), 10130. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.12.010130 

Dyrberg, N. R., Treusch, A. H., & Wiegand, C. (2016). Virtual laboratories in science education: 
Students’ motivation and experiences in two tertiary biology courses. Journal of Biological 
Education, 51(4), 358–374. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266. 2016.1257498 

Finkelstein, N. D., Adams, W. K., Keller, C. J., Kohl, P. B., Perkins, K. K., Podolefsky, N. S., Reid, 
S., & LeMaster, R. (2005). When learning about the real world is better done virtually: A 
study of substituting computer simulations for laboratory equipment. Physical Review 
Special Topics - Physics Education Research, 1(1), 10103. 
https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.1.010103 

Gunawan, G., Harjono, A., Sahidu, H., & Herayanti, L. (2017). Virtual laboratory to improve 
students’ problem-solving skills on electricity concept. Jurnal Pendidikan (IPA) Indonesia, 
6(2), 257-264. https://doi.org/10.15294/jpii.v6i2.9481 

Hofstein, A. (2004). The laboratory in chemistry education: thirty years of experience with 
developments, implementation, and research. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 5(3), 
247-264. https://doi.org/10.1039/B4RP90027H 

https://doi.org/10.46627/silet.v3i1.102
https://scie-journal.com/index.php/SiLeT
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-016-9615-7
https://acikbilim.yok.gov.tr/handle/20.500.%0b12812/481317
https://acikbilim.yok.gov.tr/handle/20.500.%0b12812/481317
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-014-9513-9
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1230579
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2014.12.002
https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3515180
https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.10.020119
https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.12.010130
https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.%202016.1257498
https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.1.010103
https://doi.org/10.15294/jpii.v6i2.9481
https://doi.org/10.1039/B4RP90027H


Blended Approach to Physics Problem-Solving Using Conventional and Virtual Labs: A Survey of Student’s 

Perception 

https://doi.org/10.46627/silet.v3i1.102 

 

105 
 

 

Studies in Learning and Teaching 
https://scie-journal.com/index.php/SiLeT 

 

Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. N. (1982).  The role of the laboratory in science teaching: Neglected 
aspects of research. Review of Educational Research, 52(2), 201-217. 
https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543052002201 

Herga, N. R., Cagran, B., & Dinevski, D. (2016). Virtual laboratory in the role of dynamic 
visualisation for better understanding of chemistry in primary school. Eurasia Journal of 
Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 12(3), 593–608. 
https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2016.1224a 

Ibrahim, B., & Rebello, N. S. (2012). Representational task format and problem-solving strategies 
in kinematics and work. Physics Review Special Topics-Physics Education Research, 8(1), 
0101261- 01012619. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.8.010126 

Jian-hua, S., & hong, L. (2012). Explore the effective use of multimedia technology in college 
physics teaching. Energy Procedia, 17, 1897–1900. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2012.02.329 

Jones, N. (2018). Simulated labs are booming. Nature, 562(7725), S5–S5. 
https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-06831-1  

Junglas, P. (2006). Simulation programs for teaching thermodynamics. Global Journal of 
Engineering Education, 10(2), 175-180. 

Koç, C. (2015). Perceptions of primary school students for problem-solving skills and their help-
seeking during learning process. Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, 23(2), 659-678.  

Kolil, V. K., Muthupalani, S., & Achuthan, K. (2020). Virtual experimental platforms in 
chemistry laboratory education and its impact on experimental self-efficacy. International 
Journal of Educational Technology in Higher education, 17(30), 1-22. 
https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-020-00204-3 

Mashami, R., & Gunawan, G. (2018). The influence of sub-microscopic media animation on 
students’ critical thinking skills based on gender. Journal of Physics Conference Series, 1108, 
0121061-0121068. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1108/1/012106 

Nakhleh, M. B. (1993). Are our students’ conceptual thinkers or algorithmic problem solvers? 
Identifying conceptual students in general chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 70(1), 
52. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed070p52  

National Council of Educational Research and Training (n.d.). Revised syllabus of physics higher 
secondary stage. https://ncert.nic.in/pdf/syllabus/desm_s_Physics.pdf 

Nedic, Z., Machotka, J., & Nafalski, A. (2003). Remote laboratories versus virtual and real 
laboratories. 33rd Annual Frontiers in Education, 2003. FIE 2003., 1, T3E-T3E. 
https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE.2003.1263343 

Okeke, R. J. (1995). Principles of development selection, utilization, evaluation storage, and 
retrieval of instructional materials. In F. A. Okwo, & G. A. Ike (Eds.), Educational technology: 
Basic concepts of issues (pp. 45-76). University Trust Publishers. 

Orbay M., Özdoğan T., Öner F., Kara M., & Gümüş S. (2003). Fen bilgisi laboratuvar 
uygulamaları I-II dersinde karşılaşılan güçlükler ve çözüm önerileri [Difficulties 
encountered in science lab laboratory applications I-II lesson and solution proposals]. 
Journal of National Education, 157. 

Pyatt, K., & Sims, R. (2007). Learner performance and attitudes in traditional versus simulated 
laboratory experiences. Proceedings of ASCILITE - Australian Society for Computers in Learning 
in Tertiary Education Annual Conference 2007, 870-879. 

Rahmawati, W., Putri Z. R., & Arinda, Y. (2017). Potential of blended learning to optimize 
performance outcome, motivation, and science communication in physics course. [Conference 
presentation abstract]. The 3rd International Seminar on Science Education, Graduate 
School of Yogyakarta State University. http://seminar.uny.ac.id/isse2017 
/sites/seminar.uny.ac.id.isse2017/files/abstrak%20ISSE%202017.docx 

Ritchie, J. B., & Thompson, P. (1988). Organization and people. West Publishing Co. 

https://doi.org/10.46627/silet.v3i1.102
https://scie-journal.com/index.php/SiLeT
https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543052002201
https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2016.1224a
https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.8.010126
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2012.02.329
https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-06831-1
https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-020-00204-3
https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1108/1/012106
https://doi.org/10.1021/ed070p52
https://ncert.nic.in/pdf/syllabus/desm_s_Physics.pdf
https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE.2003.1263343
http://seminar.uny.ac.id/isse2017%0b/sites/seminar.uny.ac.id.isse2017/files/abstrak%20ISSE%202017.docx
http://seminar.uny.ac.id/isse2017%0b/sites/seminar.uny.ac.id.isse2017/files/abstrak%20ISSE%202017.docx


Blended Approach to Physics Problem-Solving Using Conventional and Virtual Labs: A Survey of Student’s 

Perception 

https://doi.org/10.46627/silet.v3i1.102 

 

106 
 

 

Studies in Learning and Teaching 
https://scie-journal.com/index.php/SiLeT 

 

Rodríguez, J., Gutiérrez, T., Sánchez, E. J., Casado, S., & Aguinaga, I. (2012). Training of 
procedural tasks through the use of virtual reality and direct aids. In C. S. Lanyi (Ed.), 
Virtual reality environments (pp. 43–68). InTech. 

Rosengrant, D., Van-Heuvelen, A., & Etkina, E. (2009). Do students use and understand free-
body diagrams?. Physics Review Special Topics-Physics Education Research, 5(010108). 
https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.5.0101 

Shih, K. J., Singh, S., & Hoiem, D. (2016). Where to look: Focus regions for visual question 
answering. Computers Vision and Pattern Recognition, 1(1), 4613–4621. 
https://doi.org/10.1109/CVPR.2016.499 

Subali, B., Rusdiana, D., Firman, H., Kaniawati, I., & Ellianawati, E. (2017). Computer-based 
experiment of free fall movement to improve the graphical literacy. Indonesia Journal of 
Science and Education, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.15294/jpii.v6i1.8750 

Tüysüz, C. (2010). The effect of the virtual laboratory on students’ achievement and attitude in 
chemistry. International Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 2(1), 37-53. 

Ullah, S., Ali, N., & Rahman, S. U. (2016). The effect of procedural guidance on students’ skill 
enhancement in a virtual chemistry laboratory, Journal of Chemical Education, 93(12), 2018–
2025. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.5b00969 

Yang, K. Y., & Heh, J. S. (2007). The impact of internet virtual physics laboratory instruction on 
the achievement in physics, science process skills, and computer attitudes of 10th -grade 
students. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 16(5), 451–461. 
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-007-9062-6 

Yeşilyurt, M., Kurt, T., & Temur, A. (2005). İlköğretim fen laboratuvarı için tutum anketi 
geliştirilmesi ve uygulanması [Development and application of attitude questionnaire for 
primary science laboratory]. Pamukkake University Journal of Education, 17, 23–37. 

Yuliati, L., Riantoni, C., & Mufti, N. (2018). Problem-solving skills on direct current electricity 
through inquiry-based learning with PhET simulations. International Journal of 
Instruction, 11(4), 123–138. https://doi.org/10.12973/iji.2018.1149a 

Author (s): 

* Mamta Pal (Corresponding Author) 
Department of Teacher Education, School of Education, 
Central University of South Bihar, 
Gaya-824236 (Bihar), India 
Email: mamta11pal@gmail.com 

 

Rinki 
Department of Teacher Education, School of Education, 
Central University of South Bihar, 
Gaya-824236 (Bihar), India 

 

https://doi.org/10.46627/silet.v3i1.102
https://scie-journal.com/index.php/SiLeT
https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.5.0101
https://doi.org/10.1109/CVPR.2016.499
https://doi.org/10.15294/jpii.v6i1.8750
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.5b00969
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-007-9062-6
https://doi.org/10.12973/iji.2018.1149a
mailto:mamta11pal@gmail.com

