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

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

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

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

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