Influence Of The Virtual Physics Laboratory On Tvet Trainees’ Learning Outcomes In Tertiary Education: A Case Of The Kisii National Polytechnic

Abstract

Though laboratory work is important in the learning of science, it is not often carried out in some schools because not all schools have equipped labs. To alleviate this problem, virtual laboratories (v-labs) have been suggested. However, researchers do not fully agree on the utilization of v-labs in the instruction of Physics. Guided by David Kolb' experiential learning model, the study compared the learning outcomes of trainees instructed using the virtual Physics laboratory (VPL) with those in the conventional Physics laboratory (CPL). The specific objectives guiding the study were, to investigate any differences in the; a) academic achievement between the CPL and the VPL trainees, b) mean retention of content between the CPL and the VPL trainees, c) accuracy of connecting physical circuit components and equipment between the CPL and the VPL trainees and d) speed of connecting physical circuits between the CPL and the VPL trainees; in the Craft Certificate in Science Laboratory Technology (CCSLT) in Physics in Kenya. The target population was all the 1940 Year II CCSLT trainees in the country and their 96 trainers. The sample was fifty three (N=53) Year II Physics trainees and four trainers from The Kisii National Polytechnic. A mixed research design was applied in the study with the quasi-experimental and a survey applied on randomly assigned intact classes to the experimental (N=27) and control (N=26) groups. Within a six-week period the VPL trainees practised in a v-lab while the non-v-lab trainees were exposed to CPL. Both groups were subjected to a Physics Achievement Test (PAT) at pretest (PAT 1) and two post-tests, PAT 2 and PAT 3. A lab test was also conducted. A survey using a trainees’ questionnaire; and a trainees’ interview were conducted. The research instruments were expert-validated and piloted before use. A Spearman’s Correlation Coefficient was calculated for each instrument and obtained as; r = 0.84, r = 0.86, r = 0.88 for PAT 1, PAT 2 and PAT 3 respectively; for the trainees’ questionnaire, r = 0.79; for the trainers’ interview schedule, r = 0.75 and for the practical test tool, r = 0.93 and r = 0.94 for pretest and post-test respectively. All instruments were accepted for use since r ≥ 0.7 preset. Qualitative data was analyzed and presented thematically. For quantitative data; means, standard deviation, t-tests for four null hypotheses at α = 0.05 were applied. The trainees across groups and genders were similar before treatment. The first null hypothesis, H01 was rejected, t = 2.019; p = 0.049; VPL trainees scored significantly higher than the CPL trainees in PAT 2. The users’ insights imply that v-labs lead trainees learn content better, but they influence learning similarly in male and female trainees. H02 was rejected; t = 2.308; p = 0.025, thus VPL trainees retain content better than those in CPL. Users perceived v-labs as boosting content retention, but no influence on retention by gender. At t = 0.056; p = 0.956, H03 was retained, so VPL and CPL trainees had similar connection accuracy. However, users perceived the v-labs to increase trainees’ connection accuracy. H04 was rejected as t = - 4.391; p = 0.000; the v-labs enhance the speed of connection. V-labs were perceived to increase trainees’ connection speed. The study recommended that trainees be engaged in v-labs during practical sessions and that there should be a longitudinal study on the influence of v-labs in learning physics. This research will benefit educationists interested in use of v-labs in instruction of Physics as a useful reference.