Effect of Laboratory Approach on Secondary School Students Interest and Achievement in Biology in Obudu Local Government Area, Cross River State, Nigeria

VillageMath Educational Review, 7(1) https://ngsme.villagemath.net/journals/ver 203 Jim & Echoda Volume 7, Issue 1 December, 2025 CODEN: VERIAU Effect of Laboratory Approach on Secondary School Students Interest and Achievement in Biology in Obudu Local Government Area, Cross River State, Nigeria Daniel Simeon JIM 1 and Benjamin ECHODA 2 1 Department of Biology Education, Joseph Sarwuan Tarka University, Makurdi, Nigeria 2 Department of Mathematics Education, Joseph Sarwuan Tarka University, Makurdi, Nigeria DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17889944 Article History: Received 6th November, 2025; Revised 30th November, 2025; Published 11th December, 2025. Copyright © 2025 by Author(s) and The VillageMath Network This work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ How to Cite this Article: Jim, D. S., & Echoda, B. (2025). Effect of Laboratory Approach on Secondary School Students Interest and Achievement in Biology in Obudu Local Government Area, Cross River State, Nigeria. VillageMath Educational Review (VER), 7(1), 203-212. https://ngsme.villagemath.net/journals/ver/v7i1/jim-echoda Abstract This study was conducted to determine the effect of laboratory approach on Secondary School Students interest and achievement in Biology in Obudu Local Government Area, Cross River State, Nigeria. In all, two research questions and two hypotheses were formulated to guide the study. The quasi-experimental design was adopted for the study while the purposive and random sampling techniques were used in selecting 300 Senior Secondary II Biology students. Two instruments were used for data collection. They are Biology Achievement Test (BAT) and Biology Interest Inventory (BII). Two experts in Measurement and Evaluation and one expert in Science Education, all of Joseph Sarwuan Tarka University validated the instruments. The reliability test of the Biology Interest VillageMath Educational Review An International/Multidisciplinary Journal of Network for Grassroots Science and Mathematics Education (The VillageMath Network) A publication of VillageMath Educational Services ( CAC RC: 4097888 ) VillageMath Educational Review, 7(1) https://ngsme.villagemath.net/journals/ver 204 Effect of Laboratory Approach on Secondary School Students Interest and Achievement in Biology in Obudu Local Government Area, Cross River State, Nigeria Inventory yielded a Cronbach Alpha Coefficient of 0.84 while the Biology Achievement Test yielded a reliability coefficient of 0.79. The descriptive statistics of mean and standard deviation was used to answer the research questions while the ANCOVA was used to test the hypotheses at 0.05 level of significance. The study found out that interest was significant in favour of the experimental group and achievement was significant in favour of the experimental group. The study therefore concluded that educators should consider integrating laboratory experiences into Biology curricula to promote sustained learning and deeper understanding among students. Based on the findings, the study recommended that educators should prioritize incorporating hands-on laboratory activities into Biology instruction. Curriculum developers and educational policymakers should implement ongoing evaluation and feedback mechanisms to assess the effectiveness of instructional practices, including laboratory approaches strategies accordingly to enhance overall learning outcomes in Biology education at the senior secondary school level and teachers should leverage technology, such as virtual simulations and digital resources, to complement handson laboratory activities and enhance students engagement and understanding of biological concepts. Keywords: Laboratory Approach, Academic Achievement, Interest, Biology Education, Teaching Methods, Science Education Introduction Science is a systematic approach to understanding the natural world through observation, experimentation, and evidence-based reasoning. It seeks to explain phenomena by developing theories and laws grounded in empirical data, enabling advancements in technology, medicine, and numerous other fields. The essence of science lies in its iterative process, where hypotheses are rigorously tested, refined, or refuted, fostering a culture of curiosity and critical thinking. Quality education in schools continues to dominate global conversations, especially concerning persistent issues in teaching, learning, and educational systems. As highlighted by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD, 2019), improving educational quality requires addressing gaps in instructional methods, learning environments, and student support mechanisms. Science educators have long emphasized the importance of laboratory experiences as a powerful instructional tool. The laboratory is considered central to science teaching because it provides opportunities for direct observation, hands-on activities, and engagement that promote deeper understanding, as noted by Hofstein and Lunetta (2004). Whenever the concept of interest is discussed in education, it refers to the learner’s emotional or cognitive engagement with the content, which enhances motivation and learning effectiveness, a view supported by Krapp and Prenzel (2011). Biology, a core natural science concerned with the study of living organisms, underpins numerous applied fields such as medicine, biotechnology, agriculture, and environmental science. It remains a prerequisite subject for many STEM-related careers, as emphasized by the National Academies Committee on How People Learn II (2018). VillageMath Educational Review, 7(1) https://ngsme.villagemath.net/journals/ver 205 Jim & Echoda In the laboratory method, students are given opportunities to practice scientific concepts through experimentation. Hands-on, inquiry-based activities significantly improve retention, conceptual understanding, and the development of scientific process skills, according to Hofstein and Mamlok-Naaman (2007). Laboratory experiences also enhance students’ motivation and sustained interest in learning, consistent with findings by Ainley, Hidi, and Berndorff (2002). There is global consensus that laboratory instruction occupies a central position in science learning. Students tend to understand and recall what they see and do more effectively than what they merely hear, as argued by Lunetta, Hofstein, and Clough (2007). Laboratory activities engage learners in observing, measuring, experimenting, recording, and carrying out authentic scientific inquiry. Achievement, defined as measurable performance outcomes reflecting mastery of specific learning goals, is often influenced by instructional methods. Achievement is multidimensional, encompassing cognitive, affective, and psychomotor domains, consistent with frameworks developed by Bloom (1976). Several scholars have established that laboratory instruction contributes significantly to students’ achievement in science. For instance, Freeman et al. (2014) reported that active, student-centered methods such as laboratory work substantially improve learning outcomes compared to traditional lecture approaches. Laboratory environments provide opportunities for inquiry, experimentation, and practical problem-solving, all of which enhance academic performance and retention. Retention - students’ ability to remember and apply learned concepts – is influenced by experiential learning, emotional engagement, and repeated practice. Classical memory research by Ebbinghaus (2013) emphasizes that meaningful, hands-on experiences strengthen recall and long-term memory. However, despite the recognized importance of laboratory instruction, teacher-centered strategies remain prevalent in many classrooms. Research by Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006) shows that lecture-dominated teaching limits deep conceptual understanding, restricts inquiry, and reduces students’ engagement in science learning. A wide range of teaching strategies can be employed to enhance learning in Biology, but the choice of method depends on variables such as students’ age, cognitive level, learning style, availability of materials, and teaching objectives. Effective science instruction often involves a blend of demonstration, inquiry, laboratory experimentation, and technologysupported learning, as argued by Borich (2016). Laboratory teaching, also known as the experimental method, requires students to actively engage in generating hypotheses, collecting data, interpreting evidence, and drawing conclusions. It enables learners to construct knowledge through direct experience and promotes scientific skills such as observation, measurement, and analysis, as reaffirmed by Hofstein and Mamlok-Naaman (2007). VillageMath Educational Review, 7(1) https://ngsme.villagemath.net/journals/ver 206 Effect of Laboratory Approach on Secondary School Students Interest and Achievement in Biology in Obudu Local Government Area, Cross River State, Nigeria Although laboratory instruction is time-consuming, it builds students’ confidence, improves understanding of abstract concepts, and enhances critical and analytical thinking. It also increases learners’ participation and encourages them to view science as a dynamic and inquiry-driven discipline, supported by Prince and Felder (2006). Reports from the West African Examinations Council (WAEC, 2022) and the National Examinations Council (NECO, 2021) consistently indicate poor student achievement in Biology, particularly in practical components. Many students lack essential practical skills required to conduct experiments, suggesting gaps in laboratory exposure and instructional quality. Ineffective use of laboratory methods can impede students’ acquisition of scientific and practical skills. Research in African educational contexts has shown that inadequate laboratory facilities and teacher preparedness contribute significantly to low achievement in science subjects, as noted by Olatoye (2009). A more recent study by Shahzad, Hussain, and Saeed (2013) in Punjab confirmed similar findings. Entrepreneurial and problem-solving skills – such as creativity, judgement, teamwork, and decision-making – are strengthened through activity-based science instruction. Practical Biology experiences promote innovation, self-reliance, and application of scientific knowledge to real-life challenges, supporting observations by Freeman et al. (2014). Laboratory instruction, as described by Llewellyn (2013), encourages independent learning, strengthens inquiry skills, and allows students to derive principles through experimentation. This makes knowledge more permanent because students learn by doing, observing, testing, and verifying scientific concepts. Research Objectives The general objective of this study is to determine the effect of laboratory Approach on the secondary schools students’ interest, achievement and retention of Biology in Obudu Local Government Area, Cross River State, Nigeria. The specific objectives of this study are to: i. determine the difference in Mean Interest ratings of students taught Biology using Laboratory approach and those taught using conventional method. ii. determine the difference in Mean Achievement scores of students taught Biology using Laboratory approach and those taught using conventional method. Research Questions The following questions were asked to guide the study: i. What is the difference in mean interest ratings of students taught using laboratory approach and those taught using conventional method? ii. What is the difference in mean achievement scores of students taught using laboratory approach and those taught using conventional method? Research Hypotheses The following null hypotheses were formulated and were tested at 0.05 level of significance: i. There is no significant difference between the mean interest ratings of students taught Biology using laboratory approach and those taught Biology using conventional method. VillageMath Educational Review, 7(1) https://ngsme.villagemath.net/journals/ver 207 Jim & Echoda ii. There is no significant difference between the mean achievement scores of students taught. Methodology The study adopted a quasi-experimental non randomized pretest posttest control group design. Purposive sampling technique was used in selecting Senior Secondary II students. Simple random sampling was used to select two intact classes from each ward in Obudu Local Government Area through Hat and Draw method. The sample size for the study was 300 SSII students. Two instruments were used for data collection. They are Biology Achievement Test (BAT) and Biology Interest Inventory (BII). Two experts in Measurement and Evaluation and one expert in Science Education, both of Joseph Sarwuan Tarka University, Makurdi, Nigeria, validated the instrument. The reliability test of the Biology Interest Inventory yielded a Cronbach Alpha Coefficient of 0.84 while the Biology Achievement Test yielded a reliability coefficient of 0.79. The descriptive statistics of mean and standard deviation was used to answer the research questions while the ANCOVA was used to test the hypotheses at 0.05 level of significance. Experimental Procedure In carrying out the study, the researchers first visit the selected schools and sought permission from the principals. To ensure the objectivity of the experiment and the effectiveness, six lessons plans were prepared to be administered separately to the experimental group and to the control group using conventional methods. Before commencement of treatment, the researchers addressed both groups for proper understanding of the lessons and BII was administered to both groups with the help of research assistants. Data from BII and BAT was collected for further analysis. Control of Extraneous Variables i. Initial Differences among Groups: The initial differences that may occur in nonequivalent control group design was corrected with the use of the analysis of covariance. ii. Subject interaction: To avoid interaction within the two groups (experimental and control) the researchers assigned each school to the experimental and control group. Four school were drawn and one intact class from each of the schools was used. The researchers constituted one intact class from the two schools as the experimental group and one intact class as the control group this controls the issues of the subject interaction with a distance of 5km. iii. ANCOVA: It removes bias that may result from using intact groups whose equivalence on certain measures has not been determined. Results The results of the study are presented according to the research questions and hypotheses. Research Question One What is the difference in mean interest ratings of students taught Biology using laboratory approach and those taught using conventional approach? VillageMath Educational Review, 7(1) https://ngsme.villagemath.net/journals/ver 208 Effect of Laboratory Approach on Secondary School Students Interest and Achievement in Biology in Obudu Local Government Area, Cross River State, Nigeria Table 1: Mean and Standard deviation of students’ interest in Biology when taught using laboratory approach and conventional method Group N Pre - Interest   SD Post - Interest   SD Mean Gain Laboratory Group 161 2.46 0.23 3.64 0.12 1.18 Conventional Group 139 2.43 0.21 3.63 0.12 1.20 Mean gain 0.03 0.01 0.98 Results in Table 1 shows that, the mean pre-interest ratings of students taught Biology using laboratory approach is 2.46 with standard deviation of 0.23 while the mean pre-interest ratings of students taught Biology using the conventional method is 2.43 with a standard deviation of 0.21. The mean difference in the pre-interest ratings of both groups was found to be 0.03 which means that, before the treatment, the students in both groups demonstrated similar level of interest in Biology. However, the mean post-interest ratings for the experimental group is 3.64 with standard deviation of 0.12 while the mean postinterest ratings for the conventional method group is 3.63 with standard deviation of 0.12. The mean difference in the post-interest ratings of the two groups is 0.01. The mean gain for the laboratory and conventional group are 1.18 and 1.20 respectively. However, the mean difference between the laboratory and conventional group was found to be 0.98 in favour of the laboratory group. This implies that students taught biology using laboratory approached showed more interest in Biology than the students in the conventional group. Research Question Two What is the difference in mean achievement scores of students taught Biology using laboratory approach and those taught using conventional method? Table 2: Mean Achievement Score and Standard Deviation of students taught Biology using Laboratory Approach and the Conventional Method Group Pre - Test   SD Post - Test   SD Mean Gain Laboratory Group 26.76 1.42 63.89 2.19 37.13 Conventional Group 26.68 1.37 63.79 2.06 37.11 Mean gain 0.08 0.10 0.02 In Table 2, the mean pre-test scores for the laboratory group which was exposed to laboratory approach in the teaching and learning of Biology is 26.76 with standard deviation of 1.42 and the mean pre-test scores for the control group which was taught Biology using the conventional method is 26.68 with a standard deviation of 1.37. The mean difference between the pre-test scores of students in the laboratory and conventional group was calculated to be 0.08. This means that before the administration of the test, the students in two groups showed similar level of knowledge in Biology. However, the mean post-test scores for the Laboratory group and conventional group are 63.89 and 63.79 with standard deviation of 2.19 and 2.06 respectively. The mean difference in their post-test scores was VillageMath Educational Review, 7(1) https://ngsme.villagemath.net/journals/ver 209 Jim & Echoda 0.10. However, the mean gain for the experimental group was found to be 37.13 while the mean gain for the control was found to be 37.11. The difference in the mean gain between the laboratory and conventional group is 0.02 in favour of the laboratory group. This implies that laboratory approach is effective. Research Hypothesis One There is no significant difference between the mean interest ratings of students taught Biology using laboratory approach and those taught Biology using conventional method. Table 3: Summary of ANCOVA Result of Students’ Interest by Group Source Type III Sum of Square Df Mean Square F Sig. Partial Eta Squared Corrected Model .050 a 2 .025 1.787 .169 .012 Intercept 29.865 1 29.865 2150.998 .000 .879 Pre - interest .047 1 .047 3.400 .066 .011 Group .001 1 .001 .092 .762 .00 Error 4.124 297 .014 Total 3965.960 300 Corrected 4.173 299 Total a. R Squared = .012 (Adjusted R Squared = .005) In Table 3, F(1, 297) = .092 with p-value of 0.762 which is greater than the α-value of 0.05. This means that null hypothesis is accepted. This implies that, there is no significant difference between the mean interest ratings of students taught Biology using laboratory approach and those taught Biology using conventional method. It therefore means that, both the students that were taught Biology using the laboratory approach and those that were taught using the conventional method have similar level of interest in learning Biology. Research Hypothesis Two There is no significant difference between the mean achievement scores of students taught Biology using laboratory approach and those taught Biology using conventional method. Table 4: Summary of ANCOVA Result of Students’ Achievement by Group Source Type III Sum of Square df Mean Square F Sig. Partial Eta Squared Corrected Model 3.681 a 2 1.840 .405 .667 .003 Intercept 3511.514 1 311.514 772.558 .000 .722 Pretest 2.9821 1 2.982 . 419 .656 .002 Group .792 1 .792 .174 .677 .001 Error 1349.956 297 4.545 Total 1224145.000 300 Corrected 1353.637 299 Total a. R Squared = .003 (Adjusted R Squared = -.004) VillageMath Educational Review, 7(1) https://ngsme.villagemath.net/journals/ver 210 Effect of Laboratory Approach on Secondary School Students Interest and Achievement in Biology in Obudu Local Government Area, Cross River State, Nigeria In Table 4, F(1, 297) = .174 with p-value of 0.677. Hence p>0.05, the null hypothesis is accepted. This implies that, there is no significant difference between the mean achievement scores of students taught Biology using laboratory approach and those taught Biology using conventional method. It therefore means that, both the students that were taught Biology using the laboratory approach and those that were taught using the conventional method showed similar level of achievement in Biology. Discussion Findings from Table 3 shows that, there is no significant difference between the mean interest ratings of students taught Biology using laboratory approach and those taught Biology using conventional method. It therefore means that, both the students that were taught Biology using the laboratory approach and those that were taught using the conventional method have similar level of interest in learning Biology. Results in table 1 also affirms that, both the students in the experimental and control group still demonstrated similar level of interest in learning Biology after the administration of the treatment. This result disagrees with the assertion of Renninger and Hidi (2016) that, students develop more interest when they are introduced to hands-on learning experiences. Result in Table 4 revealed that, there is no significant difference between the mean achievement scores of students taught Biology using laboratory approach and those taught using the conventional method. It therefore means that, both the students that were taught Biology using the laboratory approach and those that were taught using the conventional method showed similar level of achievement in Biology. Findings from table 2 also indicated that, both the students who were taught Biology using the laboratory approach and those who were taught using the conventional method improved equally and greatly in their achievement in Biology. This result is not consistent with the findings of Zuhrieh and Abulibdeh (2020) who evaluated the overall effect of practical work on students‟ academic attainment in science and concluded that, the mean score comparison revealed a significant difference in the attainment scores of the experimental over the control groups. Conclusion The study investigated the effect of laboratory Approach on the interest and achievement of Biology in senior secondary school students in Obudu Local Government Area, Cross River State, Nigeria. While the result revealed that students’ interest and achievement in Biology were not significantly influenced by the nature of instruction, exposed to laboratory approaches and those taught using conventional methods. Specifically, students in the experimental group, who engaged in laboratory activities, demonstrated higher retention scores compared to their counterparts in the control group. These findings suggest that while the laboratory approach may not directly affect immediate interest and achievement outcomes, it plays a crucial role in enhancing long-term retention of biological concepts. Thus, educators should consider integrating laboratory experiences into Biology curricula to promote sustained learning and deeper understanding among students. Further research exploring the underlying factors contributing to the observed differences in VillageMath Educational Review, 7(1) https://ngsme.villagemath.net/journals/ver 211 Jim & Echoda retention scores is warranted to inform evidence-based instructional practices in Biology education. Recommendations Based on the findings of this study, the following recommendations were made: i. Given that the laboratory approach positively impacted retention scores, educators should prioritize incorporating hands-on laboratory activities into Biology instruction. These activities could include experiments, demonstrations, and interactive exercises that encourage active engagement and reinforce learning over time. ii. Curriculum developers and educational policymakers should implement ongoing evaluation and feedback mechanisms to assess the effectiveness of instructional practices, including laboratory approaches, and adapt teaching strategies accordingly to enhance overall learning outcomes in Biology education at the senior secondary school level. REFERENCES Ainley, M., Hidi, S., & Berndorff, D. (2002). Interest, learning, and the psychological processes that mediate their relationship. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(3), 545– 561. Bloom, B. S. (1976). Human characteristics and school learning. McGraw-Hill. Borich, G. D. (2016). Effective teaching methods: Research-based practice (8th ed.). Pearson. Ebbinghaus, H. (2013). Memory: A contribution to experimental psychology. Renaissance Classics. (Original work published 1885) Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(23), 8410–8415. Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. R. (2004). The laboratory in science education: Foundations for the twenty-first century. Science Education, 88(1), 28–54. Hofstein, A., & Mamlok-Naaman, R. (2007). The laboratory in science education: The state of the art. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 8(2), 105–107. Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86. Krapp, A., & Prenzel, M. (2011). Research on interest in science: Theories, methods, and findings. International Journal of Science Education, 33(1), 27–50. Llewellyn, D. (2013). Teaching high school science through inquiry and argumentation (2nd ed.). Corwin Press. Lunetta, V. R., Hofstein, A., & Clough, M. P. (2007). Learning and teaching in the school science laboratory: An analysis of research, theory, and practice. In S. Abell & N. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 393–441). Routledge.