Jianye
Wei
*a,
Mauro
Mocerino
*a,
David F.
Treagust
b,
Anthony D.
Lucey
c,
Marjan G.
Zadnik
d,
Euan D.
Lindsay
e and
Damien J.
Carter
b
aSchool of Molecular and Life Sciences, Curtin University, Perth, Western Australia 6845, Australia. E-mail: jianye.wei@postgrad.curtin.edu.au; m.mocerino@curtin.edu.au
bSchool of Education, Curtin University, Perth, Western Australia 6845, Australia
cSchool of Civil and Mechanical Engineering, Curtin University, Perth, Western Australia 6845, Australia
dSchool of Electrical Engineering, Computing and Mathematical Sciences, Curtin University, Perth, Western Australia 6845, Australia
eFaculty of Engineering, Charles Sturt University Engineering, Bathurst, 2795, NSW, Australia
First published on 3rd July 2018
Laboratories play a crucial role in the undergraduate science curriculum and the effectiveness of learning in laboratories is influenced by learners’ interactions with other students, the instructors, and the equipment used. In this study, a pre-lab survey was used to collect information about students’ expectations of interactions in chemistry laboratories and how they can be ranked according to their importance. Post-lab surveys were used to capture students’ perspectives about the frequency of interactions that existed in laboratory sessions they had completed. Direct observations of some laboratories were also conducted principally to validate students’ self-reported interactions. The data were also sorted by three levels of student achievement in order to relate students’ expectations of the importance of different interactions (pre-lab survey) and their self-reported frequency of interactions (post-lab survey) with their laboratory grades. Results from the pre-lab survey showed that student–instructor interactions were anticipated to be the most important ahead of conducting the laboratory activity, whereas results from the post-lab surveys showed that the most frequent interactions occurred between students. Students’ self-reports (post-lab survey) and the direct observations agreed well suggesting that the post-lab survey is a robust tool for capturing the frequencies of student interactions in this and future studies. The results also showed that students gaining high grades both anticipated the importance of, and then engaged more frequently in, two-way communications with both students and instructors whereas students with lower grades placed a relatively higher reliance upon passive interactions such as the pre-lab briefing, the laboratory manual and internet sources. Finally, recommendations are offered to curriculum designers, instructors and students based on the overall findings of the study.
In response to the call for an increased amount of research in laboratory settings, several studies have explored students’ perceptions and their intended goals in traditional or reformed undergraduate laboratories (DeKorver and Towns, 2015; Galloway and Bretz, 2015a, 2015b; Chopra et al., 2017; George-Williams et al., 2018). Other studies have developed structured observation instruments to improve instructional practices (Lund et al., 2015; Velasco et al., 2016). However, only a few of the studies have focused on the analysis of student interactions and the relationship with their learning (Xu and Talanquer, 2013; Stang and Roll, 2014).
Interactions between individuals are an essential element in any social discourse and none more so for students in a formal learning environment such as a chemistry laboratory. While much research on laboratories has been focused on the products of learning and skills developed and used by students, an important aspect of laboratory learning is understanding the interactions in which students engage when undertaking laboratory work. This then became the rationale for the present study where we sought to investigate the different types of interactions discussed below. This understanding can lead to the improved design of laboratory work, for example via the enabling and promotion of beneficial interactions or the better balancing of different interaction types during the activities undertaken by students.
(1) Student–student (S–S) interactions, which refer to interactions among students within or between groups;
(2) Student–instructor (S–I) interactions, which refer to interactions between students and the instructor;
(3) Student–equipment (S–E) interactions, which refer to students manipulating equipment such as glassware, using chemicals, consulting the laboratory manual, or accessing the Internet in the laboratories; and
(4) Indirect/vicarious interactions (I–I), which refer to students learning by observing others or listening to others’ conversations.
The first two types of interactions (S–S and S–I) are both interpersonal and occur in two-way communication whereas S–E and I–I are one-way in face-to-face laboratories because students only take in information from these materials and may not receive instant responses.
The effectiveness of the four types of interactions in science laboratories has attracted different research approaches. Studies of S–S interactions were mostly case studies, involving detailed analyses of students’ behaviours in groups (Krystyniak and Heikkinen, 2007; Xu and Talanquer, 2013). Analysis of the S–I interactions considered their frequency and the initiators of the conversation (Stang and Roll, 2014; Lund et al., 2015; Velasco et al., 2016). Analysis of S–E interactions identified introductions to the equipment and how to use equipment to complete tasks but less on the frequency of interactions and their effect on learning outcomes (Tofan, 2009). Studies of indirect interactions relate to distance learning rather than face-to-face laboratories (Sutton, 2001; Kawachi, 2003). Despite this general recognition of the importance of interactions, research has not yet been conducted to connect these student interactions with learning outcomes. Thus, in this study, we seek to characterise the importance and frequency of these four types of interactions (S–S, S–I, S–E and I–I), as well as their relationship to students’ achievement levels in the laboratory activities.
Direct observation is a useful method to identify “what people are actually doing” (Bernard and Bernard, 2012) and when conducted in a structured way, observations can provide richer and more reliable information (American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2013). Existing structured observation protocols are described as being holistic, segmented or continuous (Hilosky et al., 1998; Sawada et al., 2002; Sadler et al., 2011; American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2013; West et al., 2013; Velasco et al., 2016). All of these observation protocols have been proven to be capable of showing specific interactions in laboratories. However, all of the protocols focus on reform, or how to improve, instructional effectiveness, not on the learners’ actions, behaviours and interactions. Even though some student behaviours are recorded in the observation protocols described above, the data are insufficient to characterise the students’ learning behaviours. The present study attempts to fill this gap by developing a new protocol with observation sheets to describe the frequency of various interactions from the viewpoint of students.
On the other hand, observations are time-consuming and may not be applicable in certain circumstances. Thus, in this study we principally used self-reporting to collect data on the frequency of interactions in first-year chemistry laboratories. Self-reporting using surveys has been used a great deal in distance education to characterise students’ thoughts and perspectives about their learning processes (Sher, 2009; Kuo et al., 2014). Surveys have the advantages of their suitability for collecting large amounts of data and being a viable way of understanding participants’ opinions. However, there are some concerns that surveys may be too subjective to present a reliable result (Mega et al., 2014). Accordingly, observations were used herein as an objective source of information to confirm the validity of student's self-reported survey data.
![]() | ||
Fig. 1 Theoretical framework derived from the Model of Educational Reconstruction (Komorek and Kattmann, 2008). * Note: S–S = student–student, S–I = student–instructor, S–E = student–equipment, and I–I = indirect. |
• The investigation of students’ perspectives of a given activity – in this case their perspectives about the ranking and frequency of interactions in the laboratory
• The clarification and analysis of the science subject matter – in this case students meeting the intended laboratory learning outcomes on laboratory principles and techniques, as measured by their marks
• The design of the learning environment – in this case the chemistry laboratories and the experimental equipment and materials with which the students interacted.
In this model, this integration allows consideration of students’ perspectives of the interactions that not only improve researchers’ understanding of the laboratory learning processes but also increases an understanding of the principles and techniques of the laboratory work being taught and learned. Based on the results of the analysis, the laboratory environment, the curriculum, or the design of the laboratory activity can be reconstructed.
(1) What do undergraduate students consider to be important interactions for effective learning in introductory chemistry laboratories?
(2) What type and range of interactions do students engage in during face-to-face laboratory work?
(3) What is the relationship between patterns of student interactions and students’ grades for the laboratory activity?
Results from the pre-lab survey were used to gather students’ ideas about the importance of interactions; post-lab surveys and observations were used to gain information about the frequency of interactions, from students’ and the observer's views, respectively. Further analysis using data from the pre- and the post-lab survey was implemented to answer research question 3.
Laboratory sessions were conducted fortnightly, having a length of three hours each session, and included four different types of laboratory activities, namely, principles of measurement, intermolecular forces – solubility in liquids, quantification of acetic acid in vinegar and standardisation of hydrochloric acid (HCl) with a standard solution of sodium carbonate (Na2CO3). The learning outcomes were designed to build practical skills, combine practice and theory, as well as improve communication and teamwork abilities.
The structure of all laboratories had similar patterns: a pre-lab exposition conducted by the instructor describing key principles, highlighting laboratory procedures or possible hazards, and explaining briefly the data-analysis procedures. Students were then randomly assigned into groups (mostly in pairs, with a small number of three-person groups) before proceeding to use the laboratory equipment, analyse data, and answer the questions in the laboratory manual. While the students were working, the instructors would check their pre-lab questions, answer students’ questions, and observe the whole class. Although the laboratory was scheduled to last three hours, students could leave early if they had successfully completed all the activities. Students’ results were evaluated before they left the laboratory.
The pre-lab exposition process involved the instructor talking and the whole class listening, occasionally with one or two students answering the teacher's clicker questions. This form of student–instructor interaction happened between the instructor and all the students; there were far fewer one-to-one student–instructor interactions or indirect interactions.
The laboratory manual was the key resource for students. Before the students entered the laboratory classroom, they were required to answer the pre-lab questions relating to laboratory safety or specific concepts in the laboratory manual, ensuring that they had read the laboratory manual and done some pre-lab preparation. In the laboratory class, students would follow information about procedures from the laboratory manual, write down data, do further analysis following instructions in the laboratory manual, and answer relevant questions in the laboratory manual.
The students’ behaviours were not affected by being observed and the reasons are as follows. At the beginning of the first class, the observer informed the students that she would be unobtrusive and try not to interfere with their laboratory process. She also informed them that she was not an instructor and could only answer project-related questions if they arose. During the observation process, the observer always stood in the background instead of closely behind a group of students. In addition, because the students’ chemistry background was not strong, they focused on the laboratory process, having no time to consider the observer.
Interaction type | Interaction categoryc |
---|---|
a Moore (1989). b Sutton (2001). c Sadler et al. (2011). | |
Student–student (S–S) verbal interactiona | Talking about lab procedures/equipment |
Analysing data | |
Talking about basic concepts | |
Student–instructor (S–I) verbal interactiona | Talking about lab procedures/equipment |
Analysing data | |
Talking about basic concepts | |
Student–equipment (S–E) interactiona | Engaging with lab procedures/equipment |
Analysing data | |
Engaging with basic concepts | |
Indirect interaction (I–I)b | Observing other students’ behaviours |
Listening to other S–S conversations | |
Listening to other S–I conversations |
The pre-lab survey was designed to capture students’ thoughts and perceptions about the importance of laboratory interactions before they began the work in the laboratory guided by the manual. A single means of collecting ranking items was used. In the pre-lab survey, we asked the students whether or not they agreed with their laboratory marks being used for our research analysis. Most students chose ‘yes’, while a few chose ‘no’. We then only used the data from those students who allowed their laboratory marks to be used. This is why we have fewer participants when addressing research question 3. As shown in Table 2, thirteen possible kinds of interactions were listed and students were asked to choose the five most important items and rank them from 1 to 5 in order of descending importance.
Example interaction | |
---|---|
Talking to another student you learn | About the procedures/lab equipment |
How to analyse your results | |
About the basic science theory behind the lab | |
Talking to a lab instructor you learn | About the procedures/lab equipment |
How to analyse your results | |
About the basic science theory behind the lab | |
During the prelab you learn | About the procedures/lab equipment |
How to analyse your results | |
About the basic science theory behind the lab | |
Reading the laboratory manual you learn | About the procedures/lab equipment |
How to analyse your results | |
About the basic science theory behind the lab | |
You learn about the basic science theory behind the lab by using the internet on a smart device |
The post-lab survey was used to collect students’ self-reporting of the frequency of their interactions after they had just finished the laboratory work. In this survey, as shown in Table 3, a list of possible interactions that may have occurred in the laboratory class was provided, similar to the pre-lab survey, but with some minor differences. Students were asked about their reflections on the frequency of different components of the four main kinds of interactions. In each item, students circled whether they thought they had exhibited this specific behaviour “never”, “a few”, or “many” times. The reason that we chose to use this kind of differentiation as opposed to ranges with numbers, such as “less than 5 times”, was because it was hard for the students to count or remember the actual number of times that they had engaged in the types of interaction.
Never | A few times | Many times | |
---|---|---|---|
1. (Student–student interactions) Did you talk to another student about… | |||
1.1 The procedures, protocols or lab equipment? | 1 | 2 | 3 |
1.2 The basic science concepts behind the lab? | 1 | 2 | 3 |
1.3 Analysing your results? | 1 | 2 | 3 |
1.4 Discipline topics not directly related to the lab? | 1 | 2 | 3 |
1.5 Topics not related to the lab? | 1 | 2 | 3 |
2. (Student–instructor interactions) Did you ask the instructor about… | |||
2.1 The procedures, protocols or lab equipment? | 1 | 2 | 3 |
2.2 The basic science concepts behind the lab? | 1 | 2 | 3 |
2.3 Analysing your results? | 1 | 2 | 3 |
2.4 Discipline topics not directly related to the lab? | 1 | 2 | 3 |
2.5 Topics not related to the lab? | 1 | 2 | 3 |
3. (Student–equipment interactions) Did you… | |||
3.1 Read the lab manual/instructions associated with this lab? | 1 | 2 | 3 |
3.2 Use the internet for technical assistance, data analysis or for concepts behind this lab? | 1 | 2 | 3 |
4. (Indirect interactions) Did you learn by observing someone else's interactions in the lab, such as… | |||
4.1 Observing another students experimental setup or behaviour | 1 | 2 | 3 |
4.2 Listening to a student/group of students asking another student for help/advice | 1 | 2 | 3 |
4.3 Listening to a student/group of students asking a teacher for help/advice | 1 | 2 | 3 |
The Laboratory Observation Form shown in Table 4 was based on the development of one observation tool – the Laboratory Instructional Practices Inventory (LIPI) (Sadler et al., 2011) and was informed by research on the collection of interactions between teaching assistants and students (Stang and Roll, 2014). The first author of this article acted as an observer recording verbal interactions and students’ non-verbal expressions such as their gestures and watching other groups. A behaviour was recorded as a type of interaction irrespective of how long it lasted. A new activity was recorded if the students changed that activity or were interrupted. For example, students analysing data, even if it lasted several minutes, was considered as one activity but if students stopped analysing data to answer another person's question, it was considered that a new activity had begun.
With students |
…lab procedures, protocols or equipment |
…analyse their results |
…discipline science concepts |
…topics unrelated to the lab |
With instructors |
…lab procedures, protocols or equipment |
…analyse their results |
…discipline science concepts |
…topics unrelated to the lab |
Indirect/eavesdropping |
…another student asking a student |
…another student asking a teacher |
Inter-observer reliability (IOR) was assessed through the development process. Before the study reported in this article, the observer and another member of the research team went to several first-year chemistry laboratories to conduct preliminary data collections. They watched the same groups of students and conducted independent observations. IOR was assessed using a two-way mixed, consistency, single-measures intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC) (McGraw and Wong, 1996) to assess the degree that coders provided consistency in their recordings of the occurrences of interactions across subjects. The resulting ICC was in the excellent range, average ICC = 0.91 (range 0.87–0.95) (Cicchetti, 1994), indicating that coders had a high degree of agreement and suggesting that the occurrences of interactions were recorded similarly across coders. The high ICC suggests that a minimal amount of measurement error was introduced by the independent coders, and therefore statistical power for subsequent analyses is not substantially reduced. Recordings of the occurrences of interactions were therefore deemed to be suitable for use in answering research question 2 of the present study (Hallgren, 2012).
The focus of direct observations was on the nature of verbal interactions. Compared with the post-lab survey, items of nonverbal interactions, especially those related to using the laboratory manual, were not included because there were too many nonverbal behaviours in the laboratory, such as setting up the apparatus or walking around to find some glassware. Although these were by necessity omitted, student-apparatus and student-manual interactions occurred with a high frequency according to the observations.
Results from the pilot study showed that, even though there were minor differences, the students in science and engineering classes had similar expectations about the importance of interactions in laboratories; in addition, students had similar self-assessments about the frequency of their occurrences. We were thus confident that the instruments could be generalised as one easy-to-manipulate tool to collect student-interaction information in both science and engineering laboratories. Furthermore, the findings of this study and unpublished results from our group which were reported after the pilot study also had high consistency, giving us assurance that the instruments are reliable to present validated results (Wei et al., 2017).
To achieve (4) and (5), we classified students into three levels according to their final laboratory marks. These marks were combined with their individual marks and their laboratory test examination scores. We classified the students with a laboratory grade of 85% or more as the highest achieving students; students in the 70–84% range as the middle-level students; and lower than 70% as the lowest achieving students.
Combining ranks 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 together, before they began to do the laboratory, the highest total of the ranks indicated that students thought that interactions from an instructor would be the most important. Twenty-eight of the 43 students considered that they would ask the instructor about laboratory procedures, while 24 out of 43 and 17 out of 43 students expected that the instructor would help them with analysis of results or address theoretical concepts, respectively. Interactions relating to laboratory procedures were ranked as having the highest importance, across all of student-instructor, pre-lab, and student-lab manual interaction categories.
Of all of the interactions, the students thought that the prelab demonstration or laboratory manual would be the least important interactions to help analyse results. This is reasonable because in the pre-lab exposition the instructor mainly talked about procedures and concepts while the laboratory manual focused on procedures and sometimes concepts. Overall, the instructor was expected to be the main source of information as opposed to the other students.
![]() | ||
Fig. 4 Observation results: proportions of each type of activity recorded during seven three-hour classes. |
The results from observations shown in Fig. 4 show good agreement with the students’ self-reported results in Fig. 3, in that the S–S: procedures and S–S: results gave the highest proportions and frequency of interactions, respectively. Interactions with the laboratory manual were not recorded through the observations because these were so numerous that it proved impossible to separate them into individual occurrences. Nevertheless, the similarities between the results of self-reporting and observation suggesting students’ self-reports can be used reliably as the main data collection technique in the present and other similar studies.
Secondly, we analysed the responses from the post-lab survey according to the three levels of student laboratory achievement (Fig. 6 and 7). The results in Fig. 6 show that each of the three groups of students reported that they interacted ‘a few times’ more often than ‘never’ or ‘many’. However, the high-achieving students reported that they interact ‘many times’ more than students in the other two achievement levels.
We therefore made a more detailed analysis of the categories of ‘many times’; the results are shown in Fig. 7. Compared with the low- and middle-achieving students, a relatively higher percentage of the highest achieving students reported that they interacted many times in all possible interactions.
The prelab survey addressed the first research question regarding students’ perspectives of the relative importance of interactions. It was found that before they commenced the laboratory program, the students thought that asking the instructor about procedures would be the most important interaction. The reason for students asking instructors instead of their peers may be because their chemistry background was not strong and it was natural that people would seek assistance from a relatively authoritative person. Additionally, the first-year students were familiar with the high-school teacher-driven teaching style and tended to ask for help from instructors. This is in line with former findings that students acted more as initiators in S–I interactions than did the instructors (Velasco et al., 2016).
With regard to the frequency of interactions that actually occurred, the students reported that they talked with each other more often than with the instructors during the laboratory sessions. This observation is consistent with ideas of socio-constructivism that underpins the MER framework in that meaningful learning for students is situated in social collaboration and interactions with other people, especially with peers. Students’ self-reports and observations both showed that interactions over procedures occurred most frequently, with interactions about results the second most frequent, while interactions about concepts were less often, which is in line with the former finding of (Kyle et al., 1979). Considering the fact that the students only had limited chemistry knowledge before this laboratory work and they were not given much freedom in these “cookbook style” laboratories, it is reasonable that more interactions were about following procedures. The instructor gave their marks at the end of each class, so the students had to hand in one complete laboratory notebook by the end of the class. This may explain why students thought that they spent more time on analysing results with their peers – to finish the task in time. Compared with these two kinds of goal-achieving interactions, interactions relating to discipline concepts occurred less often. The learners were possibly more focused on getting good scores than thinking about theory, or they might have been too busy manipulating equipment than considering the basic concepts. Sandi-Urena et al. (2011) showed that students who were constantly challenged to scrutinize and solve problems were using metacognitive and problem-solving skills. Thus, questions and tasks with groups should be carefully designed to provoke students’ thinking, self-assessment and argument development. Indirect interactions have not been studied in detail by researchers for face-to-face laboratories. However, students reported that they had engaged in a large number of these interactions as could be expected because people generally repeat behaviours that are well received and avoid those that result in punishment (Bandura and Walters, 1977). Students learn how to set up or manipulate some glassware by observing other groups, as well as listening to other people's conversations. Students in laboratories may also avoid errors by learning from other groups’ mistakes.
With regard to the third research question, students with different achievement levels had different views on the importance and frequency of interactions. The preference for interactions with other people (instructors or other students) by high-achieving students might show that they were more confident (Austin et al., 2018) and were not afraid of getting instant feedback. High achieving students implemented more interactions across all the four items (S–S, S–I, S–E, and I–I) compared with the other two groups. Other research has shown that high-achieving students were more self-regulated and the motivation to self-regulate was one of the driving factors in their academic achievement which is consistent with the MER (Mega et al., 2014; Austin et al., 2018). Thus they understood that learning from mistakes and correcting these mistakes were important in the learning process (Austin et al., 2018). That the lower achieving students preferred one-directional or interactions without instant feedback is consistent with research from Kousa et al. (2018), which showed that low-achieving students were likely to use internet, books or magazines to learn. Students’ achievement level should be taken into consideration for curriculum designers (i.e., to prepare pre-lab activities, to improve the laboratory manual) and the instructors (i.e., to initiate some interactions with some students, assign groups according to student achievement levels) to meet each type of students’ needs.
A further limitation is that the findings of observation are based on content analysis of verbal interactions at a whole-class level. The observer justified the features of the interactions by listening to students’ conversations, their gestures and, for example, their watching of other groups. However, since there is a total of 20 students in the classroom, the observer sometimes could not unobtrusively walk closer to a sub-group to listen to its conversation. The use of audio and video recordings in the observation process could be used to overcome this limitation. It is also suggested that observations of a focused sub-group of students be conducted to provide an insightful understanding of the students’ behaviours.
Firstly, for S–S Interactions, our research has shown that most of the laboratory work happens between students so the importance of S–S interactions should not be overlooked in planning laboratory activities even though a high frequency of S–S interactions does not necessarily mean a high constructive learning process. S–S interactions could be cooperative, competitive or individualist, and among them, cooperative interactions have been identified as best to promote peer tutoring, information exchange and academic achievement (Johnson, 1981; Johnson and Johnson, 1987). These findings suggest that basic structured guidance may be provided to encourage productive interactions among students. Considering student achievement levels, high-level students tend to be the leader of a group because they have high self-efficacy and are likely to interact more. In this way, if different level students were in one group, the low achieving students may lose the opportunity to express their opinions. By contrast, if low achieving students were allocated separately, they may lose the chance to learn from more competent peers. More research is needed to identify how these factors influence students’ laboratory learning.
Secondly, for S–I Interactions, the pre-lab survey illustrated that students thought that interacting with instructors could be more important for their learning. Various studies also showed that teaching assistants’ (TAs) play important roles in the learning process (Herrington and Nakhleh, 2003; Rodriques and Bond-Robinson, 2006; Stang and Roll, 2014). Currently, most of the instructors are PhD students, most of whom do not have an educational research background and lack teaching experience. It is therefore necessary to provide suitable training programmes to help ‘new’ teachers be more confident and more effectively improve students’ learning (Yang and Liu, 2004; Mocerino et al., 2015; Brouwer et al., 2017). We emphasize that in this training, not just the method of transferring knowledge, but also the way of communicating with students (i.e., how to talk with students to promote their thinking skills, to scaffold their learning instead of reducing their motivations, how to interact with different types of students) should be included.
Thirdly, for S–E Interactions, our study showed that the laboratory manual was considered to be a vital component of student learning. To address the problem that more time is spent on procedures or analysis of results than learning the major concepts of the discipline, the laboratory manual may be developed with a logical design and the learning objectives included to encourage students’ understanding of concepts. We believe that a well-designed laboratory manual can influence students’ learning especially for the lower achieving students, who assumed that the laboratory manual was more important than the high level achieving students before the laboratory. We also believe that asking for students’ and the instructor's opinions about the laboratory manuals will help to improve them.
Fourthly, for I–I Interactions, our study showed that indirect or vicarious interactions can guide observers’ behaviours in the learning process. This implies that indirect interactions should not be neglected in course design and class processes. Since most of the indirect interactions will happen between different groups in proximity, it might be beneficial to take indirect interactions into consideration when the instructors are assigning groups. Further research needs to be implemented to understand more about the influence of indirect interactions in chemistry laboratories.
Overall, a balance of the frequency and length of these interactions with student engagement, learning experience and learning outcomes should be included in curriculum design, instructor training and laboratory class processes. In addition, students may need to be given some information about interactions during the orientation. The three elements in MER – students’ perspectives, laboratory content and learning environment mutually influence each other and they should be taken into account when designing science laboratory learning.
This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2018 |