Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer

Vol. 12 No. 11 (2025)
International Multidisciplinary Journal for Research & Development

Articles

THE ROLE OF INTERACTIVE LABORATORY SESSIONS IN DEVELOPING EXPERIMENTAL BIOLOGY SKILLS IN STUDENTS

Published 2025-11-12

  • Qo‘ziyeva Sahobat O‘ktamovna

Qo‘ziyeva Sahobat O‘ktamovna
Associate Professor, Department of Biology, Jizzakh State Pedagogical University

Abstract

 

Interactive laboratory sessions have become an essential component of modern biology education, promoting hands-on learning and critical thinking. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of interactive laboratory exercises on the development of experimental biology skills in secondary school students aged 15–17 years. Sixty students were randomly assigned to either an experimental group, participating in interactive laboratory sessions for 8 weeks, or a control group, following traditional laboratory practices. Experimental skills, including observation, hypothesis formulation, experimental design, measurement accuracy, data analysis, and result interpretation, were assessed before and after the intervention using a standardized rubric. Results showed significant improvements in all assessed domains for the experimental group compared to the control group (p < 0.01). These findings indicate that interactive laboratories effectively enhance students’ experimental skills, foster engagement, and support active learning in biology education.

Keywords

Interactive laboratories, Experimental biology skills, Secondary school students, Inquiry-based learning, Active learning, Biology education

PDF

References

  1. Hofstein A, Lunetta VN. The laboratory in science education: Foundations for the twenty-first century. Sci Educ. 2004;88(1):28–54.
  2. de Jong T, Linn MC, Zacharia ZC. Physical and virtual laboratories in science and engineering education. Science. 2013;340(6130):305–308.
  3. Abrahams I, Reiss MJ. Practical work: Its effectiveness in primary and secondary schools in England. J Res Sci Teach. 2012;49(7): 839–860.
  4. Barman C. Students’ understanding of concepts in biology through hands-on activities. Int J Sci Educ. 2000;22(3):245–257.
  5. Hofstein A, Mamlok-Naaman R. The laboratory in science education: The state of the art. Chem Educ Res Pract. 2007;8(2):105–107.
  6. Furtak EM, Seidel T, Iverson H, Briggs D. Experimental and inquiry-based learning in science: A meta-analysis. Rev Educ Res. 2012;82(3):300–329.
  7. Knight JK, Wood WB. Teaching more by lecturing less. Cell Biol Educ. 2005;4(4):298–310.
  8. Domin DS. A review of laboratory instruction styles. J Chem Educ. 1999;76(4):543–547.
  9. Ruiz-Primo MA, Shavelson RJ. Problems and issues in the use of concept maps in science assessment. J Res Sci Teach. 1996;33(6):569–600.
  10. National Research Council. A Framework for K–12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2012.
  11. Kirschner PA, Sweller J, Clark RE. Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educ Psychol. 2006;41(2):75–86.
  12. Pedaste M, Mäeots M, Siiman LA, et al. Phases of inquiry-based learning: Definitions and the inquiry cycle. Educ Res Rev. 2015;14:47–61.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.