Microscale Gas Diffusion Experiments as a Catalyst for Conceptual Learning and Motivation in Senior High School Chemistry
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.47505/IJRSS.2026.1.18Keywords:
Microscale Chemistry, Gas Diffusion, Graham’s Law, Conceptual Understanding, MotivationAbstract
This study investigated the effectiveness of a microscale gas diffusion experiment as an instructional strategy for teaching Graham’s Law to Grade 11 STEM learners. Employing a one-group pretest–posttest quasi-experimental design, the study involved 48 students from Valencia National High School. Learners’ conceptual understanding was assessed using a 15-item researcher-developed Conceptual Understanding Test administered before and after the intervention, while motivation toward chemistry learning in the context of microscale experimentation was measured post-intervention using a 33-item, 4-point Likert scale questionnaire covering seven motivational dimensions. Descriptive statistics summarized mean percentage scores and motivation levels. Normality tests indicated non-normal distributions; therefore, the Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test was used to evaluate differences in pretest and posttest scores, and Spearman’s rank-order correlation assessed the relationship between conceptual understanding and motivation dimensions. Results indicated a notable increase in mean percentage scores from 60.87% (pretest) to 74.72% (posttest), with the Wilcoxon test confirming a statistically significant improvement (Z = −3.81, p < .001) and a large effect size (r = 0.59). Learners demonstrated high to very high motivation across the seven dimensions, with engagement and safety motivation showing a significant positive correlation with conceptual understanding (ρ = 0.385, p = 0.007), while other dimensions were not significantly related. These findings suggest that microscale gas diffusion experiments effectively enhance conceptual understanding of Graham’s Law and foster learner motivation, with engagement and perceived safety emerging as key factors associated with improved learning outcomes.
Downloads
References
Abdullah, M., Mohamed, N., & Ismail, Z. H. (2009). The effect of an individualized laboratory approach through microscale chemistry experimentation on students’ understanding of chemistry concepts, motivation, and attitudes. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 10(1), 53–61. https://doi.org/10.1039/B901461F
Agustian, H. Y. (2025). Recent advances in laboratory education research. Chemistry Teacher International, 7(2), 217–224. https://doi.org/10.1515/cti-2024-0071
Azizoğlu, N., & Geban, Ö. (2004). Students’ preconceptions and misconceptions about gases. Journal of Balikesir University Institute of Science and Technology, 6(1), 73–78.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice Hall.
Benson, D. L., Wittrock, M. C., & Baur, M. E. (1993). Students’ preconceptions of the nature of gases. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(6), 587–597. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660300607
Botella, C., & Ibáñez, D. (2020). Micro-scale experiments in the increasingly fashionable laboratory in high schools. Science Journal of Education, 8(5), 128–132. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.sjedu.20200805.13
Department of Education (DepEd). (2015). Policy guidelines on classroom assessment for the K to 12 basic education program (DepEd Order No. 8, s. 2015). Department of Education.
Department of Education (DepEd). (2012). Guidelines on the assessment and rating of learning outcomes under the K to 12 basic education curriculum. Department of Education.
du Toit, M., & du Toit, G. (2024). Microscale educational kits for learning chemistry at home. Journal of Chemical Education, 101(9), 3841–3851. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.1c00637
Easa, E., & Blonder, R. (2024). Fostering inclusive learning: Customized kits in chemistry education and their influence on self-efficacy, attitudes and achievements. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 25, 1175–1196. https://doi.org/10.1039/D4RP00144C
Feyzioğlu, B. (2009). An investigation of the relationship between science process skills with efficient laboratory use and science achievement in chemistry education. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 6(3), 114–132.
Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59–109.
Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. N. (2004). The laboratory in science education: Foundations for the twenty-first century. Science Education, 88(1), 28–54. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10106
Jegstad, K. M. (2024a). Inquiry-based chemistry education: A systematic review. Studies in Science Education, 60(2), 251–313.
Jegstad, K. M. (2024b). Inquiry-based science education and student motivation: A review of recent trends. International Journal of Science Education, 46(3), 401–420. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2023.2248436
Kaneza, G., Mugabo, L. R., & Nzeyimana, J. C. (2024). Effects of hands-on chemistry instruction on secondary school students’ motivation and achievement. African Journal of Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 28(1), 45–58. https://doi.org/10.1080/18117295.2023.2275858
Kind, V. (2004). Beyond appearances: Students’ misconceptions about basic chemical ideas (2nd ed.). Royal Society of Chemistry.
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). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-020-00204-3
Koperová, D., Matěcha, T., Espinosa, A. A., & Rusek, M. (2025). Assessing experimental activities in chemistry instruction: A systematic review of available tools. Chemistry Teacher International, 7(4), 583–607. https://doi.org/10.1515/cti-2025-0015
Mundy, C. E., & Nokeri, B. K. (2024). Investigating the effects of a context-based laboratory exercise for meaningful learning. Journal of Chemical Education, 101(8), 3118–3125. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.3c01260
Naibert, N., & Barbera, J. (2022). Investigating student engagement in active learning chemistry environments. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 23(4), 985–999. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.2c00276
Nakhleh, M. B. (1992). Why some students don’t learn chemistry: Chemical misconceptions. Journal of Chemical Education, 69(3), 191–196.
National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards: A guide for teaching and learning. National Academies Press.
National Research Council. (2006). America’s lab report: Investigations in high school science. National Academies Press.
Niaz, M. (1994). Progressive transitions from algorithmic to conceptual understanding in student ability to solve chemistry problems: A lakatosian interpretation [ERIC Document No. ED368577]. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching (NARST), Anaheim, CA.
Nzomo, J. M., Ongeri, B., & Nyaboke, R. (2023). Inquiry-based learning and students’ self-efficacy in secondary school chemistry. International Journal of Science Education, 45(6), 742–760. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e12672
Odom, A. L., & Barrow, L. H. (1995). Development and application of a two-tier diagnostic test measuring college biology students’ understanding of diffusion and osmosis after a course of instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32(1), 45–61. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660320106
Oliveira, H., & Bonito, J. (2023). Practical work in science education: A systematic literature review. Frontiers in Education, 8, Article 1151641. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.1151641
Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66(2), 211–227.
Shana, Z., & Abulibdeh, E. S. (2020). Science practical work and its impact on students’ science achievement. Journal of Technology and Science Education, 10(2), 199–215. https://doi.org/10.3926/jotse.888
Taber, K. S. (2002). Chemical misconceptions: Prevention, diagnosis and cure (Vol. 1). Royal Society of Chemistry.
Taber, K. S. (2013). Revisiting the chemistry triplet: Drawing upon the nature of chemical knowledge and the psychology of learning to inform chemistry education. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 14(2), 156–168. https://doi.org/10.1039/C3RP00012E
Tantayanon, S., Faikhamta, C., Prasoplarb, T., & Panyanukit, P. (2024). Teachers’ perceptions and design of small-scale chemistry driven STEM learning activities. Chemistry Teacher International, 7(2), 303–317. https://doi.org/10.1515/cti-2024-0091
Toma, H. E. (2021). Microscale educational kits for learning chemistry at home. Journal of Chemical Education, 98(11), 3841–3851. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.1c00637
University of Colorado Boulder, Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry. (n.d.). G420: Graham’s law of diffusion—NH3 and HCl diffusion [Lecture demonstration manual].
Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy–value theory of achievement motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 68–81.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Mary-Ann Viduya-Galo, Efefany Jane H. Jumarito, Edna B. Nabua
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
.png)
