IJLTER.ORG Vol 21 No 6 June 2022

International Journal
of
Learning, Teaching
And
Educational Research
p-ISSN:
1694-2493
e-ISSN:
1694-2116
IJLTER.ORG
Vol.21 No.6

International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research
(IJLTER)
Vol. 21, No. 6 (June 2022)
Print version: 1694-2493
Online version: 1694-2116
IJLTER
International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research (IJLTER)
Vol. 21, No. 6
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part
of the material is concerned, specifically those of translation, reprinting, re-use of illustrations,
broadcasting, reproduction by photocopying machines or similar means, and storage in data banks.
Society for Research and Knowledge Management

The International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational
Research is a peer-reviewed open-access journal which has been
established for the dissemination of state-of-the-art knowledge in the
fields of learning, teaching and educational research.
Aims and Objectives
The main objective of this journal is to provide a platform for educators,
teachers, trainers, academicians, scientists and researchers from over the
world to present the results of their research activities in the following
fields: innovative methodologies in learning, teaching and assessment;
multimedia in digital learning; e-learning; m-learning; e-education;
knowledge management; infrastructure support for online learning;
virtual learning environments; open education; ICT and education;
digital classrooms; blended learning; social networks and education; e-
tutoring: learning management systems; educational portals, classroom
management issues, educational case studies, etc.
Indexing and Abstracting
Research is indexed in Scopus since 2018. The Journal is also indexed in
Google Scholar and CNKI. All articles published in IJLTER are assigned
a unique DOI number.

Foreword
We are very happy to publish this issue of the International Journal of
Learning, Teaching and Educational Research.
Research is a peer-reviewed open-access journal committed to
publishing high-quality articles in the field of education. Submissions
may include full-length articles, case studies and innovative solutions to
problems faced by students, educators and directors of educational
organisations. To learn more about this journal, please visit the website
http://www.ijlter.org.
We are grateful to the editor-in-chief, members of the Editorial Board
and the reviewers for accepting only high quality articles in this issue.
We seize this opportunity to thank them for their great collaboration.
The Editorial Board is composed of renowned people from across the
world. Each paper is reviewed by at least two blind reviewers.
We will endeavour to ensure the reputation and quality of this journal
with this issue.
Editors of the June 2022 Issue

VOLUME 21 NUMBER 6 June 2022
Table of Contents
Effectiveness of Virtual Laboratories in Teaching and Learning Biology: A Review of Literature .............................1
Celine Byukusenge, Florien Nsanganwimana, Albert Paulo Tarmo
Mindset and Levels of Conceptual Understanding in the Problem-Solving of Preservice Mathematics Teachers in
an Online Learning Environment.......................................................................................................................................18
Ma Luisa Mariano-Dolesh, Leila M. Collantes, Edwin D. Ibanez, Jupeth T. Pentang
Exploring the Teacher Professional Development Activities: Perspectives of Nigerian High School Teachers ......34
Oluwatoyin Ayodele Ajani
Mental Health and Wellbeing of Secondary School Teachers in Malaysia ...................................................................50
Kee Pau, Aslina Binti Ahmad, Hsin-Ya Tang, Ahmad Jazimin Bin Jusoh, Asma Perveen, Kong Kwoi Tat
Structure, Activities and Teacher Development in the Philippine Science Teachers’ Community of Practice ........ 71
Rhea F. Confesor, Rosario M. Belmi
Physics Course Content of University Physics Education Programme as Reference to Content Distribution of
JUPEB and WAEC Syllabi.................................................................................................................................................... 90
Olalekan T. Badmus, Abiodun A. Bada, Loyiso C. Jita
Rasch Validation of Instrument Measuring Gen-Z Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM)
Application in Teaching during the Pandemic ............................................................................................................... 104
Hilman Qudratuddarsi, Riyan Hidayat, Raja Lailatul Zuraida binti Raja Maamor Shah, Nurihan Nasir, Muh Khairul
Wajedi Imami, Rusdi bin Mat Nor
The Level of Sports Participation and Academic Success among Malaysian Student-Athletes............................... 122
Jorrye Jakiwa, Siti Azilah Atan, Mohd Syrinaz Azli, Shahrulfadly Rustam, Norhafizah Hamzah, Aizuddin Amri Zainuddin
‘Publish or Perish’: a Transformation of Professional Value in Creating Literate Academics in the 21st Century138
Asep Kurnia Jayadinata, Kama Abdul Hakam, Tatang Muhtar, Tedi Supriyadi, J. Julia
E-learning Outcomes during the COVID-19 Pandemic.................................................................................................160
Sang Tang My, Hung Nguyen Tien, Ha Tang My, Thang Le Quoc
Saudi Teachers’ Attitudes towards using Online Learning for Young Children during the Covid-19 Pandemic 178
Ahlam A. Alghamdi
A Survey of Teachers’ Perceptions of a Learning Portfolio in Lesotho Classrooms .................................................. 194
Julia Mathabo Chere-Masopha
Purposeful Collaboration through Professional Learning Communities: Teacher Educators’ Challenges............ 210
Carolina Botha, Carisma Nel

Trends of Educational Technology (EdTech): Students’ Perceptions of Technology to Improve the Quality of
Islamic Higher Education in Indonesia............................................................................................................................ 226
Susanto ., Evi Muafiah, Ayu Desrani, Apri Wardana Ritonga, Arif Rahman Hakim
High School Students’ Mathematics Anxiety: Discouragement, Abuse, Fear, and Dilemma Induced through
Adults’ Verbal Behaviour .................................................................................................................................................. 247
Boj Bahadur Budhathoki, Bed Raj Acharya, Shashidhar Belbase, Mukunda Prakash Kshetree, Bishnu Khanal, Ram Krishna
Panthi
Entrepreneurship Education in Ghana: A Case Study of Teachers’ Experiences....................................................... 270
R J (Nico) Botha, M Obeng-Koranteng
Enhancing Students’ Attitudes in Learning 3-Dimension Geometry using GeoGebra............................................. 286
Marie Sagesse Uwurukundo, Jean Francois Maniraho, Michael Tusiime
Pre-Service Teachers' Perspectives towards the Use of GammaTutor in Teaching Physical Sciences in South
African Secondary Schools ................................................................................................................................................ 304
Sakyiwaa Boateng, Jogymol Kalariparampil Alex, Folake Modupe Adelabu, Thamsanqa Sihele, Vuyokazi Momoti
Continuing Professional Development of the Teacher Education Faculty among Philippine State Universities and
Colleges................................................................................................................................................................................ 324
Ninez B. Tulo, Jiyoung Lee

1
©Authors
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0
International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0).
Vol. 21, No. 6, pp. 1-17, June 2022
https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.21.6.1
Received Mar 3, 2022; Revised May 22, 2022; Accepted Jun 22, 2022
Effectiveness of Virtual Laboratories in Teaching
and Learning Biology: A Review of Literature
Céline Byukusenge
African Centre of Excellence for Innovative Teaching and Learning Mathematics
and Science (ACEITLMS), University of Rwanda College of Education (URCE),
Kayonza, Rwamagana, Rwanda
Florien Nsanganwimana
University of Rwanda College of Education (URCE), Kayonza,
Rwamagana, Rwanda
Albert Paulo Tarmo
Educational Psychology and Curriculum Studies, School of Education,
University of Dar es Salaam, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania
Abstract. Scholars have debated whether virtual laboratories are
educationally effective tools and if they should be continuously
developed. In this paper, we comprehensively review literature about the
effectiveness of virtual labs in teaching and learning biology to identify
the topics often taught and the linked learning outcomes. We used Google
Scholar, ERIC, and Web of Science electronic databases to access journal
articles and conference proceeding papers. Through a systematic
analysis, we obtained 26 articles solely related to virtual lab use in biology
education. The overall findings from the reviewed literature indicated
that virtual laboratories are often used on topics that seem abstract. These
include cell and molecular biology topics, followed by microbiology,
genetics, and other practical topics such as dissection and biotechnology.
This review study revealed that virtual labs are effective as they improve
students’ conceptual understanding, laboratory or practical skills, and
motivation and attitudes towards biology. We recommend the use of
virtual labs in teaching as a means of actively involving students in safer
and more cost-effective scientific inquiry.
Keywords: Biology topics; computer simulations; learning outcomes;
virtual laboratories/labs

2
http://ijlter.org/index.php/ijlter
1. Introduction
1.1 Background
Information and communication technology is increasingly penetrating almost all
domains of human life, including education. In addition, with the current global
trend of achieving twenty-first century learning skills, where digital literacy is one
of the core goals, there is an increasing, understandable desire to bring more
educational technologies into the classroom (Dakhi et al., 2020; Smetana & Bell,
2012; Tarbutton, 2018). Globally, researchers and practitioners agree that
educational technology can transform the learning process by providing teachers
and students with access to relevant resources when integrated into teaching.
However, to be successful, educational technology should enhance the
achievement of learning objectives (Griffin, 2003), because effective technology
should enable students to achieve critical thinking by creating a shift from
memorizing factual knowledge to understanding principles and applications.
Like any other science subject, the teaching of biology inevitably requires
laboratory exercises as a part of the practical skills acquisition process (Borgerding
et al., 2013). Indeed, most biology topics heavily rely on practical activities,
especially in laboratories (Cavanagh et al., 2005; Çimer, 2012; Vijapurkar et al.,
2014). In addition, research has shown that laboratory activities can potentially
develop students’ intellectual abilities, such as critical thinking, scientific inquiry,
and practical skills. For instance, Hofstein and Mamlok-Naaman (2007) revealed
that science cannot be significant to students without practical experiences in the
school laboratory. When students have no access to laboratory activities and
experiences, they often meet with difficulties in the learning of biology, especially
in molecular biology topics (Boulay et al., 2010; Öztap et al., 2003; Sammet &
Dreesmann, 2017; Tibell & Rundgren, 2009).
Literature has shown that technology can provide students with laboratory
experience and enhance learning (Keller & Keller, 2005). However, the question
to be asked is which kind of technology can provide students with authentic
scientific practice and help them move from memorization to a deeper
understanding of concepts and applications. Research has shown that using
inquiry-based and learner-centered technologies that allow students to
manipulate and observe scientific phenomena (Flick & Bell, 2000; Sivin et al., 2000)
bring about a deeper understanding of concepts and applications. Virtual
laboratories, commonly called virtual labs, meet the criteria in this context.
Virtual lab technologies were proposed by the National Science Foundation’s
(NSF) task force to upgrade the state of STEM education as a dynamic response
to the sustainable preparation of the population for complex global challenges in
the twenty-first century (Borgman et al., 2008). Researchers have shown that
virtual labs could help make science concepts in general and biology in particular
more concrete (Olympiou et al., 2013) and meaningful for students without
requiring complex and costly equipment (Elangovan & Ismail, 2014; Makransky
et al., 2019; Marbach-Ad et al., 2008).

3
Several pedagogical advantages have been highlighted regarding virtual lab use
in education. For instance, by using virtual labs, teachers can easily explain
complex theoretical concepts through a visual and immersive experience that can
make it simpler for students to understand the subject (Smetana & Bell, 2012).
With virtual labs, students try various experiments in risk–free environments
without fear of damaging equipment. In addition, students can conduct the same
experiment multiple times to ensure an understanding of the concept. Virtual labs
allow teachers to capture students’ attention and ensure their engagement and
motivation (Babateen, 2011). Furthermore, virtual labs help students to learn at
their own pace as they can prepare and perform laboratory experiments at any
time and place. With virtual lab technology, teachers and students can explore
topics that would otherwise be unworkable in conventional classes (Smetana &
Bell, 2012).
Radhamani et al. (2014) and Pearson and Kudzai (2015) emphasized the need for
virtual labs in teaching biology, especially in developing countries. They argued
that, generally, science education in developing countries faces many limitations.
These include shortage of laboratory equipment and reagents, space and time
constraints, insufficient laboratory protocol, inadequate technical support, and
safety, among other limitations. According to Radhamani et al. (2014), virtual labs
are asset tools to mitigate the challenges of insufficient laboratory equipment
needed in teaching biology topics such as biotechnology. This is despite some
drawbacks of virtual labs, such as students not being able to feel, smell, or touch
as in a physical laboratory.
While physical laboratories are absent or not fully equipped in many schools due
to the high costs of their equipment and maintenance, virtual labs have been
affirmed to lessen financial constraints related to laboratory equipment, space,
and maintenance (Fisher et al., 2012). These potential advantages have triggered
research interest, and a good number of empirical studies have been conducted
about the effectiveness of virtual laboratories (Breakey et al., 2008; Dyrberg et al.,
2017; Muhamad et al., 2010, 2012; Pope et al., 2017; Radhamani et al., 2014; Ray et
al., 2012; Triola & Holloway, 2011).
Along this vein, several review studies on the effect of virtual laboratories in
teaching sciences have been carried out (Brinson, 2015; De Jong et al., 2013; Ma &
Nickerson, 2006; Smetana & Bell, 2012; Udin et al., 2020). However, most reviews
only included laboratory practices of many other disciplines, such as physics,
chemistry, and engineering, with few review studies about the effectiveness of
virtual laboratories in teaching and learning biology (Udin et al., 2020). There is a
need to know for which topics of biology virtual labs are more useful and what
outcomes are brought about by virtual labs in the teaching and learning of
biology. Therefore, we assume that this study will shed light on the effectiveness
of virtual labs and in which preferred topics teachers are called to use the virtual
labs. This relates especially to those biology topics which seem difficult to be
taught by teachers and those which are too hard to understand for students
because they are too abstract. The following specific questions guide this literature
review:

4
1. In which topics of biology are virtual laboratories the most useful?
2. What learning outcomes are best achieved using virtual laboratories in
biology?
1.2 Theoretical Context
The use of virtual laboratories in teaching and learning is based on David Kolb’s
(1984) experiential learning theory, which is rooted in the constructivist approach
and John Dewey’s work (Ouyang & Stanley, 2014). Around 1938, Dewey showed
that no learning happens without practice and the active involvement of students.
Kolb advocated and applied Dewey’s concept of “learning by doing”, believing
that learning occurs through cognitive and experiential learning (Kolb & Kolb,
2005). The core of experiential learning theory is the individual learner’s
participation and experiences (Ouyang & Stanley, 2014). The application of virtual
labs in teaching ensures students’ active learning (Evans et al., 2004). The use of
virtual labs allows learners to experiment with immediate feedback and
interactivity (Dyrberg et al., 2017; Tan & Waugh, 2013). Thus, virtual labs help
students to learn by doing and to become more engaged in their studies
(Gallagher et al., 2005; Marchevsky et al., 2003).
2. Methodology
We applied preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses
(PRISMA) principles and guidelines in our review (Moher et al., 2009). PRISMA
guidelines assist researchers in conducting transparent and comprehensive
systematic review reporting. These guidelines help researchers define research
strategies, eligibility criteria, the selection process, and the data collection process.
2.1. Literature Search
We used an open federated search in this review study to find relevant articles
from trusted databases. This type of search involves searching various electronic
databases for information relevant to the review study. We used certain keywords
to search and retrieve articles related to our study. These included “biology
laboratory”, “virtual laboratory in teaching biology”, “virtual labs and biology
topics”, “biology education and virtual laboratory”, “virtual and physical
laboratory”, “virtual lab and real lab”, and “effectiveness of virtual labs in biology
education”. We used trusted electronic databases such as Google Scholar, ERIC,
and Web of Science to access reliable articles and conference proceedings.
2.2 Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria
Using a systematic selection process and the elimination of duplicates, the first
stage of searching yielded 161 papers. Manual filtering was applied based on how
an article is relevant to our study. In selecting the relevant articles for inclusion in
the review, we screened the titles and abstracts of all recorded articles. We used
several inclusion and exclusion criteria to filter irrelevant articles (Table 1).

5
Table 1: Inclusion and exclusion criteria used to select relevant studies
Inclusion criteria Exclusion criteria
Empirical studies in peer-reviewed
journals, and conference proceedings
Reviews in non-peer-reviewed journals
Virtual labs used for biology education - Virtual lab development procedures,
design, or architecture
- Virtual labs used for medical biology
Articles published in English Articles that are not in English
The screening of titles and abstracts yielded 38 publications. The publications
were further subjected to screening by checking their full-text content. The articles
that focused only on biology virtual lab development procedures, design, or
architecture without any relation to teaching biology were excluded. In this
regard, 12 publications were filtered out. Eventually, we gathered 26 studies
relevant to our review study, and each study was recorded to categorize
information for further analysis (see Table 2 and Figure 1). The PRISMA diagram
in Figure 1 shows the selection process. The obtained articles are dated from 2002
to 2019
Figure 1: PRISMA diagram of the selection process of the reviewed studies

6
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. The Use of Virtual Laboratories in Teaching Biology Topics
In response to the first research question, we present in Table 2 the biology topics
in which virtual laboratories are most commonly used for effective teaching. We
also present the related learning outcomes that are most commonly enhanced by
the use of virtual labs.
Table 2. Biology topics in which virtual labs are used and related learning outcomes
SN Study Biology topic Measured learning outcome
1 Akhigbe and
Ogufere (2019)
Genetics Student attitudes and academic
achievement in genetics
2 Akpan and
Strayer (2010)
Frog dissection Actual dissection practices and
attitudes towards dissection
3 Breakey et al.
(2008)
Genetics Understanding of experimental
genetics procedures
4 Collier et al.
(2012)
Histology Content mastery and time
management
5 Diwakar et al.
(2011)
Biotechnology (No learning outcomes were
identified)
6 Dyrberg et al.
(2017)
Microbiology and
pharmaceutical
toxicology
Enhanced student positive attitudes,
motivation, and self-efficacy
7 Elangovan and
Ismail (2014)
Cell division Student conceptual understanding
of cell division
8 Flowers (2011) Various topics, most
of which are related to
cell and molecular
biology (DNA, cell
structure, enzyme-
controlled reaction,
cell reproduction)
Student perceptions of biology
9 Havlícková et
al. (2018)
Dissection Student motivation
10 Huppert et al.
(2002)
Microbiology Student science process skills and
academic achievement
11 Ismail et al.
(2016)
Microbiology
(dissolving pathogenic
bacteria)
Enhancing student scientific literacy
12 Kiboss et al.
(2006)
Cell division Conceptual understanding and
perceptions
13 Makransky et
al. (2016)
Microbiology Knowledge transfer and practical
skills
14 Makransky et
al. (2019)
Microbiology Student knowledge, motivation, and
self-efficacy in microbiology
15 Marbach et al.
(2008)
Molecular biology Enhanced student achievement
16 Meir et al.
(2005)
Introductory biology
(osmosis and
diffusion)
Student understanding of how these
processes work at a molecular level

7
17 Muhamad et al.
(2012)
Cell division Student understanding of cell
division, specifically applications of
mitosis in cloning
18 Oser and Fraser
(2015)
Genetics Student perception of the learning
environment, attitudes towards the
topic, and achievement
19 Pope et al.
(2017)
Evolution Student understanding of natural
selection concepts
20 Radhamani et
al. (2014)
Biotechnology Enhanced student achievement
21 Shelden et al.
(2019)
Cell division Understanding of cell division
phases
22 Stuckey-Mickell
and Stuckey-
Danner (2007)
Introductory biology Enhanced student perceptions
23 Tan and Waugh
(2013)
Molecular biology Student conceptual understanding
and attitudes in molecular biology
24 Toth et al.
(2009)
DNA and gel
electrophoresis
Student understanding and
laboratory skills
25 White et al.
(2007)
Genetics Conceptual understanding
26 Whitworth et
al. (2018)
Enzyme kinetics Conceptual understanding
Table 2 displays the topics in which virtual labs were used and the learning
outcomes that were attained as a result of their use. The reviewed articles are
dated from 2002 to 2019. We did not find literature for the years 2020 to 2022. In
the reviewed studies, virtual labs were used to teach genetics, dissection,
microbiology, cell division, osmosis, DNA and gel electrophoresis, enzyme
kinetics, biotechnology, evolution, histology, and introduction to biology. Virtual
labs were used most frequently in teaching microbiology and cell division.
Moreover, some of the learning outcomes that were attained using virtual labs
included conceptual understanding, knowledge transfer, practical skills
acquisition, and enhanced positive attitudes, motivation, and self-efficacy among
students. The topics and learning outcomes are further described in the following
sections, respectively.
3.2. Topics in Which Virtual Labs are the Most Useful
We analyzed the reviewed studies to identify which biology topics were most
taught using virtual labs. Figure 2 shows the different topics that were facilitated
using virtual labs.

8
Figure 2. Biology topics in which virtual labs were used as per the reviewed studies
It is not by coincidence that the identified topics in Figure 2 employ virtual
laboratories. The listed topics are perceived by both teachers and students to be
difficult, abstract, and daunting due to their complexity, difficulty to visualize,
and not being practicable in normal physical school laboratories. For instance,
before conducting their study on developing and implementing a scenario-based
biology virtual lab, Muhamad et al. (2012) carried out a preliminary investigation
of a survey type involving 72 students and 10 high school teachers. Their
investigation aimed to identify the biology topic that was most difficult to teach
and learn and to focus on developing a virtual lab for it. Their preliminary study
findings indicated cell division as the most difficult topic for both teachers and
students (Muhamad et al., 2010).
Tan and Waugh (2013) undertook research employing virtual reality simulations
in teaching and learning molecular biology in Singapore high schools. Teachers
claimed that the topic of molecular biology was challenging and difficult to teach.
They also indicated different complaints by students about teaching materials
used by their teachers, such as diagrams and 2D presentations, which do not
enable them to see DNA and protein molecules. Tan and Waugh (2013) argued
that before studying molecular biology by use of virtual reality simulations, it was
difficult for students to relate the structure and molecular interactions for cell
functioning. Radhamani et al. (2014) reported that after virtual lab classes, 44% of
the students who participated in their study scored 90%, with an average class
score of about 70% in the post-test evaluation. In the pre-test evaluation, the
majority of the students (88%) had scored below 70%.
Indeed, the topic to be taught with the use of virtual labs depends on the nature
of the experiment. For instance, considering the topic of dissection, this topic
raises many debates and disagreements regarding ethical issues among
researchers, educators, and animal rights activists. Virtual laboratories that dissect
animal specimens provide a viable alternative to real dissections and relieve
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Number of studies

9
ethics-related issues. Studies comparing the value of virtual frog dissections with
traditional dissections using real specimens have revealed mixed results,
however. Some supported that real dissections in the physical laboratory are
effective (Cross & Cross, 2004), while others agreed that the simulated dissections
are effective for improving students’ performance in the virtual laboratories
(Akpan & Strayer, 2010).
3.3. Learning Outcomes Enhanced by the Use of Virtual Laboratories
The learning outcomes identified in the reviewed studies were grouped into three
categories (Figure 3). These are: 1) knowledge and conceptual understanding;
2) laboratory skills, knowledge transfer, and self-efficacy in laboratory activities;
and 3) students’ motivation, perceptions, and attitudes towards biology and the
learning environment. Some of the reviewed studies assessed more than one of
the above learning outcomes. The total number of studies indicated in Figure 3
therefore exceed the number of reviewed studies. The overall findings indicated
that the learning outcomes varied, but in most studies, knowledge and conceptual
understanding were frequently assessed.
Figure 3: Learning outcomes identified in the reviewed studies
3.3.1 Knowledge and conceptual understanding
From our analysis, 21 out of the 26 reviewed studies reported that the use of
virtual labs enhances students’ conceptual understanding (Figure 3). Indeed,
virtual lab exercises have been proven essential for students to understand
biology concepts. Virtual labs present multiple opportunities for students to gain
access to learning resources easily, and to get enough time to do and repeat
activities, thereby nurturing deeper learning (Muhamad et al., 2012).
Furthermore, biology is a molecular science; most of its topics require
visualizations, videos, and illustrations for students to understand how processes
work at the molecular level (Evans et al., 2004; Muhamad et al., 2012). Many
studies have shown that virtual laboratories are effective, low-cost tools to
enhance students’ understanding of biology concepts. This is because they
provide students with visualizations of abstract concepts through animations,
simulations, and virtual practices of simulated laboratory experiments for some
21
8
5
0 5 10 15 20 25
Knowledge/ conceptual understanding
Laboratory skills, knowledge transfer, and self
efficacy
Motivation, perceptions, and attitudes
Learning outcome Number of reviewed studies

10
topics, which could not be done even in normal classes (Akhigbe & Ogufere, 2019;
Collier et al., 2012; Makransky et al., 2016; Oser & Fraser, 2015; Špernjak & Šorgo,
2018; Tan & Waugh, 2013).
In the study conducted by Tan and Waugh (2013), students admitted that before
exposure to visualization exercises, molecular biology was a dry topic, too
abstract and daunting for them. This resulted in some of them giving up biology
altogether. Nonetheless, Tan and Waugh confirmed that after viewing the
animations and participating in the visualization exercises, the students
demonstrated increased interest, understanding, and engagement in the subject.
Whitworth et al. (2018) reported a varied use of simulations in laboratory activities
after seeing a significant increase in post-test scores of the experimental group of
students over the control group of students. The experimental group was taught
using standard lab instruction coupled with simulated lab instruction, while the
control group was taught with only standard lab instruction. The increased
post-test scores of the experimental group had an average standard deviation of
1.59. Based on their study results, Whitworth et al. (2018) concluded that
computer simulations improve students’ conceptual understanding of enzyme
kinetics.
Moreover, various studies have shown that virtual labs are adequate for
improving understanding of biology topics that are difficult to observe directly in
the classroom context (Collier et al., 2012; Pope et al., 2017; Radhamani et al., 2014).
For example, evolution by natural selection has been shown to be notoriously
difficult for students to understand, and its processes have been described as not
directly observable (Krist & Showsh, 2007; Nehm & Schonfeld, 2008; Plunkett &
Yampolsky, 2010). However, Pope et al. (2017) clearly showed that simulations of
natural phenomena are effective tools that support an active teaching approach to
help students overcome natural selection misconceptions.
3.3.2 Laboratory skills, knowledge transfer, and self-efficacy in laboratory activities
Eight out of the twenty-six reviewed studies indicated that virtual laboratories
enhance students’ laboratory skills, knowledge transfer, and self-efficacy
(Figure 3). These studies suggested that virtual laboratories are effective tools for
pre-lab preparation and transferring knowledge and skills from an idealized
environment into physical reality (Makransky et al., 2016). Research has affirmed
that for meaningful laboratory learning to occur, students should be prepared
before performing the required laboratory tasks (Jones & Edwards, 2010).
According to O’Brien and Cameron (2008), laboratory practices help students to
move from abstract to concrete settings. However, if students are not prepared,
they could experience stress and confusion during laboratory activities instead of
expected manipulative and process skills. The students become overloaded with
too much information about the assigned task and may become overwhelmed as
they try to handle new manipulative tasks as well as master new concepts
(Pogačnik & Cigić, 2006).
Virtual labs are crucial for the preparation of students before embarking on a
physical experiment. Researchers have affirmed that to perform the required

11
practical tasks, science classes should blend real and virtual experiments so that
students acquire the skills necessary. Several of the reviewed studies suggested
the desirability of integrating hands-on laboratories with virtual ones and the
effectiveness of engaging in virtual experiences before the real, hands-on
investigation (Akpan & Strayer, 2010; Toth et al., 2009). In addition, other
researchers have indicated that students prepared using virtual labs do not waste
time on how to handle apparatus in organizing the experiment; rather, they focus
on testing hypotheses through practicing and making important observations
(Johnstone & Al-Shuaili, 2001). Prepared students begin the procedures faster and
ask questions on a higher level than those who are less or not prepared (Dyrberg
et al., 2017).
In their post-test, Akpan and Strayer (2010) discovered that students who engaged
first in simulated dissection outperformed their peers who only performed
conventional dissection. Similarly, Maldarelli et al. (2009) found that visual
demonstration of laboratory techniques via instructional videos before the actual
physical laboratory activity was sufficient to mediate significant increases in
knowledge, self-efficacy, and experience in basic biology laboratory procedures.
However, not surprisingly, some studies found that students believed that
traditional labs offer more effective pedagogical techniques in teaching them how
to use biology laboratory equipment than virtual labs (Flowers, 2011). Researchers
have also criticized virtual labs, claiming that they have limited potential for
teaching students how to handle specimens and perform techniques such as
fixing, staining, and thin sectioning (Scheckler, 2003). However, other scholars
have indicated that with simulations, students have opportunities to repeatedly
learn all steps of an experiment, enabling them to transfer knowledge and skills
gained from virtual learning to physical applications (Makransky et al., 2016).
3.3.3 Students’ motivation, perceptions, and attitudes towards biology and the learning
environment
In this study, 5 out of the 26 reviewed studies reported about virtual laboratories
as related to students’ motivation, perceptions, and attitudes towards biology and
the learning environment (Figure 3). According to these studies, virtual labs are
important for enhancing students’ attitudes, stimulating interest and enjoyment,
and motivating them to learn biology, improving their performance. Toth et al.
(2009) performed a study about myDNA by using virtual labs to show the
separation of DNA fragments. They found that students were happy to learn and
efficiently repeated experiments and studied the effects of the variables. In a
recent study, Akhigbe and Ogufere (2019) assessed the effect of computer
simulations on students’ attitudes towards biology, finding that computer
simulations improve students’ attitudes towards genetics. A significant
improvement in performance was seen with the students who were exposed to
the computer simulation instructional strategy over their counterparts who were
taught using traditional methodologies.
The majority of the reviewed studies revealed that students have positive
perceptions towards virtual labs. Stuckey-Mickell and Stuckey-Danner (2007)
made a contrary finding in their qualitative study analyzing open-ended
qualitative responses by students after completion of several virtual lab sessions

12
in human biology. This allowed them to investigate how students perceive virtual
labs as compared to hands-on laboratory activities. They found that with virtual
labs, students lacked the enjoyment of student-teacher interaction and the ability
to ask questions and receive direct feedback from the instructor.
4. Conclusion and Recommendation
Based on the study’s findings, we conclude that virtual laboratories are commonly
effective in teaching difficult and abstract biology topics related to cell and
molecular biology. Furthermore, conceptual understanding is the learning
outcome most enhanced when using virtual labs. Studies have further affirmed
that virtual labs improve students’ motivation, self-efficacy, and attitudes towards
learning biology topics. Virtual laboratories deserve the attention of researchers,
teachers, and instructional designers due to their appealing nature as a means of
actively involving students in safer and more cost-effective scientific inquiry. We
suggest that future research assesses teachers’ preparedness to use virtual labs in
teaching and learning processes. The effectiveness of virtual labs, like any other
instructional tool, may be greatly influenced by how they are used in the
classroom. This study did not address the limitations of the virtual laboratory in
teaching and learning biology. Thus, we recommend further research into the
negative effects of using virtual laboratories in teaching and learning.
5. References
Akhigbe, J. N., & Ogufere, J. A. (2019). Effect of computer simulation instructional strategy
on students’ attitude and academic achievement in genetics. KIU Journal of Social
Sciences, 5(4), 305-315.
Akpan, J., & Strayer, J. (2010). Which comes first: The use of computer simulation of frog
dissection or conventional dissection as academic exercise? Journal of Computers in
Mathematics and Science Teaching, 29(2), 113-138.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ885724
Babateen, M. H. (2011). The role of virtual laboratories in science education [Conference
session]. IACSIT Press, Singapore. http://www.ipcsit.com/vol12/19-
ICDLE2011E10013.pdf
Borgerding, L. A., Sadler, T. D., & Koroly, M. J. (2013). Teachers’ concerns about
biotechnology education. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 22(2),
133-147. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-012-9382-z
Borgman, C. L., Abelson, H., Dirks, L., Johnson, R., Koedinger, K., & Linn, M. C. (2008).
Fostering learning in the networked world: The cyberlearning opportunity and challenge.
https://escholarship.org/uc/item/32t8b4bt
Boulay, R., Parisky, A., & Campbell, C. (2010, June). Developing teachers’ understanding of
molecular biology: Building a foundation for students [Conference session]. ASCILITE
2010 – The Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary
Education, Sydney.
https://www.ascilite.org/conferences/sydney10/procs/Boulay-full.pdf
Breakey, K. M., Levin, D., Miller, I., & Hentges, K. E. (2008). The use of scenario-based-
learning interactive software to create custom virtual laboratory scenarios for
teaching genetics. Genetics, 179(3), 1151-1155.
https://doi.org/10.1534/genetics.108.090381
Brinson, J. R. (2015). Learning outcome achievement in non-traditional (virtual and
remote) versus traditional (hands-on) laboratories: A review of the empirical
research. Computers & Education, 87, 218-237.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.07.003

13
Cavanagh, H., Hood, J., & Wilkinson, J. (2005). Riverina High School students’ views of
biotechnology. Electronic Journal of Biotechnology, 8(2), 121-127.
https://doi.org/10.2225/vol8-issue2-fulltext-1
Çimer, A. (2012). What makes biology learning difficult and effective: Students’ views.
Educational Research and Reviews, 7(3), 61-71.
https://academicjournals.org/article/article1379665422_Cimer.pdf
Collier, L., Dunham, S., Braun, M. W., & O’Loughlin, V. D. (2012). Optical versus virtual:
Teaching assistant perceptions of the use of virtual microscopy in an
undergraduate human anatomy course. Anatomical Sciences Education, 5(1), 10-19.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.262
Cross, T. R., & Cross, V. E. (2004). Scalpel or mouse? A statistical comparison of real &
virtual frog dissections. The American Biology Teacher, 66(6), 409-411.
https://doi.org/10.1662/0002-7685(2004)066[0409:somasc]2.0.co;2
Dakhi, O., Jama, J., Irfan, D, Ambiyar, & Ishak. (2020). Blended learning: A 21st century
learning model at college. International Journal of Multi Science, 1(7), 50-65.
https://multisciencejournal.com/index.php/ijm/article/view/92/72
De Jong, T., Linn, M. C., & Zacharia, Z.C. (2013). Physical and virtual laboratories in
science and engineering education. Science, 340(6130), 305-309.
https://doi.org/10.1126/Science 1230579
Diwakar, S., Achutan, K., Nedugali, P., & Nair, B. (2011). Enhanced facilitation of
biotechnlogy education in developing nations via virtual labs: Analysis,
implementation and case studies. International Journal of Computer Theory and
Engineering, 3(1), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.7763/ijcte.2011.v3.275
Dyrberg, N. R., Treusch, A. H., & Wiegand, C. (2017). Virtual laboratories in science
education: Students’ motivation and experiences in two tertiary biology courses.
Journal of Biological Education, 51(4), 358-374.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2016.1257498
Elangovan, T., & Ismail, Z. (2014). The effects of 3D computer simulation on biology
students’ achievement and memory retention. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science
Learning and Teaching, 15(2), 1-25.
https://www.eduhk.hk/apfslt/download/v15_issue2_files/elangovan.pdf
Evans, C., Gibbons, N. J., Shah, K., & Griffin, D. K. (2004). Virtual learning in the biological
sciences: Pitfalls of simply “putting notes on the web”. Computers and Education,
43(1-2), 49-61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2003.12.004
Fisher, A., Sekera, E., Payne, J., & Craig, P. (2012). Simulation of two dimensional
electrophoresis and tandem mass spectrometry for teaching proteomics.
Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 40(6), 393-399.
https://doi.org/10.1002/bmb.20651
Flick, L., & Bell, R. (2000). Preparing tomorrow’s science teachers to use technology:
Guidelines for science educators. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher
Education, 1(1), 39-60. https://citejournal.org/volume-1/issue-1-
00/science/preparing-tomorrows-science-teachers-to-use-technology-
guidelines-for-science-educators
Flowers, L. O. (2011). Investigating the effectiveness of virtual laboratories in an
undergraduate biology course. Journal of Human Resources & Adult Learning, 7(2),
110-116.
http://www.hraljournal.com/Page/12%20Lawrence%20O.%20Flowers-1.pdf
Gallagher, A. G., Ritter, E. M., Champion, H., Higgins, G., Fried, M. P., Moses, G.,
Smith, C. D., & Satava, R. M. (2005). Virtual reality simulation for the operating
room: Proficiency-based training as a paradigm shift in surgical skills training.
Annals of Surgery, 241(2), 364-372.
https://doi.org/10.1097/01.sla.0000151982.85062.80

14
Griffin, J. D. (2003). Technology in the teaching of neuroscience: Enhanced student
learning. American Journal of Physiology – Advances in Physiology Education, 27(1-4),
146-155. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00059.2002
Havlícková, V., Šorgo, A., & Bílek, M. (2018). Can virtual dissection replace traditional
hands-on dissection in school biology laboratory work? Eurasia Journal of
Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 14(4), 1415-1429.
https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/83679
Hofstein, A., & Mamlok-Naaman, R. (2007). The laboratory in science education: The state
of the art. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 8(2l), 105-107.
https://doi.org/10.1039/B7RP90003A
Huppert, J., Lomask, S. M., & Lazarowitz, R. (2002). Computer simulations in the high
school: Students’ cognitive stages, science process skills and academic
achievement in microbiology. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8),
803-821. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690110049150
Ismail, I., Permanasari, A., & Setiawan, W. (2016). STEM virtual lab: An alternative
practical media to enhance student’s scientific literacy. Jurnal Pendidikan IPA
Indonesia, 5(2), 239-246.
https://journal.unnes.ac.id/nju/index.php/jpii/article/view/5492/5457
Johnstone, A. H., & Al-Shuaili, A. (2001). Conversion of bench demonstration using the
overhead projector/Conversión de demostraciones en el aula utilizando
retroproyector. Journal of Science Education, 2(2), 78-80.
https://www.proquest.com/openview/0051fa7d17702e76f72edcb34c0eab0c/1?
pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=28899
Jones, S. M., * Edwards, A. (2010). Online pre-laboratory exercises enhance student
preparedness for first year biology practical classes. International Journal of
Innovation in Science and Mathematics Education, 18(2), 1-9.
Keller, H., & Keller, E. (2005). Making real virtual labs. The Science Education Review, 4(1),
2-11. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1049733.pdf
Kiboss, J., Wekesa, E., & Ndirangu, M. (2006). Improving students’ understanding and
perception of cell theory in school biology using a computer-based instruction
simulation program. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 15(4),
397-410. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ742381
Kolb, A. Y., & Kolb, D. A. (2005). Learning styles and learning spaces: Enhancing
experiential learning in higher education. Academy of Management Learning &
Education, 4(2), 193-212. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-1428-6
Krist, A. C., & Showsh, S. A. (2007). Experimental evolution of antibiotic resistance in
bacteria. The American Biology Teacher, 69(2), 94-97. https://doi.org/10.1662/0002-
7685(2007)69[94:EEOARI]2.0.CO;2
Ma, J., & Nickerson, J. V. (2006). Hands-on, simulated, and remote laboratories: A
comparative literature review. ACM Computing Surveys, 38(3), 7-es.
https://doi.org/10.1145/1132960.1132961
Makransky, G., Mayer, R. E., Veitch, N., Hood, M., Christensen, K. B., & Gadegaard, H.
(2019). Equivalence of using a desktop virtual reality science simulation at home
and in class. PLoS ONE, 14(4), 1-14.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0214944
Makransky, G., Thisgaard, M. W., & Gadegaard, H. (2016). Virtual simulations as
preparation for lab exercises: Assessing learning of key laboratory skills in
microbiology and improvement of essential non-cognitive skills. PLoS ONE, 11(6),
1-11. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0155895
Maldarelli, G. A., Hartmann, E. M., Cummings, P. J., Horner, R. D., Obom, K. M.,
Shingles, R., & Pearlman, R. S. (2009). Virtual lab demonstrations improve
students’ mastery of basic biology laboratory techniques. Journal of Microbiology &

15
Biology Education, 10(1), 51-57.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1128/jmbe.v10.99
Marbach-Ad, G., Rotbain, Y., & Stavy, R. (2008). Using computer animation and
illustration activities to improve high school students’ achievement in molecular
genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(3), 273-292.
https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20222
Marchevsky, A. M., Relan, A., & Baillie, S. (2003). Self-instructional “virtual pathology”
laboratories using web-based technology enhance medical school teaching of
pathology. Human Pathology, 34(5), 423-429. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0046-
8177(03)00089-3
Meir, E., Perry, J., Stal, D., Maruca, S., & Klopfer, E. (2005). How effective are simulated
molecular-level experiments for teaching diffusion and osmosis? Cell Biology
Education, 4(3), 235-248. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.04-09-0049
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., Altman, D., Antes, G., & Tugwell, P.
(2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The
PRISMA statement (Chinese edition). Journal of Chinese Integrative Medicine, 7(9),
889-896. https://doi.org/10.3736/jcim20090918
Muhamad, M., Zaman, H. B., & Ahmad, A. (2010). Virtual laboratory for learning biology:
A preliminary investigation. World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology,
71, 572-575.
Muhamad, M., Zaman, H. B., & Ahmad, A. (2012). Virtual biology laboratory (VLab-Bio):
Scenario-based learning approach. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 69,
162-168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.11.395
Nehm, R. H., & Schonfeld, I. S. (2008). Measuring knowledge of natural selection: A
comparison of the CINS, an open‐response instrument, and an oral interview.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(10), 1131-1160.
https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20251
Olympiou, G., Zacharias, Z., & DeJong, T. (2013). Making the invisible visible: Enhancing
students’ conceptual understanding by introducing representations of abstract
objects in a simulation. Instructional Science, 41(3), 575-596.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-012-9245-2
Oser, R., & Fraser, B. J. (2015). Effectiveness of virtual laboratories in terms of learning
environment, attitudes and achievement among high-school genetics students.
Curriculum and Teaching, 30(2), 65-80. https://doi.org/10.7459/ct/30.2.05
Ouyang, J. R., & Stanley, N. (2014). Theories and research in educational technology and
distance learning instruction through Blackboard. Universal Journal of Educational
Research, 2(2), 161-172. https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2014.020208
Öztap, H., Özay, E., & Öztap, F. (2003). Turkish teachers teaching cell division to
secondary school students : An investigation of difficulties experienced by
Turkish teachers. Journal of Biological Education, 38(1), 13-15.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2003.9655890
Pearson, C., & Kudzai, C. (2015). Virtual laboratories: A solution for tertiary science
education in Botswana? European Journal of Logistics, Purchasing and Supply Chain
Management, 3(1), 12-24. https://www.eajournals.org/wp-
content/uploads/Virtual-laboratories.pdf
Plunkett, A. D., & Yampolsky, L. Y. (2010). When a fly has to fly to reproduce: Selection
against conditional recessive lethals in Drosophila. The American Biology Teacher,
72(1), 12-15. https://doi.org/10.1525/abt.2010.72.1.4
Pogačnik, L., & Cigić, B. (2006). How to motivate students to study before they enter the
lab. Journal of Chemical Education, 83(7), 1094-1098.
https://doi.org10.1021/ed083p1094
Pope, D. S., Rounds, C. M., & Clarke-Midura, J. (2017). Testing the effectiveness of two
natural selection simulations in the context of a large-enrollment undergraduate

16
laboratory class. Evolution: Education and Outreach, 10(1), 1-16.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12052-017-0067-1
Radhamani, R., Sasidharakurup, H., Sujatha, G., Nair, B., Achuthan, K., & Diwakar, S.
(2014). Virtual labs improve student’s performance in a classroom. E-Learning,
E-Education, and Online Training, 138, 138-146. https://doi.org/doi:10.1007/978-3-
319-13293-8_17
Ray, S., Koshy, N. R., Reddy, P. J., & Srivastava, S. (2012). Virtual labs in proteomics: New
e-learning tools. Journal of Proteomics, 75(9), 2515-2525.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jprot.2012.03.014
Sammet, R., & Dreesmann, D. (2017). What do secondary students really learn during
investigations with living animals? Parameters for effective learning with social
insects. Journal of Biological Education, 51(1), 26-43.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2016.1150873
Scheckler, R. K. (2003). Virtual labs: A substitute for traditional labs? International Journal
of Developmental Biology, 47(2-3), 231-236.
Shelden, E. A., Offerdahl, E. G., & Johnson, G. T. (2019). A virtual laboratory on cell
division using a publicly-available image database. CourseSource.
https://doi.org/10.24918/cs.2019.15
Sivin, J. P., Bialo, E., & Langford, J. (2000). 2000 research report on the effectiveness of
technology in schools (7th ed.). Software and Information Industry Association.
Smetana, L. K., & Bell, R. L. (2012). Computer simulations to support science instruction
and learning: A critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science
Education, 34(9), 1337-1370. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.60518
Špernjak, A., & Šorgo, A. (2018). Differences in acquired knowledge and attitudes
achieved with traditional, computer-supported and virtual laboratory biology
laboratory exercises. Journal of Biological Education, 52(2), 206-220.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2017.1298532
Stuckey-Mickell, T. A., & Stuckey-Danner, B. D. (2007). Virtual labs in the online biology
course: Student perceptions of effectiveness and usability. MERLOT Journal of
Online Learning and Teaching, 3(2), 105-111.
https://jolt.merlot.org/vol3no2/stuckey.pdf
Tan, S., & Waugh, R. (2013). Use of virtual-reality in teaching and learning molecular
biology. In Y. Cai (Ed.), 3D immersive and interactive learning (pp. 17-43).
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-4021-90-6_2
Tarbutton, T. (2018). Leveraging 21st century learning & technology to create caring
diverse classroom cultures. Multicultural Education, 25(2), 4-6.
Tibell, L. A. E., & Rundgren, C.-J. (2009). Educational challenges of molecular life science:
Characteristics and implications for education and research. CBE—Life Sciences
Education, 9(1), 55-61. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.08-09-0055
Toth, E., Morrow, B. L., & Ludvico, L. R. (2009). Designing blended inquiry learning in a
laboratory context: A study of incorporating hands-on and virtual laboratories.
Innovative Higher Education, 33(5), 333-344. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-008-
9087-7
Triola, M. M., & Holloway, W. J. (2011). Enhanced virtual microscopy for collaborative
education. BMC Medical Education, 11(1), 9-12. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-
6920-11-4
Udin, W. N., Ramli, M., & Muzzazinah. (2020). Virtual laboratory for enhancing students’
understanding on abstract biology concepts and laboratory skills: A systematic
review. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1521(4), 042025.
https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1521/4/042025
Vijapurkar, J., Kawalkar, A., & Nambiar, P. (2014). What do cells really look like? An
inquiry into students’ difficulties in visualising a 3-D biological cell and lessons

17
for pedagogy. Research in Science Education, 44(2), 307-333.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-013-9379-5
White, B., Bolker, E., Koolar, N., Ma, W., Maw, N. N., & Yu, C. Y. (2007). The virtual
genetics lab: A freely available open-source genetics simulation. The American
Biology Teacher, 69(1), 29-32.
Whitworth, K., Leupen, S., Rakes, C., & Bustos, M. (2018). Interactive computer
simulations as pedagogical tools in biology labs. CBE—Life Sciences Education,
17(3), ar46. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.17-09-0208

18
©Authors
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0
International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0).
Vol. 21, No. 6, pp. 18-33, June 2022
https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.21.6.2
Received Mar 3, 2022; Revised May 29, 2022; Accepted Jun 22, 2022
Mindset and Levels of Conceptual Understanding in
the Problem-Solving of Preservice Mathematics
Teachers in an Online Learning
Environment
Ma Luisa Mariano-Dolesh
Distance, Open and Transnational University, Central Luzon State University
Science City of Muñoz, Nueva Ecija, Philippines
Leila M. Collantes
College of Education, Central Luzon State University
Edwin D. Ibañez
College of Science, Central Luzon State University
Jupeth T. Pentang*
College of Education, Western Philippines University
Puerto Princesa City, Philippines
Abstract. Mindset plays a vital role in tackling the barriers to improving
the preservice mathematics teachers’ (PMTs) conceptual understanding
of problem-solving. As the COVID-19 pandemic has continued to pose a
challenge, online learning has been adopted. This led this study to
determining the PMTs’ mindset and level of conceptual understanding in
problem-solving in an online learning environment utilising Google
Classroom and the Khan Academy. A quantitative research design was
employed specifically utilising a descriptive, comparative, and
correlational design. Forty-five PMTs were chosen through simple
random sampling and willingly took part in this study. The data was
gathered using validated and reliable questionnaires and problem-
solving tests. The data gathered was analysed using descriptive statistics,
analysis of variance, and simple linear regression. The results revealed
that the college admission test, specifically numerical proficiency,
influences a strong mindset and a higher level of conceptual
understanding in problem-solving. Additionally, this study shows that
mindset predicts the levels of conceptual understanding in problem-
*
Corresponding author: Jupeth T. Pentang, jupeth.pentang@wpu.edu.ph

19
solving in an online environment where PMTs with a growth mindset
have the potential to solve math problems. The use of Google Classroom
and the Khan Academy to aid online instruction is useful in the
preparation of PMTs as future mathematics teachers and problem-
solvers. Further studies may be conducted to validate these reports and
to address the limitations of this study.
Keywords: conceptual understanding; growth mindset; mathematics
education; online learning; preservice teachers
1. Introduction
Future math teachers must be equipped with the right mindset and a full
understanding of problem-solving. Mindset and conceptual understanding have
a crucial role in the preparation of preservice mathematics teachers (PMTs). The
academic mindset is critical in deeper learning (Farrington, 2013) where
understanding the mindset of preservice teachers improves their morale as future
educators (Yazon et al., 2021). Sadly, preservice teachers have a mindset that they
cannot do mathematics (Cutler, 2020). Considering that a positive mindset is a
gateway to mathematical achievement (Sun, 2018) and problem-solving
performance (Pentang et al., 2021), an exploration of this matter is necessary to
guide the teacher educators in empowering the PMTs. Poor conceptual
understanding may also be a product of a negative mindset. Ibañez and Pentang
(2021) have reported this among preservice teachers in the Philippines.
Discovering ways to develop a strong mindset and conceptual understanding
among PMTs was disrupted by the occurrence of the novel coronavirus disease in
2019 (COVID-19). Nevertheless, it opened up opportunities for teacher education
institutions (TEIs) to explore alternative teaching and learning modalities.
TEIs in the locality suspended face-to-face classes and limited academic
exchanges to mitigate the public health effects of COVID-19 (Tan et al., 2021).
Institutions adopted a purely online modality while some blended it with self-
learning modules to aid the instructions which may have affected the mindset and
level of conceptual understanding among PMTs. Although online learning has
been configured under a wide variety of different formats over half a century, one
could say that COVID-19 has made educational institutions aware of the new
normal way of academic exchange. Given the challenges due to the pandemic’s
impact, experts in educational institutions have been forced to adopt remote
teaching strategies maximising online resources as a teaching-learning tool. As
online classrooms promote a healthy mindset and encourage learning motivation
(Bacsal et al., 2022; De Souza et al., 2021), TEIs have begun to adopt online
technology methods for disseminating the teaching-learning processes such as
Google Classroom and the Khan Academy.
On the other hand, educators who wish to improve their learning outcomes must
consider approaches to establish a growth mindset (Dimitriadis, 2015). A person
with a strong mindset shows grit, hard work, and perseverance. Embedded in
each of these beliefs, or mindsets, are networks of beliefs and assumptions that
shape how people approach learning (Tabrizi, 2020). In contrast, those who

20
believe that intelligence is fixed tend to focus on judgment. They are more
concerned with proving that they are intelligent or concealing that they are not,
which means that they avoid circumstances in which they might fail or have to
work hard (Dweck, 2016). The faculty and staff require more than just
technological knowledge; they must also be fully prepared to apply instructional
approaches that improve the students’ online experiences (DeBrock et al., 2020;
De Souza et al., 2021). Thus, there is a need for teachers, including those in the
preservice, to assess their beliefs about intelligence. Their mindset will drive how
they teach and facilitate learning in the mathematics classroom.
Studies about mindset have not yet been fully explored, especially in the field of
mathematics education. It is noticeable that growth mindset research emerged
recently, less than ten years ago. Likewise, the conceptual understanding of
problem-solving in an online environment has not yet been examined. It will be
interesting to find out whether mindset has a connection with the level of
conceptual understanding in an online setup. Moreover, the research will likely
be compelling if the study is done in a group of preservice teachers who are taking
mathematics majors. Considering that these future teachers will probably teach
mathematics in the K-12 program in a few years (Bacsal et al., 2022; Domingo et
al., 2021; Ibañez & Pentang, 2021; Pentang et al., 2021), it would bring in great
benefits to the students, parents, and administrators if their mindset and levels of
conceptual understanding are found to be related.
As an academic institution that trains and prepares preservice teachers, Central
Luzon State University (CLSU) has been dramatically affected by the pandemic
due to the lockdown and school closures that started in March 2020. Online
resources are needed to address the unprecedented pandemic issues in the
teaching-learning process (Manca & Meluzzi, 2020; Pentang, 2021b). Given the
uncertainty of how long the pandemic lasts, online learning plays a vital role in
the continuity of teaching and learning (Bacsal et al., 2022). Google Classroom and
the Khan Academy was used to facilitate continuous learning despite the ongoing
closure and lockdown in schools, colleges, and universities. These scenarios have
compelling reasons to study the mindset and levels of conceptual understanding
in problem-solving in an online learning environment using readily free available
tools like Google Classroom and the Khan Academy in a mathematics classroom
at CLSU, specific to PMTs, who are deemed to be able to recuperate the status of
Philippine mathematics education.
Research Questions
1. What is the PMTs’ mindset when problem-solving in terms of growth and a
fixed mindset?
2. What is the PMTs’ levels of conceptual understanding when problem-solving
regarding best, partial, complete/incomplete, functional, and no
understanding?
3. Is there a significant difference in the PMTs’ mindset when problem-solving
when grouped according to socio-demographic characteristics?

21
4. Is there a significant difference in the PMTs’ levels of conceptual
understanding of problem-solving when grouped according to socio-
demographic characteristics?
5. Do the PMTs’ mindsets significantly predict their conceptual understanding
of problem-solving?
2. Conceptual Framework
The inequalities in the Filipino students’ mathematical literacy can be attributed
to their unawareness of a growth mindset and lack of conceptual understanding,
both of which are linked to their teachers’ means of imparting knowledge and
skills in mathematics. With the unprecedented move to online learning brought
about by the pandemic, mathematics educators have been obligated to employ
online learning management systems such as Google Classroom with the Khan
Academy to train and prepare future maths teachers who are deemed able to
address the mathematics illiteracy among young Filipinos. It is an opportunity to
assess the growth mindset and conceptual understanding of problem-solving of
the preservice mathematics teachers (PMTs). The Khan Academy existed prior to
the pandemic but was not commonly used in formal mathematics instruction.
The PMTs’ mindsets can be influenced by what they believe about their academic
ability. Intelligence may be strengthened by a growth mindset (Dweck, 2016). A
person with a growth mindset knows that intelligence may be attained through
hard work and the assistance of others (Romero, 2015). Knowing a student’s
mindset will assist a teacher in developing techniques to promote learning
(Tabrizi, 2020). Growth mindset techniques enable the students to engage in risk-
taking activities (Hennessey, 2019). Thus, it is vital to consider the right mindset
when pursuing academic success in mathematics, especially in relation to
problem-solving. The PMTs’ mindset may be found to be helpful in problem-
solving activities with the aid of the Khan Academy.
PMT's conceptual understanding of problem-solving also has implications for
mathematics education. Conceptual understanding denotes a comprehensive and
functional knowledge of mathematical notions (National Research Council, 2001).
Conceptual understanding is critical to solving a problem and understanding why
the algorithms and approaches used work. Conceptual understanding, in which
learners grasp ideas in a transferable manner, enables them to apply what they
learn in class across domains (Moser & Chen, 2016). Problem-solving and deep
conceptual understanding is demonstrated when a student decides how to solve
a problem (Ibañez & Pentang, 2021; Pentang et al., 2021). The PMTs should be able
to monitor their process and judge whether the procedure is the right method to
answer the question or if a new way is needed (Pentang, 2021a; Schoenfeld, 1989).
Through the Khan Academy, it is deemed that the PMTs’ conceptual
understanding will be estimated.
The socio-demographic characteristics such as sex, number of siblings, birth order,
family monthly income, father’s and mother’s educational attainment, and CAT
Numerical Proficiency, are essential factors to consider when determining the
PMTs’ mindset and level of conceptual understanding. Considering that both

22
mindset and conceptual understanding are essential in mathematics education,
this study resolves the gap in the literature where no exploration has established
the influence of socio-demographic characteristics in relation to the PMTs mindset
and conceptual understanding of problem-solving as well as to establish whether
mindset is a predictor of the PMT’s conceptual understanding. The study also
conceptualised the vital role of online learning in problem-solving through the
use of Google Classroom and the Khan Academy (Figure 1).
Figure 1: Conceptual Framework of the Study
3. Methodology
3.1. Research Design
This study employed a quantitative research design combining descriptive,
comparative, and regression methods to address the research questions and
conceptual framework of the study (Magulod et al., 2021). The descriptive
analysis addressed the first two research questions which described the
participants’ mindset and their level of conceptual understanding of problem-
solving in an online learning environment. Additionally, the comparative analysis
answered the third and fourth research questions which distinguished between
the socio-demographic characteristic differences in the participants’ mindset and
level of conceptual understanding, respectively. Moreover, the regression

23
analysis answered the fifth question which showed whether the PMT’s mindset
predicts their conceptual understanding of problem-solving.
3.2. Participants and Sampling Procedure
The participants of the study were preservice mathematics teachers (third-year
Bachelor of Secondary Education major in Mathematics students) from Central
Luzon State University. The study targeted respondents who had taken
mathematics college courses and who were currently enrolled in Problem-solving,
Mathematical Investigation, and Modelling in their first semester of the school
year 2020-2021. The simple random sampling employed drew 45 participants
(Table 1).
Table 1: Participants’ socio-demographic characteristics (n = 45)
Socio-Demographic Characteristics Frequency Percentage
Sex
Male 14 31.11
Female 31 68.89
Number of Siblings
0 - 2 10 22.22
3 - 5 31 68.89
6 and above 4 8.89
Birth Order
Last-born (Youngest) 12 26.67
Middle-born 21 46.67
First-born (Eldest) 12 26.67
Family Monthly Income
Less than ₱11,690 34 75.56
Between ₱11,690 to ₱23,380 9 20.00
Between ₱23,381 to ₱46,761 2 4.44
Father’s Educational
Attainment
Did not finish Elementary 7 15.56
Elementary Graduate 7 15.56
High School Graduate 26 57.78
College Graduate 5 11.11
Mother’s Educational
Attainment
Elementary Undergraduate 2 4.44
Elementary Graduate 6 13.33
High School Graduate 30 66.67
College Graduate 7 15.56
CAT Numerical
Proficiency
Below Average 8 17.78
Average 24 53.33
Above Average 13 28.89
3.3. Research Instrument
The instrument utilised in this study was a survey questionnaire (for Part I and
Part II) and a problem-solving test (for Part III). Part I determined the socio-
demographic characteristics of the participants. Part II focused on the
participants’ mindset following the example of Dweck (2016). It consisted of two
subscales: Entity Self Beliefs (items number 1 to 4) and Incremental Self Beliefs
(items number 5 to 8). The entity or fixed mindset items were reverse coded so
then the students who answered strongly disagree for these items showed
agreement with the growth mindset. Higher scores for this subscale showed
agreement with the incremental or growth mindset items. Part III was aimed at
the participants’ levels of conceptual understanding of problem-solving in terms
of their best understanding, partial understanding, incomplete understanding,

24
functional misconception, and no understanding. The levels were determined
based on Jensen and Finley’s (1995) theory. The problems provided focused on
the following topics: expressions in multiple variables, systems of equations,
graph labels and scales, quadratics, and exponential graphs. These problems were
among the difficult items included in the work of Bacsal et al. (2022), Domingo et
al. (2021), Ibañez and Pentang (2021), and Pentang et al. (2021) in their studies on
mathematics problems concerning elementary preservice teachers in the same
institution. The research instrument was pilot tested which demonstrated a high
internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.891).
3.4. Data Gathering Procedures
The researchers secured approval and consent from the institution and the
participants, respectively. Upon approval, the course professor assisted the
researchers in gathering the data. At the start of the class, the participants
familiarised themselves with the course expectations of the online learning
environment. The participants completed an online survey about their socio-
demographic characteristics and mindset towards problem-solving. In the
following meetings in the first week, the course professor facilitated discussions
on mathematical investigation, developing critical thinking and problem-solving
skills, as well as math problem-solving techniques and strategies. Examples of
how to solve different mathematics problems were presented which served as a
review of the PMTs’ prior knowledge regarding their mathematics courses.
The researchers oriented the participants of the Khan Academy online resource in
the first meeting of the second week of class. Given how the participants have
prior knowledge of the mathematics concepts from previous years, the Khan
Academy platform offered them an opportunity to practice mathematical skills
repeatedly to master the concepts. It also allowed them to track their progress as
it provided instant feedback. Thus, the participants could fill in the gaps in their
understanding by watching the related videos and getting hints or moving ahead.
During the two weeks of the class meetings, the students independently practiced
their problem-solving skills. The PMTs continued to do the practice exercises and
watch videos, if necessary. In the next two weeks of the classes, the students
answered the problem-solving questions in Google Classroom through Google
Forms. Each problem set had four multiple-choice questions. The students wrote
the solutions and explanations to their chosen answers in the multiple-choice area
for each item question. After a month of online learning, the researchers gathered
the data on the number of times each participant tried to answer the given five
sets of problems to achieve mastery learning using the Khan Academy.
3.5. Data Analysis
Descriptive statistics such as the mean and standard deviation were utilised to
determine the PMTs’ mindset regarding the presence of a growth mindset or
absence of a growth mindset, equivalently a fixed mindset, whereas frequency
count and percentage were used to describe the PMTs’ level of conceptual
understanding of problem-solving in an online environment. Besides this, a series
of Analysis of Variance tests were employed to distinguish between the significant
differences in the PMTs’ (a) mindset and (b) conceptual understanding in

25
problem-solving when grouped according to their socio-demographic
characteristics. Follow-up post hoc analysis was conducted using the Scheffe test.
Furthermore, simple linear regression was utilised to find out whether the PMTs’
mindset was able to predict their level of conceptual understanding of problem-
solving in an online environment.
4. Results and Discussion
4.1. PMTs’ Mindset
The study found alarming results where the PMTs recorded a weak growth
mindset (Mean = 3.98, SD = 0.16). The PMTs have limited their perspective
regarding their intelligence and ability to do problem-solving. Still, the Khan
Academy online intervention showed that the PMTs performed the exercises
several times to reach the mastery level. As Table 2 reflects, the PMTs have a
strong growth mindset regarding the time and effort needed to improve
themselves. This demonstrates the PMTs' readiness to maximise their resources,
learn from their mistakes, and accept challenges, as they consider failure as a
chance to learn (Boaler, 2022; Dweck, 2016). Also, the PMTs seemed determined
and persevering when it came to accomplishing whatever they set their minds to.
Hence, the PMTs showed that they are most likely to demonstrate the
characteristics of people with a growth mindset, such as hard work, perseverance,
seeking help from others, and learning from feedback (Boaler, 2022; Dweck, 2016;
Wilkins, 2014).
There is still a need to cultivate a growth mindset among the PMTs. The PMTs’
growth mindset will be vital when addressing the poor status of mathematics
education in the Philippines. Several online resources relevant to mathematics
instructions may be adopted to fully prepare prospective math teachers. With “the
teacher’s crucial role in facilitating and monitoring the student’s development”
(Agayon et al., 2022), this weak growth mindset may be replicated in the PMTs’
students. Thus, the institution may provide ample training and activities to
strengthen the PMTs’ growth mindset. In line with De Souza et al. (2021) and
Pentang (2021b), the course professors concerned may further utilise several
online teaching-learning tools and integrate available technology to communicate
effective instructions.
Table 2: PMTs’ mindset
Parameters Mean SD Description
*1. I don’t think I can do much to increase my intelligence. 3.84 1.26 WGM
*2. I can learn new things but I can’t change my basic
intelligence.
3.76 1.28 WGM
*3. My intelligence is something about me that I can’t
change very much.
3.98 1.29 WGM
*4. To be honest, I don’t think I can change how intelligent
I am.
3.93 1.25 WGM
5. With enough time and effort, I think I could
significantly improve my intelligence level.
5.24 0.98 SGM
6. I believe I can always substantially improve my
intelligence.
4.89 0.71 AGM

26
7. Regardless of my current intelligence level, I think I can
change it quite a bit.
4.80 0.50 AGM
8. I believe I can change my basic intelligence level
considerably over time.
4.87 0.69 AGM
Pooled Mean 3.98 0.16 WGM
Note: 5.16–6.00 = Strong Growth Mindset (SGM) *Reversely Coded
4.33–5.15 = Average Growth Mindset (AGM)
3.50–4.32 = Weak Growth Mindset (WGM)
2.67–3.49 = Weak Fixed Mindset (WFM)
1.84–2.66 = Average Fixed Mindset (AFM)
1.00–1.83 = Strong Fixed Mindset (SFM)
4.2. PMTs’ Level of Conceptual Understanding
Most (40 out of 45) PMTs recorded their best conceptual understanding in
problem-solving (Table 3). This shows that the PMTs have prior knowledge of the
concepts and mastered the skills needed in problem-solving, which opposes the
work of Ibañez and Pentang (2021) and Pentang et al. (2021) who revealed that
the majority of the preservice teachers have functional misconceptions and an
incomplete understanding of problem-solving. This result approves the effective
use of Google Classroom with the Khan Academy as employed by the PMTs’
professors where the institution they belong to has led to the standard of being
one of the best universities in Asia. The PMTs have shown their ability to impart
knowledge and skills in mathematical problem-solving to their future students.
Meanwhile, five PMTs had an incomplete to partial understanding, which can be
attributed to a lack of contextual comprehension of the mathematical topics
(Domingo et al., 2021; Pentang, 2021a; Pentang et al., 2021). This unwanted result
may infer that the PMTs are not yet ready for the challenge to empower young
Filipinos in their mathematics courses. Since partial understanding hampers the
students’ understanding of the subsequent mathematical knowledge (Shockey &
Pindiprolu, 2015), there is a need for an intervention to facilitate the preparation
of the PMTs as math teachers. Other online-based platforms and resources may
be utilised in the teaching-learning process to improve the PMTs’ conceptual
understanding as well as to effectively strengthen their growth mindset in
mathematics.
Table 3: PMTs’ level of conceptual understanding
Levels Frequency (n = 45) Percentage
Best Understanding 40 88.89
Partial Understanding 4 8.89
Incomplete Understanding 1 2.22
Functional Misconception 0 0
No Understanding 0 0
4.3. Mindset in Problem-Solving When Grouped According to Socio-
Demographic Characteristics
ANOVA found there to be a significant difference in the PMTs’ mindset in terms
of the CAT numerical proficiency of the PMTs, F(2,42) = 1.002, p < 0.05 (Table 4).
PMTs with an above-average CAT numerical proficiency (Mean = 4.430, SD =

27
0.139) tended to have a stronger growth mindset in relation to problem-solving
compared to the PMTs with an average (Mean = 3.973, SD = 0.155) and below-
average (Mean = 3.937, SD = 0.197) CAT numerical proficiency. This means that
numerical proficiency can influence mindset in relation to problem-solving.
Overall, the study results suggested that there is no statistical evidence to say that
there is a significant difference between the PMTs’ mindsets when grouped
according to their socio-demographic characteristics except for their CAT
Numerical Proficiency.
The results can be related to the work of Boaler (2022) and Bower (2017) where
people who have a growth mindset directly impact how they face academic
challenges, including college examinations. However, this finding contradicts Li
and Bates (2020) where admission test scores throughout the transition from high
school to college were not found to be connected to a growth mindset. When
establishing the PMTs' mindset, it would be beneficial to focus more on their
academic profile, such as college admission test scores. The PMTs’ high school
background may be included, and a stringent retention policy in the mathematics
teacher education program may be implemented.
Table 4: Socio-demographic characteristic differences in relation to the PMTs’
mindset towards problem-solving
Socio-Demographic Characteristics Mean SD df F p
Sex
Male 3.946 0.137
1,43 -1.044 0.302
Female 4.000 0.168
Number of Siblings
0 - 2 4.000 0.150
2,42 0.496 0.613
3 - 5 3.989 0.162
6 and above 3.916 0.176
Birth Order
Youngest 3.923 0.148
2,42 1.297 0.284
Middle 4.015 0.153
Eldest 3.983 0.178
Monthly Family Income
Less than ₱11,690 3.890 0.152
2,42 0.409 0.667
Between ₱11,690 to ₱23,380 3.972 0.186
Between ₱23,381 to ₱46,761 4.083 0.235
Father’s Educational Attainment
Did not finish Elementary 4.023 0.133
3,41 0.537 0.219
Elementary Graduate 3.964 0.249
High School Graduate 4.003 0.127
College Graduate 3.850 0.170
Mother’s Educational Attainment
3,41 0.058 0.981
CAT Numerical Proficiency
Below Average 3.609b 0.197 2,42 1.002 0.037

28
Average 3.903b 0.155
Above Average 4.430a 0.137
Note: Means with the same subscript do not differ using Scheffe post hoc analysis.
4.4. Socio-Demographic Differences in the PMTs’ Conceptual Understanding
of Problem-Solving
ANOVA found there to be a significant difference in the PMTs’ conceptual
understanding of problem-solving when grouped according to CAT Numerical
Proficiency, F(2,42) = 3.464, p < 0.05 (Table 5). The post hoc analysis using Scheffe
showed that PMTs with an above-average CAT Numerical Proficiency (Mean =
3.792, SD = 0.238) tended to have higher conceptual understanding of problem-
solving compared to the PMTs with an average (Mean = 3.644, SD = 0.423) and
below-average (Mean = 3.306, SD = 0.545) CAT numerical proficiency. This
suggests that there is no significant difference between the PMTs’ conceptual
understanding of problem-solving in an online environment when grouped
according to the socio-demographic characteristics, except according to their CAT
Numerical Proficiency.
College admissions tests have a long track record of bringing value to higher
education institutions by giving a predictive value of student success in entry-
level college courses. This conforms to the work of Allen and Bond (2001),
Mengash (2020), Montalbo et al. (2018), and Tesema (2014) but opposes Laus
(2021). The college admission test is indeed a good measure for admitting
potential preservice teachers. However, the institution may opt to accept those
with a higher numerical proficiency to ensure that the PMTs are ready not only in
their college preparation but also for the board exam and their anticipated
teaching career. A strict admission policy may be implemented considering other
backgrounds such as their high school grade point average and national
achievement test results.
Table 5: Socio-demographic characteristic differences in relation to the PMTs’
conceptual understanding of problem-solving
Socio-Demographic Characteristics Mean SD df F p
Sex
Male 3.739 0.208
1,43 1.490 0.229
Female 3.571 0.494
Number of Siblings
0 - 2 3.783 0.130
2,42 0.989 0.380
3 - 5 3.565 0.503
6 and above 3.700 0.127
Birth Order
Youngest 3.691 0.270
2,42 2.115 0.133
Middle 3.478 0.554
Eldest 3.800 0.126
Monthly Family Income
Less than ₱11,690 3.576 0.475
2,42 0.862 0.429
Between ₱11,690 to ₱23,380 3.750 0.208
Between ₱23,381 to ₱46,761
3.850 0.212

29
Father’s Educational Attainment
3,41 0.237 0.870
Mother’s Educational Attainment
3,41 0.258 0.855
CAT Numerical Proficiency
Below Average 3.306b 0.545
2,42 3.464 0.041
Average 3.444b 0.423
Above Average 3.792a 0.238
Note: Means with the same subscript do not differ using the Scheffe post hoc analysis.
4.5. Mindset as a Predictor of the PMTs’ Conceptual Understanding of Problem-
solving
A simple linear regression analysis was performed to determine whether the
PMTs’ mindset predicts their conceptual understanding of problem-solving in an
online learning environment. Table 6 shows that the model is significant, R2 =
0.515, Adjusted R2 = 0.407, F(1,43) = 4.781, p < 0.05, indicating that PMTs who have
a growth mindset tend to have higher conceptual understanding of problem-
solving. The coefficient of determination (R2) means that about 51.5% of the
variance in the PMTs’ levels of conceptual understanding in problem-solving in
an online learning environment is explained or accounted for by their mindset.
Similar to Hennessey (2019), the results show that a growth mindset is associated
with better educational outcomes. The study also agrees that an individual with a
growth mindset is inspired by mastery goals, finds inspiration in others’ success,
and learns from feedback (Wilkins, 2014). This inspiration and reflection is
cultivated in an online learning environment. Thus, the growth mindset must be
instilled among PMTs while they are in their formative years in the teacher
education program. This measure will be helpful as part of encouraging a full
understanding of problem-solving.
The results further prove that people who have a growth mindset accomplish
much (Boaler, 2022) as the PMTs pursue becoming excellent math teachers.
However, this study is contrary to the research conducted at the same institution
concerning elementary preservice teachers. Although the preservice teachers try
to develop a positive disposition, they find it hard to learn mathematics (Ibañez
& Pentang, 2021). Even preservice teachers who have a growth mindset toward
mathematics do not show a full conceptual understanding when solving problems
(Pentang et al., 2021). The study still needs validation due to the limited sample
size.

30
Table 6: Simple linear regression analysis of the PMTs’ conceptual understanding in
problem-solving as the criterion with mindset as the predictor
Model
Unstandardised
Coefficients
Standardised
Coefficients t-value p-value
B Std. Error Beta
Constant 2.365 1.729 -1.983 0.055
Mindset 0.273 0.420 0.558 4.490 0.049
Note: R2 = 0.515, Adjusted R2 = 0.407, F(1,43) = 4.781, p < 0.05
5. Conclusion and Recommendations
The PMTs have to develop a strong growth mindset which is necessary for them
as future teachers. The PMTs’ preparedness to teach mathematics to young
Filipinos cannot be assured with a fixed mindset. To foster a growth mindset
among the PMTs, this may be integrated into the Psychology Course that the
preservice teachers are taking. The PMTs with a growth mindset are more likely
to know that academic success is no accident – it is related to learning, studying,
hard work, perseverance, sacrifice, and love of what you are doing or learning to
do. Additionally, the inclusion of growth mindset activities in the Mathematics
Education Courses would be beneficial to the PMTs. This may result in more
awareness that intelligence can be developed. This may lead to a stronger growth
mindset among the PMTs who will shape the younger generation’s minds in the
upcoming K-12 program.
The PMTs attained the expected level of conceptual understanding in problem-
solving. The PMTs showed a mastery of skills in mathematical problem-solving
due to their strong academic background combined with the online intervention
via the Khan Academy activities. Nevertheless, it is noteworthy that there are still
a handful of them who have gaps in their conceptual understanding of problem-
solving. It is good to advocate the use of an open-source platform like the Khan
Academy to enhance the PMTs’ conceptual understanding. They are likely to be
motivated to have mastery skills through independent learning. It is also a useful
intervention for those who exhibit a partial or incomplete understanding of the
mathematics concepts.
Since the PMTs with a higher CAT Numerical Proficiency tend to have a stronger
growth mindset and higher conceptual understanding of problem-solving, it is
proposed that the college admission test is used in the admission of potential PMT
applicants. Besides this, mindset predicts the level of conceptual understanding
in problem-solving in an online environment. With the use of online resources
through Google Classroom and the Khan Academy, it is profitable to develop and
implement online mathematics lessons that incorporate a growth mindset and
conceptual understanding.
The continuous use of online resources (e.g., lesson videos and practice exercises)
via the Khan Academy even in the post-pandemic time is highly recommended
even after limited face-to-face classes are implemented. Online resources are
beneficial for the PMTs’ growth mindset and conceptual understanding of
mathematical problem-solving. This may also help the PMTs to prepare for the
board examinations and their future teaching career. With the limitations posed

31
by the current study, further research on online learning may be looked to,
considering a larger sample size and the adoption of similar variables and
methods to validate this report. Other online learning tools such as maths
applications and software as well as academic and non-academic factors that
possibly influence the mindset and conceptual understanding may also be
considered.
6. References
Allen, D. D., & Bond, C. A. (2001). Prepharmacy predictors of success in pharmacy school:
grade point averages, pharmacy college admissions test, communication abilities,
and critical thinking skills. Pharmacotherapy: The Journal of Human Pharmacology and
Drug Therapy, 21(7), 842-849. https://doi.org/10.1592/phco.21.9.842.34566
Agayon, A. J. D., Agayon, A. K. R., & Pentang, J. T. (2022). Teachers in the new normal:
Challenges and coping mechanisms in secondary schools. Journal of Humanities and
Education Development, 4(1), 67-75. https://doi.org/10.22161/jhed.4.1.8
Bacsal, E. D., Ibañez, E. D., & Pentang, J. T. (2022). Jigsaw strategy: Strengthening
achievement and interest in mathematics among elementary pre-service teachers.
Palawan Scientist, 14(1), 35-42. http://www.palawanscientist.org/tps/wp-
content/uploads/2022/03/4_Bacsal-et-al.-In-press-Version-2.pdf
Boaler, J. (2022). Mathematical mindsets: Unleashing students’ potential through creative
mathematics, inspiring messages and innovative teaching (2nd ed.). John Wiley & Sons.
Bower, T. (2017). The impact of a growth mindset on student achievement and success. Athlos
Academies.
Moser, T., & Chen, V. (2016, August 29). What is Conceptual Understanding? Getting Smart.
https://www.gettingsmart.com/2016/08/what-is-conceptual-understanding/
Cutler, C. S. (2020). Preservice teachers’ mathematical mindsets during pandemic-induced
pivot to online learning. Frontiers of Education, 5, 595264.
https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2020.595264
DeBrock, L., Scagnoli, N., & Taghaboni-Dutta, F. (2020, March 18). The human element in
online learning. Inside Higher Ed.
https://www.insidehighered.com/advice/2020/03/18/how-make-online-
learning-more-intimate-and-engaging-students-opinion
Dimitriadis, M. (2015, December 14). 10 growth mindset questions to ask students. Makers
Empire. https://www.makersempire.com/promoting-growth-mindsets-with-
makers-empire/
Domingo, J. G., Ibañez, E. D., Subia, G. S., Pentang, J. T., Gamit, A. M., Pascual, L. E., Mina,
J. C., Tomas, A. V., & Liangco, M. M. (2021). Cognitive skills achievement in
mathematics of the elementary pre-service teachers using Piaget’s seven logical
operations. Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education, 12(4), 435-440.
https://doi.org/10.17762/turcomat.v12i4.524
De Souza, R., Parveen, R., Chupradit, S., Velasco, L. G., Arcinas, M., Tabuena, A. C.,
Pentang, J. T., & Ventayen, R. J. M. (2021). Language teachers’ pedagogical
orientations in integrating technology in the online classroom: Its effect on students
motivation and engagement. Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education,
12(10), 5001-5014. https://turcomat.org/index.php/turkbilmat/article/view/5268
Dweck, C. S. (2016). The remarkable reach of growth mind-sets. Scientific American Mind,
27(1), 36-41. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24945335
Farrington, C. (2013, July 2). Academic mindsets as a critical component of deeper learning.
William and Flora Hewlett Foundation. https://hewlett.org/library/academic-
mindsets-as-a-critical-component-of-deeper-learning/

32
Hennessey, J. (2019, February 15). New study finds professors’ beliefs about intelligence predict
students’ educational outcomes. Student Experience Research Network.
https://mindsetscholarsnetwork.org/new-study-finds-professors-beliefs-
intelligence-predict-students-educational-outcomes/
Ibañez, E. D., & Pentang, J. T. (2021). Socio-constructivist learning and teacher education
students’ conceptual understanding and attitude toward fractions. Indonesian
Research Journal in Education, 5(1), 23-44.
https://onlinejournal.unja.ac.id/irje/article/view/12187
Jensen, M. S., & Finley, F. N. (1995). Teaching evolution using historical arguments in a
conceptual change strategy. Science Education, 79(2), 147-166.
https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730790203
Laus, M. A. (2021). Admission profiles as predictors of academic performance. Asia Pacific
Journal of Management and Sustainable Development, 9(1), 39-47.
http://www.apjmr.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/APJMR-2021.9.1.05.pdf
Li, Y., & Bates, T. C. (2020). Testing the association of growth mindset and grades across a
challenging transition: Is growth mindset associated with grades? Intelligence, 81,
101471. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2020.101471
Magulod, G. C., Jr., Capulso, L. B., Delos Reyes, R. J. V., Luna, A. R. F., Orte, C. J. S.,
Maglente, S. S., Pentang, J. T., Olitres, B. J. D., Vidal, C. J. E., & Samosa, R. C. (2021).
How to write and publish your thesis. Beyond Books Publication.
https://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=view_citation&hl=en&user=9l9n6
K4AAAAJ&citation_for_view=9l9n6K4AAAAJ:sSrBHYA8nusC
Manca, F., & Meluzzi, F. (2020, September 24). Strengthening online learning when school are
closed: The role of families and teachers in supporting students during the COVID-19 crisis.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
Mengash, H. A. (2020). Using data mining techniques to predict student performance to
support decision making in university admission systems. IEEE Access, 8, 55462-
55470. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2981905
Montalbo, A. F., Evangelista, Y. P., & Bernal, M. M. (2018). Admission test as predictor of
student performance in political science and psychology students of Rizal
Technological University. Asia Pacific Journal of Multidisciplinary Research, 6(3), 80-
85. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3533808
National Research Council. (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. The
National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/9822
Pentang, J. T. (2021a). Impact assessment and clients’ feedback towards MATHEMATICS
project implementation. International Journal of Educational Management and
Development Studies, 2(2), 90-103. https://doi.org/10.53378/346107
Pentang, J. T. (2021b). Technological dimensions of globalization across organizations:
Inferences for instruction and research. International Educational Scientific Research
Journal, 7(7), 28-32. https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3896459
Pentang, J. T., Ibañez, E. D., Subia, G. S., Domingo, J. G., Gamit, A. M., & Pascual, L. E.
(2021). Problem-solving performance and skills of prospective elementary teachers
in Northern Philippines. Journal of Hunan University Natural Sciences, 48(1), 122-132.
http://jonuns.com/index.php/journal/article/view/500
Romero, C. (2015). What we know about growth mindset from scientific research. Student
Experience Research Network, 1-4.
https://studentexperiencenetwork.org/research_library/what-we-know-about-
growth-mindset-from-scientific-research/

33
Schoenfeld, A. H. (1989). Explorations of students’ mathematical beliefs and behavior.
Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 20(4), 338-355.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ397035
Shockey, T., & Pindiprolu, S. (2015). Uniquely precise: Importance of conceptual
knowledge and mathematical language. Journal on School Educational Technology,
11(1), 28-33. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1097424
Tabrizi, C. (2016). How teaching growth mindset leads to student success. Create-abilities.
https://webinars.create-abilities.com/growth-mindset
Tan, C. H., Kaur, H., Mary, A. A. S., Baluyot, M. B., Jimenez, M. D. D., Ventayen, R. J. M.,
& Pentang, J. T. (2021). How organizational climate mediates employee innovative
work behavior among food manufacturing industries in COVID-19 pandemic:
Implications to business economics and management. Studies of Applied Economics,
39(12). https://doi.org/10.25115/eea.v39i12.6031
Tesema, M. T. (2014). The validity of University Entrance Examination and High school Grade
point average for predicting first year university students' academic performance [Master's
thesis, University of Twente]. https://essay.utwente.nl/66652/
Wilkins, P. B. B. (2014). Efficacy of a growth mindset intervention to increase student
achievement. Education Dissertations and Projects, 24.
https://digitalcommons.gardner-webb.edu/education_etd/24
Yazon, A. D., Ang-Manaig, K., & Adrian, T. W. C. (2021). A correlational study on mindset,
grit, and adversity quotient of pre-service teachers: Evidence in Philippines and
Hongkong. International Journal of Management, Entrepreneurship, Social Science and
Humanities, 4(2), 174–181. https://doi.org/10.31098/ijmesh.v4i2.784

IJLTER.ORG Vol 21 No 6 June 2022

IJLTER.ORG Vol 21 No 6 June 2022

Recomendados

Recomendados

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Semelhante a IJLTER.ORG Vol 21 No 6 June 2022

Semelhante a IJLTER.ORG Vol 21 No 6 June 2022 (20)

Mais de ijlterorg

Mais de ijlterorg (12)

Último

Último (20)

IJLTER.ORG Vol 21 No 6 June 2022