Author

Angel Rose S. Villegas*
Cebu Technological University-Main Campus, Cebu City, Philippines

Abstract

In science education, the fusion of collaborative learning with equipment-based inquiry offers a potent avenue for deepening conceptual understanding, fostering scientific reasoning, and enhancing engagement. This study assessed the effectiveness of collaborative learning in manipulating compound light microscope equipment for Science 7 students at Kal-anan National High School, Kal-anan, Tabogon, Cebu, during the 2nd quarter of the school year 2025–2026, as a basis for laboratory exercises of compound light microscope equipment. A quantitative method was used. The study was conducted at Kal-anan National High School, Kal-anan, Tabogon, Cebu, during the 2nd quarter of the school year 2025–2026 with over 50 respondents. The questionnaire used in the study was adopted. The statistical analysis of the data in the study involved descriptive measures, like the weighted mean and t-test. The data gathered were then analyzed statistically. Findings indicated that despite a modest mean difference of 2.89 points favoring the experimental group, both groups fell within the Did Not Meet Expectations category. Competency 2 showed the highest pre-test performance, while Competencies 1 and 3 were lower. Moderate standard deviations indicate variability in students’ prior knowledge. In addition, post-intervention gains in both groups, with markedly higher performance in the experimental group. The experimental group achieved a mean score of 28.41 classified as Outstanding, whereas the control group obtained 19.81 and remained in the Did Not Meet Expectations category. Across all competencies, the experimental group consistently outperformed the control group, attaining over 92% in each area. Although the control group demonstrated improvement from pre-test levels, its continued classification below proficiency indicates the limited effectiveness of traditional instruction alone. Moreover, the student perceptions of challenges encountered during collaborative learning while manipulating compound light microscope science equipment, revealed an overall Strongly Agree. In conclusion, there is a significant difference between the pre-test scores and post- test scores of the students in the compound light microscope. Thus, the null hypothesis is rejected. Thus, based on the findings, this study recommends the development and implementation of laboratory exercises.

Keywords:  Teaching Science, compound light microscope, pre-and post-test, collaborative learning, descriptive quantitative, laboratory exercises, Kal-anan, National High School.

*Corresponding author / Email: caballesrowena42@gmail.com
DOI: http://doi.org/10.69651/PIJHSS05041647

Recommended citation:
Villegas, A. R. S. (2026). Effectiveness of collaborative learning in handling compound light microscope to Science 7 students. Pantao (International Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences) 5 (4), 1083-1098. http://doi.org/10.69651/PIJHSS05041647

Read the full text

References

Ainsworth, S. (2006). DeFT: A conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 16(3), 183-198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2006.03.001

Anderson, J. R., Reder, L. M., & Simon, H. A. (2000). Applications and misapplications of cognitive psychology to mathematics education. Texas Educational Review, 1(2), 29-49.

Archer, A. L., & Hughes, C. A. (2011). Explicit instruction: Effective and efficient teaching. Guilford Press.

BouJaoude, S., & Barakat, H. (2003). Students’ problem solving strategies in stoichiometry and their relationships to conceptual understanding and learning approaches. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 7(3), 1-42.

Chandrasegaran, A. L., Treagust, D. F., & Mocerino, M. (2007). The development of a two-tier multiple-choice diagnostic instrument for evaluating secondary school students’ ability to describe and explain chemical reactions using multiple levels of representation. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 8(3), 293-307. https://doi.org/10.1039/B7RP90006F

Chen, C., & Chen, Y. (2024). Enhancing science learning through collaborative digital labs: A meta-synthesis. Education and Information Technologies, 29(4), 3075–3091. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-11930-w

Cohen, E. G. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups. Review of Educational Research, 64(1), 1-35. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543064001001

Cohen, E. G., & Lotan, R. A. (2014). Designing groupwork: Strategies for the heterogeneous classroom (3rd ed.). Teachers College Press.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Coubergs, C., Struyven, K., Vanthournout, G., & Engels, N. (2021). Measuring teachers’ perceptions about differentiated instruction: The DI-Quest instrument and model. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 68, 100935. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2020.100935

Department of Education. (2015). DepEd Order No. 8, s. 2015: Policy guidelines on classroom assessment for the K to 12 Basic Education Program. https://www.deped.gov.ph

Department of Education. (2016). K to 12 curriculum guide: Science (Grades 7–10). https://www.deped.gov.ph

Department of Education. (2020). Most essential learning competencies (MELCs). https://www.deped.gov.ph/k-to-12/about/k-to-12-basic-education-curriculum/

Deunk, M. I., Smale-Jacobse, A. E., de Boer, H., Doolaard, S., & Bosker, R. J. (2018). Effective differentiation practices: A systematic review and meta-analysis of studies on the cognitive effects of differentiation practices in primary education. Educational Research Review, 24, 31-54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2018.02.002

Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. Random House.

Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350-383. https://doi.org/10.2307/2666999

Gabel, D. (1999). Improving teaching and learning through chemistry education research: A look to the future. Journal of Chemical Education, 76(4), 548-554. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed076p548

Gillies, R. M. (2016). Cooperative learning: Review of research and practice. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 41(3), 39–54. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2016v41n3.3

Gillies, R. M. (2016). Cooperative learning: Review of research and practice. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 41(3), 39-54. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2016v41n3.3

Gonzales, G. H. A., Despe, K. B., Iway, L. J., Genon, R. J. S., Intano, J. O., & Sanchez, J. M. P. (2024). Online collaborative learning platforms in science: Their influence on attitude, achievement, and experiences. Journal of Educational Technology and Instruction, 2(2), 55–65. https://doi.org/10.70290/jeti.v2i2.55

Gonzales, M. L., & Tan, R. V. (2022). Collaborative laboratory learning in resource-limited science classrooms: A Philippine perspective. Asian Journal of Science Education, 10(2), 45–58. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.11832.19206

Hattie, J. (2023). Visible learning: The sequel (2nd ed.). Routledge.

Hiebert, J., & Grouws, D. A. (2007). The effects of classroom mathematics teaching on students’ learning. In F. K. Lester Jr. (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 371-404). Information Age Publishing.

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2009). An educational psychology success story: Social interdependence theory and cooperative learning. Educational Researcher, 38(5), 365-379. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X09339057

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2017). Cooperation and the use of technology. In G. K. Stahl (Ed.), Computer-supported collaborative learning (pp. 413–432). Springer.

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2020). Joining together: Group theory and group skills (12th ed.). Pearson Education.

Johnstone, A. H. (2010). You can’t get there from here. Journal of Chemical Education, 87(1), 22-29. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed800026d

Kirschner, P. A., & Hendrick, C. (2020). How learning happens: Seminal works in educational psychology and what they mean in practice. Routledge.

Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Prentice-Hall.

Mangarin & Macayana (2024) identified “budgetary constraints and mismanagement” as root causes of limited resource availability.

Mangarin, R. A., & Macayana, L. B. (2024). Why schools lack laboratory and equipment in science? Through the lens of research studies. International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, 8(10), 2835–2840. https://doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2024.8100238

Marzano, R. J., Pickering, D. J., & Pollock, J. E. (2001). Classroom instruction that works: Research-based strategies for increasing student achievement. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Nieswandt, M. (2007). Student affect and conceptual understanding in learning chemistry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(7), 908-937. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20169

Plass, J. L., Moreno, R., & Brünken, R. (Eds.). (2010). Cognitive load theory. Cambridge University Press.

Recoco, R. P., Colaler, N. B., Mirando, M. M. M., Perez, L. E., Rivera, S. A. B., & Rubio, C. M. S. (2025). Evaluation of science laboratories on academic engagement. International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, 9(3), 45–51. https://doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.903SEDU0166

Reichert, F., Brühwiler, C., & Matter, R. (2021). Students’ perspectives on challenges in group-based science learning activities. International Journal of Science Education, 43(4), 567–586. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2021.1883807

Republic Act No. 10533. (2013). Enhanced Basic Education Act of 2013. https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/2013/05/15/republic-act-no-10533/

Republic Act No. 10968. (2018). Philippine Qualifications Framework (PQF) Act of 2018. https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/2018/01/10/republic-act-no-10968/

Rittle-Johnson, B., Schneider, M., & Star, J. R. (2015). Not a one-way street: Bidirectional relations between procedural and conceptual knowledge of mathematics. Educational Psychology Review, 27(4), 587-597. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9302-x

Roy, A., Guay, F., & Valois, P. (2013). Teaching to address diverse learning needs: Development and validation of a differentiated instruction scale. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 17(11), 1186-1204. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2012.743604

Santangelo, T., & Tomlinson, C. A. (2009). The application of differentiated instruction in postsecondary environments: Benefits, challenges, and future directions. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 20(3), 307-323.

Shabani, K., Khatib, M., & Ebadi, S. (2010). Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development: Instructional implications and teachers’ professional development. English Language Teaching, 3(4), 237-248. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v3n4p237

Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Houghton Mifflin.

Slavin, R. E. (2014). Cooperative learning and academic achievement: Why does groupwork work? Anales de Psicología, 30(3), 785-791. https://doi.org/10.6018/analesps.30.3.201201

Smale-Jacobse, A. E., Meijer, A., Helms-Lorenz, M., & Maulana, R. (2019). Differentiated instruction in secondary education: A systematic review of research evidence. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, Article 2366. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02366

Star, J. R. (2005). Reconceptualizing procedural knowledge. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 36(5), 404-411.

Sweller, J. (2011). Cognitive load theory. In J. P. Mestre & B. H. Ross (Eds.), Psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 55, pp. 37-76). Academic Press.

Sweller, J., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. (2019). Cognitive architecture and instructional design: 20 years later. Educational Psychology Review, 31(2), 261-292. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09465-5

Taber, K. S. (2013). Revisiting the chemistry triplet: Drawing upon the nature of chemical knowledge and the psychology of learning to inform chemistry education. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 14(2), 156-168. https://doi.org/10.1039/C3RP00012E

Taslidere, E., & Eryilmaz, A. (2024). Effects of cooperative learning environments in physics lab instruction: A conceptual change approach. International Journal of Science Education, 46(3), 412–435. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2024.2310123

Toma, R. B. (2023). Laboratory science teaching in collaborative contexts: An analysis of time and resource constraints. Journal of Science Education Research, 12(1), 34–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jser.2023.01.003

Tomlinson, C. A. (2014). The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all learners (2nd ed.). Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Tomlinson, C. A., & Imbeau, M. B. (2010). Leading and managing a differentiated classroom. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Tomlinson, C. A., & Moon, T. R. (2013). Assessment and student success in a differentiated classroom. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Towns, M. H., Raker, J. R., Becker, N., Harle, M., & Sutcliffe, J. (2012). The biochemistry tetrahedron and the development of the taxonomy of biochemistry external representations (TOBER). Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 13(3), 296-306. https://doi.org/10.1039/C2RP00014H

Veloo, A., Md-Ali, R., & Chairany, S. (2021). Teachers’ role in managing collaborative learning with lab equipment in science classrooms. International Journal of Instruction, 14(2), 387–404. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2021.14222a

Webb, N. M. (2009). The teacher’s role in promoting collaborative dialogue in the classroom. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 79(1), 1-28. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709908X380772

Wu, H. K., Krajcik, J. S., & Soloway, E. (2001). Promoting understanding of chemical representations: Students’ use of a visualization tool in the classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(7), 821-842. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.1033