Abstract
Laboratory-Based Pedagogy (LBP) is widely advocated for promoting active, inquiry-based science learning. Yet, evidence of its effectiveness at the junior secondary school level remains underexplored in developing educational contexts. Guided by Piaget's constructivist theory, this pilot randomised pretest-posttest study examined the effect of LBP on Basic Science achievement among 30 junior secondary students from a single school, randomly assigned to experimental (n = 15) and control (n = 15) groups. The experimental group engaged in structured hands-on laboratory activities integrated into classroom instruction, whereas the control group received teacher-centred instruction covering the same content. Data was collected using the Basic Science Achievement Test (BSAT), adapted from National Examination Council (NECO) examination items. Mean scores, standard deviations, and Analysis of Covariance were employed to analyse the data, while controlling for pretest scores. Result revealed a significant effect of instructional method on posttest achievement, F(1, 27) = 19.44, p < .001, partial η2 = 0.419, with the laboratory-based group outperforming the control group. Pretest achievement also significantly predicted posttest performance. These findings suggest that LBP can improve Basic Science achievement by promoting active learning. Nevertheless, the findings should be interpreted with caution because the study was conducted at a single school, involved a small sample, and the groups exhibited substantial baseline differences in pretest performance. The study provides preliminary evidence to support larger, well-powered randomised trials in diverse educational settings.
Introduction
Science education is widely recognised as a fundamental driver of technological innovation, scientific literacy, and sustainable national development. Within this context, Basic Science plays a crucial role in the Nigerian junior secondary school curriculum by introducing students to fundamental scientific concepts, inquiry processes, and problem-solving skills that lay the groundwork for subsequent studies in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM). Achieving these educational objectives, however, depends not only on curriculum content but also on the instructional approaches utilised to facilitate meaningful learning. Consequently, there has been growing interest in student-centred pedagogies that actively engage students in constructing scientific knowledge through authentic learning experiences.
Among these approaches, Laboratory-based pedagogy (LBP) has received considerable attention because it enables students to investigate scientific phenomena through observation, experimentation, material manipulation, and collaborative inquiry. Rather than being passive recipients of information, students actively construct knowledge by linking theoretical concepts to practical experiences. This instructional approach aligns with contemporary perspectives on science education that emphasise inquiry, active engagement, reflection, and conceptual understanding as essential conditions for meaningful learning. Empirical evidence consistently indicates that well-designed laboratory activities improve students’ conceptual understanding, scientific reasoning, motivation, science process skills, and academic achievement when compared with traditional teacher-centred instruction (; ; Ramadani et al., 2026; Salisu and Samuel, 2025). Similarly, laboratory-oriented instructional innovations, including simulated laboratory experiments, enriched laboratory guide materials, personalised learning approaches, and technology-supported laboratory environments, have been shown to significantly improve students’ achievement and engagement in Basic Science (; ; Rashidat et al., 2022). Other learner-centred instructional strategies, such as concept mapping, STEM problem-based learning, the 5E-Cyclic instructional model, and Mental Models instructional strategies, have likewise demonstrated positive effects on students’ cognitive development and academic achievement in Basic Science and related science subjects (; ; ; Usman et al., 2023).
Despite these reported benefits, students’ achievement in Basic Science remains a persistent concern in many Nigerian junior secondary schools, where conventional teacher-centred approaches continue to dominate classroom practice. Although curriculum reforms advocate inquiry-oriented and practical science instruction, classroom implementation often remains largely theoretical, limiting students’ opportunities to develop conceptual understanding through direct scientific investigation. Previous studies have further shown that students’ achievement is influenced not only by instructional methods but also by teaching quality, learning skills, and classroom practices (; ; ). Consequently, there is insufficient empirical evidence to determine whether adopting LBP can significantly improve students’ academic achievement in Basic Science within the realities of Nigerian junior secondary classrooms. Addressing this problem is essential because improving students’ achievement in Basic Science is fundamental to strengthening the STEM education pipeline and developing scientifically literate citizens capable of contributing to national development.
Although numerous studies have documented positive associations between practical instruction and science achievement, much of the existing literature has focused on senior secondary school subjects, including Physics, Chemistry, and Biology, with comparatively limited attention devoted to Basic Science at the junior secondary level. Moreover, many previous investigations have evaluated a wide range of instructional approaches, including personalised learning (Rashidat et al., 2022), STEM problem-based learning (Usman et al., 2023), system-based instruction (), concept mapping (), simulated laboratories (), and technology-enhanced learning environments (). While these studies have advanced understanding of effective science teaching, many have employed descriptive, correlational, or quasi-experimental designs that provide limited evidence regarding the causal effects of LBP. Consequently, it remains uncertain whether improvements in students’ academic achievement can be directly attributed to LBP, particularly within resource-constrained educational contexts where instructional practices and learning environments differ substantially from those reported in international studies. These methodological limitations reduce the strength of evidence available to educators and policymakers seeking to promote evidence-based instructional strategies in Basic Science education.
Against this background, the present study addresses this gap by employing a randomised pretest-posttest control-group experimental design. This design has rarely been applied to investigate LBP in Nigerian junior secondary Basic Science classrooms. Unlike many previous Nigerian studies that relied on quasi-experimental or non-experimental designs, this study combines random assignment with statistical control of pretest achievement through Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA), thereby strengthening causal inference regarding the effectiveness of LBP. Furthermore, by focusing specifically on junior secondary Basic Science, rather than senior secondary science disciplines or alternative instructional innovations, the study extends the existing body of knowledge to an educational stage that has received comparatively limited rigorous experimental investigation. Accordingly, the study contributes both methodological novelty by employing a pilot randomised experimental design and contextual novelty by generating preliminary causal evidence on the effectiveness of LBP within a Nigerian Basic Science classroom. The findings are expected to provide evidence that can inform instructional practice, teacher professional development, curriculum implementation, and the design of larger-scale intervention studies in science education.
Accordingly, this study investigates the effect of LBP on junior secondary students’ achievement in Basic Science using a randomised pretest-posttest control-group design. Specifically, the study compares the adjusted posttest achievement scores of students taught using LBP and those taught using conventional teacher-centred instruction, after controlling for pretest achievement.
Research hypotheses
There is no significant difference in the adjusted posttest Basic Science achievement scores of students taught through LBP and those taught through conventional instruction after controlling for pretest achievement.
Research questions
Is there a difference in the adjusted posttest Basic Science achievement scores of students taught through LBP and those taught through conventional instruction after controlling for pretest achievement?
Theoretical framework
This study is anchored in Piaget's Cognitive Constructivist Theory (Piaget, 1952), which posits that students actively construct knowledge through interaction with their environment rather than passively receiving information from teachers. According to Piaget, learning occurs through the complementary processes of assimilation, whereby new experiences are integrated into existing cognitive structures, and accommodation, through which these structures are modified in response to new experiences. From this perspective, meaningful learning is achieved when students engage in concrete experiences that encourage observation, experimentation, reflection, and conceptual restructuring. Consequently, instructional approaches that promote active engagement and inquiry are expected to facilitate deeper conceptual understanding than traditional teacher-centred methods.
Within science education, Piaget's theory provides a strong theoretical underpinning for LBP, as laboratory activities offer students opportunities to investigate scientific concepts through inquiry and direct experience. Rather than merely listening to explanations, students manipulate materials, formulate explanations, test ideas, interpret evidence, and relate observations to scientific principles. Such experiences facilitate the construction of conceptual understanding and promote higher-order thinking, scientific reasoning, and problem-solving. The broader literature on active learning similarly supports this proposition. Large-scale studies have consistently shown that instructional approaches requiring students to actively engage in learning tasks yield significantly higher academic achievement than traditional lecture-based instruction (; ; ; ). Meta-analytic evidence further demonstrates that the positive effects of active learning extend beyond STEM disciplines to diverse educational contexts, highlighting its broad pedagogical effectiveness (; ; Ting et al., 2023; Veniel-MartĂ et al., 2026; Zeng et al., 2020). Moreover, active learning has been found to reduce achievement gaps among underrepresented students, suggesting that learner-centred instructional approaches can improve both academic performance and educational equity (Theobald et al., 2020). These findings reinforce the constructivist proposition that learning is enhanced when students actively construct knowledge rather than passively receiving information.
However, constructivist theory does not imply that every form of laboratory instruction necessarily enhances learning. Contemporary research demonstrates that the educational value of laboratory activities depends primarily on their pedagogical design. Wieman and Holmes (2015) and demonstrated that traditional verification laboratories, in which students merely follow predetermined procedures to confirm established scientific principles, often produce little improvement in conceptual understanding beyond conventional teachings. Similarly, reported that guided-inquiry laboratory experiences promote greater conceptual development than verification laboratories among preservice teachers, while Russell and Weaver (2011) echo that inquiry- and research-based laboratory curricula are more effective in fostering scientific understanding than traditional laboratory formats. More recently, Peşman et al. (2025) unveiled that increasing the level of guidance in inquiry-based laboratory activities significantly enhances students’ conceptual understanding and metacognitive awareness. Collectively, these studies suggest that laboratory instruction is most effective when it actively engages students in inquiry, evidence-based reasoning, and reflection rather than merely requiring them to verify established scientific principles. Consistent with this view, argue that laboratory instruction should prioritise the development of scientific practices rather than simple confirmation of theoretical concepts.
This position is further reinforced by studies conducted by , , and , which conclude that laboratory experiences improve conceptual understanding only when learning objectives are explicitly linked to practical investigations through guided inquiry and reflective thinking. Likewise, unpacked that inquiry-oriented active learning consistently produces higher student achievement than traditional lecture-based instruction because students engage more deeply in the learning process. Earlier contributions by and similarly distinguish between merely performing laboratory activities and learning through laboratory experiences, arguing that practical work contributes to learning only when students actively construct meaning from their observations, experiments, and scientific investigations. Collectively, this body of evidence suggests that the effectiveness of LBP is determined not by the presence of laboratory activities alone but by the extent to which those activities are intentionally designed to support inquiry, conceptual understanding, and active knowledge construction.
It is important to distinguish LBP from laboratory facilities or equipment. LBP is an instructional approach characterised by structured hands-on, inquiry-oriented learning experiences designed to promote conceptual understanding. In contrast, laboratory facilities, equipment, and other physical resources constitute the instructional context within which teaching occurs. Although adequate laboratory resources may facilitate the implementation of laboratory activities, they are not equivalent to the pedagogical intervention itself. A classroom may possess well-equipped laboratories yet continue to employ teacher-centred instruction, even as meaningful laboratory-based learning can still occur through carefully designed practical activities with limited resources. Accordingly, the present study evaluates the effectiveness of LBP as an instructional method, rather than the availability, adequacy, or utilisation of laboratory facilities.
Drawing on Piaget's constructivist theory and contemporary science education research, this study is grounded in the proposition that students achieve deeper conceptual understanding when they actively construct scientific knowledge through inquiry-based laboratory experiences. The theoretical and empirical literature consistently indicates that well-designed inquiry-oriented laboratory instruction is more effective than verification-based or lecture-centred approaches because it promotes active engagement, conceptual change, scientific reasoning, and reflective learning (; ; Russell and Weaver, 2011; Theobald et al., 2020). Guided by this theoretical perspective, the present study experimentally investigates whether students exposed to LBP achieve significantly higher performance in Basic Science than those taught through conventional teacher-centred instruction.
Methodology
This study adopted a pilot randomised controlled experiment design to examine the effect of LBP on students’ academic achievement in Basic Science. Participants were assigned in a 1:1 ratio to either an experimental group (lab-based instruction) or a control group (conventional lecture method). The design incorporated a covariate (pretest scores) to adjust for baseline differences using ANCOVA, thereby improving statistical precision and internal validity. The inclusion of a control group enabled a rigorous comparison of instructional approaches and supported causal inference regarding the utilisation of laboratory equipment. The design was appropriate because participants were randomly assigned to experimental and control groups, thereby strengthening internal validity and reducing the influence of extraneous variables. The inclusion of a control group enabled meaningful comparison between students exposed to laboratory-based instruction and those taught using the conventional lecture method. Pretest scores were used to establish baseline equivalence between the groups, while posttest scores measured achievement gains attributable to the instructional intervention. This design enabled a rigorous assessment of the causal effect of utilising laboratory equipment through a lab-based pedagogy under controlled instructional conditions.
Population and sample
The target population comprised all junior secondary school students enrolled in public secondary schools in Atiba Local Government Area of Oyo State, Nigeria, where Basic Science is a compulsory subject in the junior secondary curriculum. This study was designed as a pilot randomised controlled experiment; therefore, one public junior secondary school was purposively selected. The school was chosen because it had functional laboratory facilities required to implement the laboratory-based intervention, had granted administrative approval to conduct the study during regular school hours, and provided a relatively homogeneous instructional environment. Restricting the study to a single school also reduced institutional variation arising from differences in school resources, instructional practices, and administrative policies, thereby enhancing the internal validity of this preliminary investigation.
Prior to recruitment, all students enrolled in the selected Junior Secondary Basic Science class were assessed for eligibility. Students were eligible if they were officially enrolled in Junior Secondary Basic Science, were expected to be available throughout the study period, and provided informed assent together with parental or guardian consent where required. Students who declined to participate or did not meet the eligibility criteria were not enrolled in the study. A total of 30 eligible students were recruited and enrolled in the trial. Following completion of the baseline (pretest) assessment, participants were randomly allocated to either the experimental group (n = 15) or the control group (n = 15). Randomisation was performed using a simple balloting procedure in which identical folded papers labelled “Experimental” or “Control” were thoroughly mixed in an opaque container. Each participant independently selected one folded paper, ensuring that every student had an equal probability of assignment to either group.
The principal researcher prepared the random allocation sequence before participant assignment. Allocation concealment was maintained by using identical folded ballot papers that concealed the group labels until each participant completed the selection process. Because the allocation labels were not visible before selection, neither the participants nor the researcher could predict subsequent assignments, thereby reducing selection bias. After allocation, the experimental group received instruction using LBP, whereas the control group received instruction on the same Basic Science concepts using the conventional teacher-centred lecture method. Although a formal a priori power analysis was not conducted because this study was intended as a pilot investigation, the sample size was considered appropriate for evaluating the feasibility of the intervention and for generating preliminary estimates of treatment effects to inform future large-scale randomised studies. Furthermore, ANCOVA was employed to improve statistical efficiency by controlling for baseline differences in pretest achievement (Cohen, 1992). Nevertheless, the relatively small sample limits statistical power and the generalisability of the findings. Consequently, the results should be interpreted as preliminary evidence that requires validation through larger, multi-school randomised trials.
Eligibility criteria and setting
The study was conducted in a public junior secondary school in Atiba Local Government Area of Oyo State, Nigeria. Teaching sessions were conducted during normal school hours (08:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.) using the school's regular classrooms and science laboratory to preserve the authenticity of the instructional environment and enhance ecological validity. Students were eligible to participate if they were enrolled in Junior Secondary Basic Science, were available throughout the intervention period, and provided the required consent. All enrolled participants completed the pretest before randomisation. No participant was excluded after randomisation. All 30 participants completed the intervention, attended the posttest assessment, and were included in the final ANCOVA analysis. Consequently, there were no losses to follow-up, withdrawals, or exclusions during the intervention period.
Instrumentation
The instrument used for data collection was the Basic Science Achievement Test (BSAT), which was developed by adapting multiple-choice items from previous National Examinations Council (NECO) Basic Science examinations. The adaptation process involved selecting items that aligned with the learning objectives and content specifications of the Nigerian Junior Secondary School Basic Science curriculum. The selected items were reviewed by three experts in Science Education and Educational Measurement and Evaluation to establish content validity, ensure curriculum alignment, and confirm the appropriateness of item wording for junior secondary school students. Based on their recommendations, ambiguous items were revised, and duplicated content was removed before the final instrument was produced. The BSAT consisted of two sections. Section A elicited participants’ demographic information, including age and gender, while Section B comprised 20 four-option multiple-choice items assessing students’ cognitive achievement in Basic Science. The test covered the instructional topics addressed during the intervention, including laboratory apparatus and safety, measurement of physical quantities, separation techniques, properties of matter, and simple scientific investigations. The test blueprint ensured balanced representation of the curriculum, with items distributed across the cognitive domains of knowledge, comprehension, application, and analysis in accordance with the curriculum objectives. Each correct response earned 1 mark, while incorrect or unanswered items received 0 marks, yielding a total score ranging from 0 to 20, with higher scores indicating greater Basic Science achievement. Because the BSAT consisted exclusively of multiple-choice items, it was designed to assess students’ conceptual understanding, factual knowledge, and application of Basic Science concepts rather than direct practical laboratory skills or psychomotor competence. Practical laboratory competence was supported through the instructional intervention, but was not directly measured by the achievement test.
Experimental procedure
The intervention was implemented over a four-week instructional period during regular school hours. Before instruction began, all participants completed the BSAT as a pretest to establish baseline achievement levels. The same teacher delivered instruction to both the experimental and control groups to minimise teacher-related variation. The teacher held the required professional qualification (Bachelor of Education) to teach Basic Science at the junior secondary school level and followed structured lesson plans prepared by the researchers to ensure consistent content coverage across both groups.
On one hand, the experimental group received instructions using LBP. The intervention consisted of eight instructional sessions, with two sessions per week, each lasting approximately 40 min. Instruction covered the same Basic Science curriculum topics for both groups, including laboratory apparatus and their uses, laboratory safety rules, measurement of physical quantities, separation techniques, properties of matter, and simple scientific investigations. During each session, students participated in structured hands-on practical activities involving observation, manipulation of laboratory apparatus, guided experimentation, recording of observations, data interpretation, and group discussion. Laboratory equipment used during the intervention included beakers, measuring cylinders, thermometers, balances, test tubes, Bunsen burners or spirit lamps (where available), funnels, filter paper, magnets, evaporating dishes, and other standard junior secondary school laboratory materials required for the selected practical activities. Instruction was guided by a researcher-developed instructional manual that specified the lesson objectives, laboratory activities, instructional procedures, discussion questions, and expected learning outcomes for each session.
In contrast, the control group received instruction on the same Basic Science topics over the same number and duration of instructional sessions, using conventional teacher-centred lecture methods. Lessons consisted primarily of verbal explanations, textbook illustrations, board demonstrations, teacher questioning, and note-taking activities, with no student participation in laboratory experiments or hands-on practical investigations. Both groups covered identical curriculum content within the same instructional timeframe, differing only in the instructional approach employed. To ensure intervention fidelity, the researcher developed standardised lesson plans for both instructional conditions and monitored all instructional sessions using an observation checklist to verify adherence to the planned procedures, lesson sequence, instructional duration, and curriculum content. Periodic classroom observations confirmed that the experimental group consistently received inquiry-oriented laboratory instruction, whereas the control group was taught exclusively through conventional lecture-based methods. No deviations from the planned intervention procedures were recorded during the study. Following completion of the four-week intervention, all participants completed the BSAT as a posttest under the same test conditions as the pretest. The resulting scores were subsequently analysed using ANCOVA, with pretest scores included as a covariate to control for baseline differences in achievement.
Validity and reliability of the instrument
To establish content validity, the adapted BSAT was reviewed by experts. Three specialists - two university lecturers in Science Education and one experienced Basic Science teacher - independently examined the instrument for relevance, clarity, curriculum alignment, and appropriateness of difficulty level. Their feedback led to minor revisions in item wording, distractor plausibility, and content coverage to ensure that the test adequately represented the intended learning objectives and laboratory-related competencies of the Basic Science curriculum.
Reliability of the BSAT was established using the test-retest method. The instrument was administered to a group of junior secondary school students from a school outside the study sample to avoid contamination and exposure effects. A two-week interval was maintained between the first and second administrations to minimise recall bias while ensuring content stability. The scores from both administrations were correlated using the Pearson Product-Moment Correlation Coefficient, yielding a reliability coefficient of r = 0.81, indicating high stability and consistency of the instrument over time. This reliability estimate suggests that the BSAT was suitable and reliable for measuring students’ achievement.
Data collection and analysis
The researcher administered the BSAT to both groups, with the classroom teacher assisting to ensure proper administration and minimise bias. Students’ responses were scored and recorded for subsequent statistical analysis. Descriptive statistics, including mean scores and standard deviations, were used to report students’ pretest and posttest performance and to address the research questions. Inferential analysis was conducted using ANCOVA to test the hypotheses using SPSS 20 statistical software. Pretest scores were treated as covariates to control for initial differences between groups, ensuring that posttest comparisons accurately reflected the intervention's effect. The hypothesis was tested at a 0.05 level of significance. The use of ANCOVA assumes a linear relationship between the covariate (pretest scores) and the dependent variable (posttest achievement), as well as homogeneity of regression slopes across groups. These assumptions were considered appropriate, given that both groups were exposed to the same curriculum content, assessment instrument, and instructional duration, differing only in instructional method.
Before conducting the ANCOVA analysis, the underlying assumptions were formally verified and reported, along with accompanying statistics, to substantiate the data's adequacy. The normality of the residuals was examined using the Shapiro–Wilk test, which indicated that the residuals did not deviate significantly from normality (W = 0.96, p = 0.36), thereby satisfying the normality assumption. Homogeneity of variances was assessed using Levene's test, which was not statistically significant [F(1, 27) = 1.84, p = 0.19], confirming that the error variances were equal across the experimental and control groups. The assumption of homogeneity of regression slopes was evaluated by testing the interaction between group and pretest scores; the interaction effect was not significant, F(1, 27) = 0.72, p = 0.40, indicating that the relationship between the covariate and the posttest scores was consistent across groups. Linearity between the covariate (pretest scores) and the dependent variable (posttest scores) was examined through partial regression plots. This indicates a reasonably linear relationship with no evidence of curvilinearity or influential outliers. In addition, missing data and outliers were examined using frequency distribution before analysis. Because all participants completed both the pretest and posttest assessments, no missing data or outliers were observed, and no data imputation procedures were required.
Results
The results are presented in accordance with the research hypothesis and research question. Descriptive statistics, ANCOVA results, adjusted posttest means, and gain-score analysis are reported to examine the effect of LBP on students’ Basic Science achievement.
H1: There is no significant difference between students exposed to laboratory practicals and those exposed to the conventional method of basic science instruction.
The ANCOVA results (Table 1) revealed a statistically significant effect of instructional method on students’ posttest achievement in Basic Science after controlling for pretest scores, F(1, 27) = 19.44, p < .001, partial η2 = .419. This finding indicates that students exposed to LBP achieved significantly higher posttest scores than those taught using the conventional instructional method. The partial η2 value of.419 indicates a large effect size, suggesting that instructional method had a substantial influence on students’ achievement after accounting for differences in pretest performance. The pretest covariate was also significant, F(1, 27) = 50.78, p < 0.001, partial η2 = 0.653, suggesting that prior achievement strongly influenced posttest performance. Consequently, the null hypothesis was rejected, indicating a significant difference in achievement between the two instructional groups. However, given the substantial baseline differences between the groups, the findings should be interpreted with caution despite the statistical adjustment provided by ANCOVA.
Table 1
| Source | Sum of Squares | df | Mean Square | F | Sig. | Partial η2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Corrected Model | 6,224.071 | 2 | 3,112.036 | 35.53 | 0.000 | 0.724 |
| Intercept | 14,018.476 | 1 | 14,018.476 | 159.94 | 0.000 | 0.856 |
| Pretest (covariate) | 4,452.804 | 1 | 4,452.804 | 50.78 | 0.000 | 0.653 |
| Method (Group) | 1,704.778 | 1 | 1,704.778 | 19.44 | 0.000 | 0.419 |
| Error | 2,496.263 | 27 | 92.455 | |||
| Total | 2,33,202.000 | 30 | ||||
| Corrected Total | 8,720.333 | 29 |
ANCOVA analysis of pretest and posttest of practical achievement score in basic science.
p < 0.05 level of significance.
RQ: Is there a difference in the adjusted posttest Basic Science achievement scores of students taught through LBP and those taught through conventional instruction after controlling for pretest achievement?
The adjusted posttest mean for the experimental group was M = 48.61 [SE = 2.78, 95% CI (42.89, 54.33)], compared with M = 23.34 [SE = 2.78, 95% CI (17.62, 29.06)] for the control group (Table 2). The non-overlapping confidence intervals provide descriptive support for the superiority of LBP after accounting for baseline scores (pretest achievement). The covariate (pretest) was also statistically significant, F(1, 27) = 50.78, p < 0.001, partial η2 = 0.653, indicating that prior achievement was a strong predictor of posttest performance. Therefore, the null hypothesis was rejected, confirming that students taught through LBP achieved significantly higher adjusted posttest scores than those taught through the conventional lecture method.
Table 2
| Group | Adjusted Mean | SE | 95% CI Lower | 95% CI Upper |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Experimental | 48.61 | 2.78 | 42.89 | 54.33 |
| Control | 23.34 | 2.78 | 17.62 | 29.06 |
Adjusted posttest means and ANCOVA results for instructional method.
Table 3 presents the descriptive statistics for students’ pretest and posttest Basic Science achievement according to instructional method. At baseline, the experimental group recorded a substantially higher mean pretest score (M = 42.64, SD = 20.35) than the control group (M = 15.25, SD = 8.89), indicating a marked imbalance in initial achievement despite random assignment. This imbalance is likely attributable to chance, given the small sample size typical of pilot randomised studies. Following the intervention, both groups demonstrated improved posttest performance; however, the experimental group achieved a higher posttest mean (M = 50.59, SD = 19.35) and a greater mean gain (7.95) than the control group (M = 20.46, SD = 6.67; mean gain = 5.21), suggesting superior learning outcomes among students exposed to LBP. To account for the baseline differences, the primary treatment effect was evaluated using ANCOVA, which adjusted posttest scores for pretest achievement. In addition, a gain-score sensitivity analysis produced findings consistent with the ANCOVA results, demonstrating greater improvement among students in the experimental group. The convergence of these analyses indicates that the observed treatment effect was robust and was not solely attributable to baseline differences, thereby providing additional support for the effectiveness of LBP in improving students’ Basic Science achievement, while acknowledging the need for cautious interpretation given the baseline imbalance.
Table 3
| Group | N | Pre(X1) test | SD | Post(X2) test | SD | Mean score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Experimental | 15 | 42.64 | 20.35 | 50.59 | 19.35 | 7.95 |
| Control | 15 | 15.25 | 8.89 | 20.46 | 6.67 | 5.21 |
Descriptive statistics of students’ pretest and posttest achievement scores by instructional method.
Discussion
The present study examined the effect of LBP on junior secondary school students’ achievement in Basic Science using a pilot randomised pretest-posttest control-group design. After statistically controlling for baseline differences through ANCOVA, students exposed to LBP achieved significantly higher posttest scores than those who received conventional teacher-centred instruction. The large effect size further indicates that the intervention produced a meaningful educational effect within the study context. Although the findings should be interpreted with caution, given the study's methodological limitations, they provide preliminary evidence that active, laboratory-oriented instruction can enhance students’ cognitive achievement in Basic Science.
The observed improvement in students’ achievement is consistent with Piaget's Cognitive Constructivist Theory, which underpinned this study. Piaget (1952) argued that learners develop conceptual understanding by actively interacting with their environment through exploration, experimentation, and reflection rather than passively receiving information. LBP provides precisely such learning opportunities by engaging students in observing scientific phenomena, manipulating laboratory materials, testing hypotheses, interpreting evidence, and discussing findings. These learning experiences promote the processes of assimilation and accommodation, enabling students to reorganise existing cognitive structures and develop more meaningful conceptual understanding. Consequently, the superior performance of the experimental group provides empirical support for the proposition that inquiry-oriented, hands-on instruction promotes deeper learning than conventional lecture-based approaches.
The findings are also consistent with a substantial body of international evidence demonstrating the effectiveness of active learning in science education. For example, in a meta-analysis of 225 studies, concluded that active learning strategies significantly improve students’ academic performance across science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) disciplines while simultaneously reducing failure rates compared with traditional lecturing. Similarly, Theobald et al. (2020) reported that active learning not only improves overall academic achievement but also narrows achievement gaps among underrepresented students. Although these studies were conducted primarily in higher education, they reinforce the broader pedagogical principle that active student engagement enhances conceptual learning across educational contexts.
Likewise, the present findings support the long-standing argument that laboratory instruction is most effective when it moves beyond demonstration and verification towards inquiry-based learning (). showed that interactive-engagement instructional approaches consistently produced substantially higher learning gains than traditional lecture methods in physics education. Similarly, Russell and Weaver (2011) found that inquiry-based laboratory curricula improved students’ understanding of the nature of science more effectively than traditional laboratory exercises. More recently, Peşman et al. (2025) demonstrated that laboratory activities incorporating appropriate levels of inquiry and instructional guidance significantly enhanced students’ conceptual understanding and metacognitive awareness. Collectively, these studies suggest that the effectiveness of laboratory instruction lies not merely in students’ physical access to laboratory equipment but in carefully designed pedagogical experiences that encourage questioning, experimentation, reasoning, and reflection.
Within the Nigerian educational context, the present findings corroborate several empirical studies reporting positive effects of learner-centred instructional strategies on Basic Science achievement. found that simulated laboratory activities and enriched laboratory guide materials significantly improved junior secondary school students’ achievement in Basic Science. Similarly, reported that technology-supported practical learning using Physics Education Technology (PhET) simulations significantly enhanced students’ learning outcomes in Basic Science and Technology. Studies by on the 5E instructional model, Rashidat et al. (2022) on personalised learning, on effective teaching strategies, and on the systems approach likewise echoed that student-centred instructional approaches consistently produce better academic outcomes than conventional teaching methods. These converging findings suggest that instructional approaches that encourage active participation, inquiry, and collaborative learning are particularly effective in improving students’ understanding of Basic Science concepts.
The findings also align with broader evidence indicating that students’ academic achievement depends not only on curriculum content but also on the quality of instructional practices. reported that instructional methods significantly influence junior secondary school students’ achievement, while Usman et al. (2023) demonstrated that STEM problem-based learning enhanced students’ academic performance by promoting problem-solving and scientific reasoning. Furthermore, found that effective teaching skills improve students’ achievement, in part, by developing stronger learning skills, highlighting the importance of instructional quality in facilitating meaningful learning. Together, these studies reinforce the argument that pedagogical innovation, rather than reliance on conventional lecture methods, is essential for improving science learning outcomes.
Despite the generally positive evidence supporting laboratory-based instruction, previous research also cautions against assuming that all laboratory activities automatically improve learning. Wieman and Holmes (2015) found that traditional verification laboratories, in which students merely follow predetermined procedures to confirm known scientific principles, often contribute little to conceptual understanding or critical thinking beyond what is achieved through lectures. Similarly, reported that guided-inquiry laboratories produced greater conceptual development among preservice teachers than verification laboratories. These findings suggest that the educational effectiveness of laboratory work depends less on the presence of practical activities than on the pedagogical design of those activities. The positive outcomes observed in the present study may therefore be attributed to the structured, inquiry-oriented nature of the LBP implemented rather than to laboratory equipment alone.
An important methodological consideration is the substantial baseline imbalance observed between the experimental and control groups. Although participants were randomly assigned, the experimental group demonstrated considerably higher pretest achievement than the control group. Such an imbalance is not uncommon in pilot randomised studies involving small samples because simple randomisation does not always produce equivalent groups by chance alone. To minimise the influence of this imbalance, ANCOVA was employed to adjust posttest scores for baseline achievement, and a gain-score sensitivity analysis produced findings consistent with the primary analysis. The convergence of these analyses increases confidence that the observed treatment effect was not solely an artefact of the baseline differences. Nevertheless, the imbalance limits the strength of causal inference, and the magnitude of the treatment effect should therefore be interpreted cautiously.
Conclusion
This study provides preliminary evidence that LBP is associated with higher academic achievement in Basic Science than conventional teacher-centred instruction after controlling for baseline achievement. Students who received LBP achieved significantly higher adjusted posttest scores than those in the control group, suggesting that structured laboratory-based instruction may enhance cognitive learning outcomes in Basic Science. However, these findings should be interpreted with caution because the study was conducted in a single public junior secondary school, involved a small sample size, and exhibited substantial baseline imbalance despite random assignment. Consequently, the results should be regarded as exploratory rather than definitive and should not be generalised to broader educational settings. Furthermore, because the study assessed only academic achievement using the Basic Science Achievement Test (BSAT), no conclusions can be drawn regarding students’ motivation, attitudes, problem-solving skills, practical laboratory competence, or long-term knowledge retention. Nevertheless, the study contributes preliminary experimental evidence to the limited literature on LBP in Nigerian junior secondary Basic Science classrooms. It provides a foundation for more rigorous future investigations.
Recommendations
Given the exploratory nature of the study, the findings should be viewed as a basis for future research rather than immediate policy or large-scale implementation. Future studies should replicate this investigation using larger, adequately powered, multi-site randomised controlled trials involving diverse school settings to improve baseline equivalence, strengthen causal inference, and enhance the generalisability of the findings. Such studies should also include longer follow-up periods and broader outcome measures, including practical laboratory competence, scientific reasoning, motivation, attitudes towards science, and knowledge retention, to provide a more comprehensive evaluation of the effectiveness of LBP. Only after consistent evidence has been generated across multiple contexts should broader educational implementation or policy recommendations regarding LBP be considered.
Limitations and future study
Although the study provides valuable insights, several limitations must be acknowledged. It was conducted in a single Local Government Area with only thirty participants, which may restrict the generalisability of the findings to other regions and school settings. The short, four-week intervention period captured only immediate effects and may not reflect long-term outcomes. While student assignments to groups were random, the purposive selection of the participating school may have introduced selection bias. In addition, since the same instructor taught both groups, subtle differences in enthusiasm, delivery, or classroom management could have affected students’ performance. The study also focused exclusively on physical laboratory equipment, without considering digital, remote lab, or blended laboratory tools that are increasingly relevant in modern science teaching.
Furthermore, the repeated use of the same Basic Science Achievement Test for pre- and post-testing may have introduced familiarity effects, and the homogeneity of the sample limits external validity across other contexts. Future research should therefore increase the sample size, include multiple schools across diverse regions, and employ longitudinal or mixed methods designs to provide a more holistic understanding of laboratory utilisation. Subsequent studies could also examine the moderating effects of teacher competence, institutional support, and emerging technologies such as augmented-reality laboratories on students’ achievement in Basic Science.
Statements
Data availability statement
The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.
Ethics statement
The studies involving humans were approved by the Faculty of Education’s ethical committee at the Federal College of Education, Special, Oyo, Nigeria. The studies were conducted in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. Written informed consent for participation in this study was provided by the participants’ legal guardians/next of kin. Written informed consent was obtained from the individual(s), and minor(s)’ legal guardian/next of kin, for the publication of any potentially identifiable images or data included in this article.
Author contributions
OO: Formal analysis, Writing – original draft, Methodology. GO: Writing – review & editing, Conceptualization. AA: Methodology, Writing – review & editing.
Funding
The author(s) declared that financial support was not received for this work and/or its publication.
Conflict of interest
The author(s) declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declared that generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
1
AbrahamsI. (2017). “Minds-on practical work for effective science learning,” in Science Education: An International Course Companion, eds. K. S. Taber and B. Akpan (Rotterdam: Sense Publishers), 403–413. 10.1007/978-94-6300-749-8_29
2
AbrahamsI.MillarR. (2008). Does practical work really work? A study of the effectiveness of practical work as a teaching and learning method in school science. Int. J. Sci. Educ.30 (14), 1945–1969. 10.1080/09500690701749305
3
AdewaleG. J.EffiongO. E. (2015). Effects of two methods on student’s achievement in junior secondary schools in Yakurr, Cross River State. Int. Lett. Soc. Humanit. Sci.61, 70–81. 10.18052/www.scipress.com/ILSHS.61.70
4
AjaL.AbonyiO. S.GreenB.MuhammadT.ElomI. J.LubegaM.et al (2025). Mediating role of learning skills in the relationship between student achievements in basic science and teaching skills in the twenty-first century in government-aided secondary schools. Afr. J. Res. Math. Sci. Technol. Educ.2 (2), 119–135. 10.70232/jrmste.v2i2.39
5
AjadiO.AyanlowoA. (2025). Teaching strategies and academic performance of students in basic science in Oyo State, Nigeria. Ind. J. Educ. Res.6 (4), 384–393. 10.37251/ijoer.v6i4.1759
6
Al ShloulT.MazharT.AbbasQ.IqbalM.GhadiY. Y.ShahzadT.et al (2024). Role of activity-based learning and ChatGPT on students’ performance in education. Comput. Educ.: Artif. Intell.6, 100219. 10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100219
7
AlĂ©-RuizR.MartĂnez-AbadF.Del Moral-MarcosM. T. (2024). Academic engagement and management of personalised active learning in higher education digital ecosystems. Educ. Inf. Technol.29 (10), 12289–12304. 10.1007/s10639-023-12358-4
8
AmosE.Paul-FiaseR. U. (2026). Effect of the system approach on academic achievement in basic science among junior secondary school students in the Federal Capital Territory, Nigeria. FNAS J. Appl. Biol. Sci.3 (1), 63–69. 10.63561/jabs.v3i1.1178
9
ChengereA. M.BonoB. D.ZinabuS. A.JiloK. W. (2025). Enhancing secondary school students’ science process skills through guided inquiry-based laboratory activities in biology. PLoS One20 (4), e0320692. 10.1371/journal.pone.0320692
10
CohenJ. (1992). Quantitative methods in psychology: a power primer. Psychol. Bull.112, 1155–1159.
11
DeslauriersL.McCartyL. S.MillerK.CallaghanK.KestinG. (2019). Measuring actual learning versus feeling of learning in response to being actively engaged in the classroom. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.116 (39), 19251–19257. 10.1073/pnas.1821936116
12
FreemanS.EddyS. L.McDonoughM.SmithM. K.OkoroaforN.JordtH.et al (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.111 (23), 8410–8415. 10.1073/pnas.1319030111
13
HakeR. R. (1998). Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: a six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. Am. J. Phys.66 (1), 64–74. 10.1119/1.18809
14
HodsonD. (1993). Re-thinking old ways: Towards a more critical approach to practical work in school science.
15
HofsteinA.LunettaV. N. (2004). The laboratory in science education: foundations for the twenty-first century. Sci. Educ.88 (1), 28–54. 10.1002/sce.10106
16
HolmesN. G.OlsenJ.ThomasJ. L.WiemanC. E. (2017). Value added or misattributed? A multi-institution study on the educational benefit of labs for reinforcing physics content. Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res.13 (1), 010129. 10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.13.010129
17
HolmesN. G.WiemanC. E. (2018). Introductory physics labs: we can do better. Phys. Today71 (1), 38–45. 10.1063/PT.3.3816
18
KozanitisA.NencioviciL. (2023). Effect of active learning versus traditional lecturing on the learning achievement of college students in humanities and social sciences: a meta-analysis. High. Educ.86 (6), 1377–1394. 10.1007/s10734-022-00977-8
19
LunettaV. N.HofsteinA.CloughM. (2007). “Learning and teaching in the school science laboratory: an analysis of research, theory, and practice,” Handbook of Research on Science Education, eds. N. G. Lederman and S. k. Abel (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum), 393–441.
20
MaceirasR.FeijooJ.AlfonsinV.Perez-RialL. (2025). Effectiveness of active learning techniques in knowledge retention among engineering students. Educ. Chem. Eng.51, 1–8. 10.1016/j.ece.2025.01.003
21
MaiaD.AndradeR.AfonsoJ.CostaP.ValenteC.Espregueira-MendesJ. (2023). Academic performance and perceptions of undergraduate medical students in case-based learning compared to other teaching strategies: a systematic review with meta-analysis. Educ. Sci.13 (3), 238. 10.3390/educsci13030238
22
MeadowsS. (2019). Conceptual development of pre-service teachers through verification versus guided-inquiry physical science laboratories Country unknown/Code not available. Available online at:https://par.nsf.gov/biblio/10099179(Accessed August 01, 2025).
23
MillarR. (2004). The Role of Practical Work in the Teaching and Learning of Science. Commissioned Paper-Committee on High School Science Laboratories: Role and Vision. Washington DC: National Academy of Sciences.
24
OdunayoV. A.BelloT. O. (2021). Effects of 5e-cyclic and mental models instructional strategies on junior secondary school students’ learning outcomes in basic science in Ondo State, Nigeria. Asian J. Adv. Res. Rep.15 (11), 43–54. 10.9734/ajarr/2021/v15i1130437
25
OgunkunleS.AkinsolaM. (2020). Simulated laboratory and enriched laboratory guide material experiments as catalysts for improving basic science Students’ achievement. US-China Educ. Rev.10 (3), 123–134. 10.17265/2161-6248/2020.03.003
26
OlugbadeD.OyelereS. S.AgboF. J. (2024). Enhancing junior secondary students’ learning outcomes in basic science and technology through PhET: a study in Nigeria. Educ. Inf. Technol.29 (11), 14035–14057. 10.1007/s10639-023-12391-3
27
OzojiB. E. (2020). “Effects of concept mapping technique on Nigerian junior secondary school Students’ cognitive development and achievement in basic science and technology (integrated science),” in Science Education in the 21st Century: Re-searching Issues That Matter from Different Lenses, eds. TeoT. W.TanA.-L.OngY. S. (Gateway East: Springer Singapore), 95–111. 10.1007/978-981-15-5155-0_7
28
PeşmanH.ArıÜCiritD. K.AyazgökB. (2025). Effect of amount of guidance in inquiry-based physics laboratory on conceptual understanding and metacognitive awareness. Sci. Educ.34 (5), 3667–3687. 10.1007/s11191-024-00595-z
29
PiagetJ. (1952). The Origins of Intelligence in Children (Vol. 8). New York: International Universities Press.
30
RamadaniF.ÇibukçiuB.IsmajliB.Pejchinovska-StojkovikjM. (2026). The role of practical laboratory work in stimulating students’ interest in natural sciences [Curriculum, instruction, and pedagogy]. Front. Educ.11, 1726102. 10.3389/feduc.2026.1726102
31
RashidatA. A.AdelanaO. P.OkubanjoG. A.OpeifaO.AyanwaleA. M. (2022). Personalised learning and achievement in basic science: an experimental report. EDUCATUM J. Sci. Math. Technol.9 (1), 38–47. 10.37134/ejsmt.vol9.1.4.2022
32
RussellC. B.WeaverG. C. (2011). A comparative study of traditional, inquiry-based, and research-based laboratory curricula: impacts on understanding of the nature of science. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract.12 (1), 57–67. 10.1039/c1rp90008k
33
SalisuA. D.SamuelI. R. (2025). Effect of laboratory approach on interest and achievement of students in energy concepts in Keffi, Nasarawa State Nigeria. Int. J. Model. Appl. Sci. Res.7 (9), 1–22. 10.70382/caijmasr.v7i9.002
34
TheobaldE. J.HillM. J.TranE.AgrawalS.ArroyoE. N.BehlingS.et al (2020). Active learning narrows achievement gaps for underrepresented students in undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and math. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.117 (12), 6476–6483. 10.1073/pnas.1916903117
35
TingF. S. T.ShroffR. H.LamW. H.GarciaR. C. C.ChanC. L.TsangW. K.et al (2023). A meta-analysis of studies on the effects of active learning on Asian students’ performance in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) subjects. Asia-Pac. Educ. Res.32 (3), 379–400. 10.1007/s40299-022-00661-6
36
UsmanG. B. T.Mohd NorawiA.Mohammad ZohirA. (2023). Effectiveness of STEM problem-based learning on the achievement of biology among secondary school students in Nigeria: research article. J. Turk. Sci. Educ.20 (3), 453–467. 10.36681/tused.2023.026
37
Veniel-MartĂF.Botella-NicolásA. M.PruittN.PigottT. (2026). Active learning in music education: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Update: Appl. Res. Music Educ.0 (0), 1–6. 10.1177/87551233261425936
38
WiemanC.HolmesN. G. (2015). Measuring the impact of an instructional laboratory on the learning of introductory physics. Am. J. Phys.83 (11), 972–978. 10.1119/1.4931717
39
ZengH. L.ChenD. X.LiQ.WangX. Y. (2020). Effects of seminar teaching method versus lecture-based learning in medical education: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Med. Teach.42 (12), 1343–1349. 10.1080/0142159X.2020.1805100
Summary
Keywords
active learning, basic science achievement, experimental study, laboratory-based pedagogy, science education
Citation
Opesemowo OAG, Olosunde GR and Ajayi AO (2026) Effect of laboratory-based pedagogy on junior secondary students’ basic science achievement: a pilot randomised pretest-posttest study. Front. Educ. 11:1937761. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2026.1937761
Received
14 July 2026
Revised
08 August 2026
Accepted
25 August 2026
Published
04 September 2026
Volume
11 - 2026
Edited by
Gladys Sunzuma, Bindura University of Science Education, Zimbabwe
Reviewed by
Ismail Thamarasseri, Mahatma Gandhi University, India
Ngurah Mahendra Dinatha, Sekolah Tinggi Keguruan dan Ilmu Pendidikan Citra Bakti, Indonesia
Updates
Copyright
© 2026 Opesemowo, Olosunde and Ajayi.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Oluwaseyi Aina Gbolade Opesemowo oopesemowo@uj.ac.za
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.