Using gender responsive collaborative learning strategy to improve students’ achievement and attitude towards learning science in virtual and hands-on laboratory environment
Jeremiah Nosakhare Akhigbe 1 * , Adeola Eunice Adeyemi 1
More Detail
1 Department of Science and Technology, Faculty of Education, University of Lagos, Nigeria
* Corresponding Author


One way of ensuring gender equality in science education is by mainstreaming gender components into the pedagogical delivery of science instruction. Thus, the researchers in this study designed a Gender Responsive Collaborative Learning Strategy (GR-CLS) based on Universal Design for Learning (UDL) principles. The effectiveness of this instructional paradigm on students’ achievement and attitude was determined in a mixed factorial quasi-experimental research design study conducted in a virtual and hands-on laboratory learning environment. Multistage sampling technique was used to select a total sample of 218 secondary school students from same sex and mixed sex schools. The six hypotheses formulated in the study were tested using Means and Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA). Empirical findings revealed a significant difference in the mean achievement and attitude scores of both male and female students who were exposed to GR-CLS under virtual and hands-on laboratory environment respectively compared to those who were not exposed to GR-CLS. These results indicate that GR-CLS is an effective pedagogical strategy for improving students’ achievement and attitude regardless of gender. Nevertheless, it was discovered that GR-CLS leads to a significant improvement in the achievement of students from same sex schools over mixed sex schools. The study, therefore, recommends the adoption of GR-CLS by science teachers in the planning and implementation of science lessons to create equal opportunities for both male and female students to benefit maximally from learning activities carried out in the laboratory. 



  • Adegoke, B.A., & Chukwunenye, N. (2013). Improving students’ learning outcomes in practical physics, which is better? computer simulated experiment or hands-on experiment? IOSR Journal of Research & Method in Education (IOSR-JRME), 2(6), 18-26.
  • Adejoh, M. J., & Ityokyaa, F. M. (2009). Availability and adequacy of laboratory and workshop resources in secondary schools in Benue State, Nigeria. Journal of Research in Curriculum and Teaching, 4(1), 304-311.
  • Akpan, J., & Strayer, J. (2010). Which comes first: The use of computer simulation for frog dissection or conventional dissection as an academic exercise? Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 29, 113-138.
  • Al-Azawei, A., Serenelli, F., & Lundqvist, K. (2016). Universal design for learning (UDL): A content analysis of peer-reviewed journal papers from 2012 to 2015. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 16(3), 39-56.
  • Alberta Education (2010). Making a difference: Meeting diverse learning needs with differentiated instruction. Available online at ce_2010.pdf
  • Ambusaidi, A., Al-Musawi, A., Al-Balushi, S., & Al-Balushi, K. (2017). The impact of virtual lab learning experiences on 9th grade students’ achievement and their attitudes towards science and learning by virtual lab. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 15(2), 13-29.
  • Anderson, L.W., & Krathwohl, D.V.R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of educational objectives. Complete edition. New York, NY: Longman.
  • Andre, J.T.H. (2011). Overcoming gender barriers in science: Facts and figures. Sci Dev Net. Available online at
  • Astin, A. (1985). Achieving educational excellence. San Francisco, Jossey Bass.
  • Babateen, H. (2011). The role of virtual laboratories in science education. 5th international conference on distance learning and education. IACSIT Press, Singapore.
  • Bajpai, M., & Kumar, A. (2015). Effect of virtual laboratory on students’ conceptual achievement in physics. International Journal of Current Research, 7(2), 12808-12813.
  • Baker, D. (2002). Good intentions: An experiment in middle school single-sex science and mathematics classrooms with high minority enrolment. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 8, 1–23.
  • Baker, D. (2013). What Works: Using curriculum and pedagogy to increase girls’ interest and participation in science. Theory into Practice, 52, 14–20. https://doi/10.1080/07351690.2013.743760
  • Bennett, J., Hogarth, S., Lubben, F., Campbell, B., & Robinson, A. (2010). Talking science: The research evidence on the use of small group discussion in science teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 32, 69–95.
  • Bonwell, C. C., & Eison, J. A. (1991). Active Learning: Creating Excitement in the Classroom. 1991 ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Reports. The George Washington University: ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education.
  • Bortnik, B., Stozhko, N., Pervukhina, I., Tchernysheva, A., & Belysheva, G. (2017). Effect of virtual analytic chemistry laboratory on enhancing students’ research skills and practices. Research in Learning Technology, 25, 1968.
  • 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, 38(3), 218-237. https://doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2015.07.003
  • Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-42.
  • Burman, D.D., Bitan, T., & Booth, J.R. (2008). Sex differences in neural processing of language among children. Neuro psychologia, 46(5), 349–1362.
  • Center for Applied Special Technology (CAST) Inc. (2014). The UDL guidelines. Retrieved from
  • Cerbin, B. (2010). Collaborative learning techniques: A handbook for college faculty. Wisconsin: Jossy Bass Publisher.
  • Chadwell, D. (2010). A gendered choice. Corwin Press, California.
  • Darrah, M., Humbert, R., Finstein, J., Simon, M., & Hopkins, J. (2014). Are virtual labs as effective as hands-on labs for undergraduate physics? A comparative study at two major universities. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 23(6), 803-814.
  • Deutsch, M. (1976). A theory of cooperation and competition. Human Relations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  • Dickey, M. W. (2014). Gender specific instructional strategies and student achievement in 5th grade classrooms (Doctoral dissertation, University of South Carolina, Columbia). Retrieved from
  • Ekine, A. (2013). Enhancing girls’ participation in science in Nigeria. Improving Learning Opportunities and Outcomes for Girls in Africa, 41(3), 12-26.
  • Elgar, A.G. (2004). Science textbooks for lower secondary schools in Brunei: Issues of gender equity. International Journal of Science Education, 26(7), 875–894.
  • Gabelnick, F., MacGregor, J., Matthews, R., & Smith, B.L. (1990). Learning communities: Creating connections among students, Faculty and Disciplines. New Directions for Teaching and Learning. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
  • Gambari, I. A. (2010). Effect of computer-supported cooperative learning strategies on the performance of senior secondary students in physics, in Minna, Nigeria. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Ilorin, Ilorin, Nigeria.
  • Gambari, A. I. & Yusuf, M. O. (2014). Attitude of Nigerian secondary school students towards cooperative learning strategies. Delsu Journal of Educational Research and Development, 12(1), 100 - 131.
  • Gambari, A. I., Falode, O. C., Fagbemi, P. O., & Idris, B. (2013). Efficacy of virtual laboratory on the achievement and attitude of secondary school students in physics practical. Journal of Research in Curriculum, 9(1), 9-20.
  • Gambari, A. I., Kawu, H., & Falode, O.C. (2018). Impact of virtual laboratory on the achievement of secondary school chemistry students in homogeneous and heterogeneous collaborative environments. Contemporary Educational Technology, 9(3), 246-263.
  • Gambari, A. I., Obielodan, O.O., & Kawu, H. (2017). Effects of virtual laboratory on achievement levels and gender of secondary school chemistry students in individualized and collaborative settings in Minna, Nigeria. The Online Journal of New Horizons in Education, 7(1), 86-102.
  • Gurian, M., Stevens, K., & Daniels, P. (2009). Single-sex classrooms are succeeding. Educational Horizons, 87(4), 234-245.
  • Haussler, P., & Hoffman, L. (2002). An intervention study to enhance girls’ interest, self-concept, and achievement in physics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 870–888.
  • Herga, N.R, Čagran, B., & Dinevski, D. (2016). Virtual laboratory in the role of dynamic visualisation for better understanding of chemistry in primary school. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 12(3), 593-608.
  • Hofstein, A., & Kind, P. M. (2012). Learning in and from science laboratories. In B. J. Fraser, K. Tobin & C. McRobbie (Eds.), Second international handbook of science education (pp. 189-207). New York: Springer.
  • Hubbard, L., & Datnow, A. (2005). Do single-sex schools improve the education of low-income and minority students? An investigation of California's public single-gender academies. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 36(2), 115-13.
  • Kahle, J., & Meece, J. (1994). Research on gender issues in the classroom. In D. L. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook on Research in Science Teaching and Learning (pp. 542–557). New York, NY: McMillan.
  • Kerlinger, F.N. (1979). Behavioural research: A conceptual approach. New York: Holt, Reinhart and Wiston.
  • Kost, L. E., Pollock, S. J., & Finkelstein, N. D. (2009). Characterizing the gender gap in introductory Physics. Physics Education Research, 5(1), 1-14.
  • La, H., Dyjur, P., & Bair, H. (2018). Universal design for learning in higher education. Taylor Institute for Teaching and Learning. Calgary: University of Calgary.
  • Lewin, K. (1935). A Dynamic Theory of Personality. New York, McGraw Hill.
  • MacGregor, J. (1990). Collaborative learning: Shared inquiry as a process of reform. In M. Svinicki, (Ed.) The changing face of college teaching. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 42, 19-30.
  • MacKinnon, P. (2000). Improving girls’ self-esteem: The role of the teacher. An Action Research Project (Pilot Study), Girls Education Unit Research Report. Ghana: UNICEF.
  • Martino, W. & Kehler, M. (2007). Gender-based literacy reform: A question of challenging or recuperating gender binaries. Canadian Journal of Education, 30(2), 406-431.
  • Mayer, R. E. (1999a). Multimedia aids to problem-solving transfer. International Journal of Educational Research, 31(7), 611-623.
  • Mayer, R. E. (1999b). Research-based principles for the design of instructional messages. Document Design, 1(1), 7-20.
  • Mcqueen, J.A. (2017). The effects of biology lab delivery mode on academic achievement in college biology. Unpıublished doctoral dissertation. Texas A&M University, Corpus Christi, Texas.
  • Miske, S.J. (2013). Gendered dimensions of teaching and learning. UNGEI: New York.
  • Mulholland, J., Hansen, P., & Kaminski, E. (2004). Do single-gender classrooms in coeducational settings address boys’ underachievement? An Australian study. Educational Studies, 30(1), 19-32.
  • National Center on Universal Design for Learning. (2017). Universal Design for Learning Guidelines. Retrieved from
  • Nhundu, T.J. (2007). Mitigating gender-typed occupational preferences of Zimbabwean primary school children: The use of biographical sketches and portrayals of female role models. Sex Roles, 9(56), 639-649.
  • Olorundare, A. S. (2014). Constructivism and learning in science. 38th Inaugural Lecture Series, University of Ilorin, Nigeria.
  • Olsen, J., & Gross, S. (2013). To attract girls to STEM, bring more storytelling to science. Scientific American. Available online at
  • Omilani N.A., Ochanya N.M.R., & Aminu S.A. (2018). The effect of combined virtual and real laboratories on students’ achievement in practical chemistry. International Journal of Secondary Education, 4(3), 27-31. https://doi:10.11648/j.ijsedu.20160403.11
  • Oser, R.O. (2013). Effectiveness of virtual laboratories in terms of achievement, attitudes, and learning environment among high school science students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Science and Mathematics Education Centre, Curtin University.
  • Parker, L. L., & Loudon, G. M. (2012). Case study using online homework in undergraduate organic chemistry: Results and student attitudes. Journal of Chemical Education, 90(1), 37-44.
  • Parker, L., & Rennie, L. (2002). Teachers’ implementation of gender-inclusive instructional strategies in single-sex and mixed-sex science classrooms. International Journal of Science Education, 24, 881–897.
  • Polcuch, E. F. (2016, April). SAGA: Facing the challenges in measurement and policies for gender equaility in STEM. Paper presented at Participation of women and girls in STEM education, Mexico City.
  • Prokop, P., Tuncer, G., & Chuda, J. (2007). Slovakian students’ attitudes toward biology. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 3(4), 287-295.
  • Pyatt, K., & Sims, R. (2012). Virtual and physical experimentation in inquiry-based science labs: Attitudes, performance and access. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 21(1), 133-147.
  • Rajendran, L., Veilumuthu, R., & Divya, J. (2010). A study on the effectiveness of virtual lab in E-learning. International Journal on Computer Science and Engineering, 2 (6), 2173-2175.
  • Rogers, J, & Revesz, A. (2020). Experimental and quasi experimental designs. In J. McKinley & H. Rose (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of research methods in applied linguistics. New York: Routledge.
  • Rose, D. H. (2001). Universal design for learning: Deriving guiding principles for networks that learn. Journal of Special Education Technology, 16(2), 66.
  • Rose, D.H., Hasselbring, T.S., Stahl, S., & Zabala, J. (2005). Assistive technology and universal design for learning: Two sides of the same coin. In D. Edyburn, K. Higgins, & R. Boone (Eds.), Handbook of Special Education Technology Research and Practice, 507-518. Whitefish Bay, WI: Knowledge by Design.
  • Rose, D., & Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching every student in the digital age. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. Available online at
  • Scantlebury, K. & Baker, D. (2007). Gender issues in science education research: Remembering where the difference lies. In handbook of Research on Science Education, Eds. Sandra K. Abell., & Norman G. Lederman. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 257-286.
  • Scott, S., McGuire, J.M., & Embry, P. (2002). Universal design for instruction fact sheet. Storrs: University of Connecticut, Centre on Postsecondary Education and Disability.
  • Sempala, F. (2005). Gender differences in performance of chemistry practical skills among chemistry senior six students in Kampala District.
  • Shi, W., He, X., Wang, Y., & Huan, W. (2015). Effects of lab group sex composition on physics learning. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 11(1), 8792.
  • Smith, B.L., & MacGregor, J. (1992). Collaborative learning: A sourcebook for higher education. University Park, PA: National Centre on Postsecondary Teaching, Learning, and Assessment.
  • Stotsky, S. (2012). The promise of single-sex classes. School Administrator, 69(5), 33-35.
  • Tatli, Z., & Ayas, A. (2012). Virtual chemistry laboratory: Effect of constructivist learning environment. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 13(1), 183–199.
  • Toth, E. E. (2016). Analyzing “real-world” anomalous data after experimentation with a virtual laboratory. Educational Technology Research and Development, 64(1), 157-173.
  • Tsai, C. (2012). Peer effects on academic cheating among high school students in Taiwan. Asia Pacific Education Review, 13(1), 147-155.
  • Tüysüz, C. (2010). The effect of the virtual laboratory on students’ achievement and attitude in chemistry. International Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 2(1), 37–53.
  • Udeani, U.N. (2012). Increasing female participation in science and technology careers: Problems and suggested interventions for Nigeria. Developing Countries Studies, 2(14), 87-94.
  • UNESCO (2012). Education for All (EFA) global monitoring report. Available online at
  • UNESCO Report (2017). Cracking the code: Girls and women education in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM). Available online at
  • USAID Report (2015). Gender equality in Science, Technology, Engineering, Agricultural Sciences and Mathematics (STEAM) academic pipeline: Challenges transferring knowledge to practice. Available online at
  • Vasiliou, A. & Economides, A. A. (2007). Mobile collaborative learning using multicast MANETs. International Journal of Mobile Communications, 5(4), 423-444
  • West African Examinations Council [WAEC] (2015). WAEC Chief examiners’ report Lagos. Lagos: WAEC Press.
  • Wang, T., Eccles, J.S., & Kenny, S. (2013). Not lack of ability but more choice: Individual and gender differences in choice of careers in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. Psychological Science, 5(24), 770-775.
  • Zacharia, Z. C. (2015). Examining whether touch sensory feedback is necessary for science learning through experimentation: A literature review of two different lines of research across K-16. Educational Research Review, 16, 116-137.
  • Zacharia, Z. C., & Olympiou, G. (2011). Physical versus virtual manipulative experimentation in physics learning. Learning and Instruction, 21(3), 317-331.


This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.