International Journal of

ADVANCED AND APPLIED SCIENCES

EISSN: 2313-3724, Print ISSN: 2313-626X

Frequency: 12
line decor
  
line decor

 Volume 11, Issue 5 (May 2024), Pages: 70-86

----------------------------------------------

 Original Research Paper

NatPro LabPro: An innovative laboratory package in plant extract screening for scientific research projects

 Author(s): 

 Ricky B. Acanto *

 Affiliation(s):

 College of Arts and Sciences, Carlos Hilado Memorial State University, Talisay City, Negros Occidental, Philippines

 Full text

  Full Text - PDF

 * Corresponding Author. 

  Corresponding author's ORCID profile: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3508-6847

 Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

 https://doi.org/10.21833/ijaas.2024.05.008

 Abstract

Challenges in teaching science require innovative approaches—creating new methods and materials to improve student learning experiences. Innovations are essential for national development, fostering growth and positive change. This study focused on developing and evaluating an Innovative Laboratory Package (ILP) designed for science projects in natural product screening. It used a developmental research design and followed the ASSURE instructional model. The study identified that the least common lab tests conducted by students and teachers on natural products included basic pharmacological-toxicological, antioxidant, and cytotoxic assays of plant extracts. Access to laboratory materials and financial support presented moderate challenges for the participants. Laboratory analysts rated the ILP as outstanding, and Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) teachers highly evaluated its content, structure, coherence, learning activities, usefulness, appearance, organization, and innovativeness. Teachers reported that using the ILP provided new, meaningful, and engaging experiences, promoted critical thinking and scientific attitudes, allowed easy and flexible experiments, and equipped students with new scientific skills in a cost-effective way. The ILP could enhance science projects and develop research expertise in plant screening for both students and teachers. The findings can help curriculum developers create innovative learning resources and prioritize curriculum innovations.

 © 2024 The Authors. Published by IASE.

 This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

 Keywords

 Innovative laboratory package, Natural products, Plant extract screening, Science investigatory project, STEM education

 Article history

 Received 13 December 2023, Received in revised form 27 April 2024, Accepted 28 April 2024

 Acknowledgment 

The researcher would like to acknowledge the Department of Science and Technology – Science Education Institute Capacity Building Program in Science and Mathematics Education (CBPSME) for the grants to finish this endeavor.

 Compliance with ethical standards

 Ethical consideration

The study prioritized the well-being and autonomy of participants during the COVID-19 pandemic. Voluntary participation, informed consent, confidentiality, risk minimization, and sensitivity to the pandemic context were included in the study. Participants have the right to opt-out at any study stage, and all responses are treated with the utmost confidentiality. Data collection was conducted remotely via Google Forms, ensuring safety. The study's instruments and interactions are designed to avoid exacerbating pandemic-related stress. The ethical consideration ensures the integrity and rigor of the research process.

 Conflict of interest: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

 Citation:

 Acanto RB (2024). NatPro LabPro: An innovative laboratory package in plant extract screening for scientific research projects. International Journal of Advanced and Applied Sciences, 11(5): 70-86

 Permanent Link to this page

 Figures

 Fig. 1 Fig. 2 Fig. 3 Fig. 4 Fig. 5 

 Tables

 Table 1 Table 2

----------------------------------------------   

 References (71)

  1. Akani O (2015). Laboratory teaching: Implication on students’ achievement in chemistry in secondary school in the Ebonyi State of Nigeria. Journal of Education and Practice, 6(30): 206–213.   [Google Scholar]
  2. Alias N and Siraj S (2012). Design and development of physics module based on learning style and appropriate technology by employing Isman instructional design model. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 11(4): 84–93.   [Google Scholar]
  3. Anggereini E, Septiani M, and Hamidah A (2019). Application of guided inquiry learning model in biological learning: It’s the influence to science process skills and students’ scientific knowledge in class XI MIPA high school. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1317(1): 012179. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1317/1/012179   [Google Scholar]
  4. Aparecio MBM (2018). Mentoring, self-efficacy and performance in conducting investigatory projects: A mixed method. Asia Pacific Institute of Advanced Research, 4(2): 65–76. https://doi.org/10.25275/apjcectv4i2edu7   [Google Scholar]
  5. Arpan P, Aunurrahman A, and Fadillah F (2018). The development of science learning module with problem solving method. Journal of Education, Teaching and Learning, 3(2): 195-205. https://doi.org/10.26737/jetl.v3i2.747   [Google Scholar]
  6. Artayasa IP, Susilo H, Lestari U, and Indriwati SE (2017). The effectiveness of the three levels of inquiry in improving teacher training students’ science process skills. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 16(6): 908–918. https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/17.16.908   [Google Scholar]
  7. Auditor E and Naval DJ (2014). Development and validation of tenth grade Physics modules based on selected least mastered competencies. International Journal of Education and Research, 2(12): 145–152.   [Google Scholar]
  8. Avianti R, Suyatno, and Sugiarto B (2018). The development of learning materials based on core model to improve students’ learning outcomes in topic of chemical bonding. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1006(1): 12012. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1006/1/012012   [Google Scholar]
  9. Basketter DA, Kimber I, and Hartung T (2010). The evolution of validation: A commentary. Cutaneous and Ocular Toxicology, 29(1): 1-3. https://doi.org/10.3109/15569520903367843   [Google Scholar] PMid:19883246
  10. Blosser PE (1983). The role of the laboratory in science teaching. School Science and Mathematics, 83(2): 165-69. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.1983.tb10107.x   [Google Scholar]
  11. Braun V and Clarke V (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2): 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa   [Google Scholar]
  12. Brüggemann J and Bizer K (2015). Laboratory experiments in innovation research: A methodological overview and a review of the current literature. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 5(1): 2–13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13731-016-0053-9   [Google Scholar]
  13. Butron V (2018). Validation and acceptability of a guidebook in writing an investigatory project. International Journal of Science and Research, 7(4): 1247–1254.   [Google Scholar]
  14. Calamlam JMM (2021). The development of 21st-century e-learning module assessment tool. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 49(3): 289-309. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047239520953792   [Google Scholar]
  15. Couto M and Cates C (2019). Laboratory guidelines for animal care. In: Pelegri F (Ed.), Vertebrate embryogenesis: Embryological, cellular, and genetic methods: 407-430. Volume 1920, Humana, New York, USA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-9009-2_25   [Google Scholar] PMid:30737706
  16. Cramer KM, Ross C, Plant L, and Pschibul R (2018). Efficacy of learning modules to enhance study skills. International Journal of Technology and Inclusive Education, 7(1): 1251–1259. https://doi.org/10.20533/ijtie.2047.0533.2018.0153   [Google Scholar]
  17. Cuartero OL (2016). Impact of doing science investigatory project (SIP) on the interest and process skills of elementary students. International Journal of Multidisciplinary Academic Research, 4(5): 27–41.   [Google Scholar]
  18. Dabesa F and Cheramlak SF (2021). Practices, opportunities, and challenges of SIP in primary schools of Ilu Gelan Woreda, West Shoa Zone, Oromia Regional State. Middle Eastern Journal of Research in Education and Social Sciences, 2(2): 58–84. https://doi.org/10.47631/mejress.v2i2.162   [Google Scholar]
  19. Das B (2011). Validation protocol: First step of a lean-total quality management principle in a new laboratory set-up in a Tertiary Care Hospital in India. Indian Journal of Clinical Biochemistry, 26(3): 235-243. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12291-011-0110-x   [Google Scholar] PMid:22754186 PMCid:PMC3162948
  20. Deshpande S, Lambade D, and Chahande J (2015). Development and evaluation of learning module on clinical decision-making in Prosthodontics. The Journal of the Indian Prosthodontic Society, 15(2): 158-161. https://doi.org/10.4103/0972-4052.158080   [Google Scholar] PMid:26929504 PMCid:PMC4762306
  21. Dunnett K and Bartlett PA (2018). Asking the next generation: The implementation of pre-university students’ ideas about physics laboratory preparation exercises. Physics Education, 53(1): 015016. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6552/aa9324   [Google Scholar]
  22. Dunnett K, Gorman MN, and Bartlett PA (2019). Assessing first-year undergraduate physics students’ laboratory practices: Seeking to encourage research behaviours. European Journal of Physics, 40(1): 015702. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6404/aaf13b   [Google Scholar]
  23. Ekici M and Erdem M (2020). Developing science process skills through mobile scientific inquiry. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 36: 100658. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2020.100658   [Google Scholar]
  24. Errabo DDR and Prudente MS (2018). Mainstreaming science investigation skills of grade 7 in-service teachers in the Philippines. DLSU Research Congress, De La Salle University, Manila, Philippines.   [Google Scholar]
  25. Errabo DDR, Cajimat RT, and Orleans AV (2018). Factors affecting the implementation of science investigatory projects and its implications to the National Science and Technology Fair. Advanced Science Letters, 24(11): 7885–7889. https://doi.org/10.1166/asl.2018.12449   [Google Scholar]
  26. Gomez RG (2013). A project-based approach to enhance skills in science investigatory projects among secondary school students in Northern Mindanao. The Mindanao Forum, 26(1): 63–83.   [Google Scholar]
  27. Hansen LA, Lawrence D, and Hansen A (2013). Institution animal care and use committees need greater ethical diversity. Journal of Medical Ethics, 39(3): 188–190. https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2012-100982   [Google Scholar] PMid:23131895 PMCid:PMC3595150
  28. Hardianti T and Kuswanto H (2017). Difference among levels of inquiry: Process skills improvement at senior high school in Indonesia. International Journal of Instruction, 10(2): 119-130. https://doi.org/10.12973/iji.2017.1028a   [Google Scholar]
  29. Hofstein A (2017). The role of laboratory in science teaching and learning. In: Taber KS and Akpan B (Eds.), Science education: New directions in mathematics and science education: 357–368. Sense Publishers, Rotterdam, Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6300-749-8_26   [Google Scholar]
  30. Hofstein A and Lunetta VN (1982). The role of the laboratory in science teaching: Neglected aspects of research. Review of Educational Research, 52(2): 201–217. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543052002201   [Google Scholar]
  31. Hofstein A and Mamlok-Naaman R (2007). The laboratory in science education: The state of the art. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 8(2): 105–107. https://doi.org/10.1039/B7RP90003A   [Google Scholar]
  32. Houde L, Dumas C, and Leroux T (2009). Ethics: Views from IACUC members. ATLA Alternatives to Laboratory Animals, 37(3): 291–296. https://doi.org/10.1177/026119290903700311   [Google Scholar] PMid:19678730
  33. Khabibah EN, Masykuri M, and Maridi M (2017). The effectiveness of module based on discovery learning to increase generic science skills. Journal of Education and Learning, 11(2): 146–153. https://doi.org/10.11591/edulearn.v11i2.6076   [Google Scholar]
  34. Khan Niazi MR, Aslam Asghar M, and Ali R (2018). Effect of science laboratory environment on cognitive development of students. Pakistan Journal of Distance and Online Learning, 4(1): 123–134.   [Google Scholar]
  35. Khoiri N, Riyadi S, Kaltsum U, Hindarto N, and Rusilawati A (2017). Teaching creative thinking skills with laboratory work. International Journal of Science and Applied Science: Conference Series, 2(1): 256–260. https://doi.org/10.20961/ijsascs.v2i1.16722   [Google Scholar]
  36. Khushk A, Zhiying L, Yi X, and Zengtian Z (2023). Technology innovation in STEM education: A review and analysis. International Journal of Educational Research and Innovation, 19: 29–51. https://doi.org/10.46661/ijeri.7883   [Google Scholar]
  37. Lestari RA, Dewata I, and Ellizar E (2019). Validity and practicality of buffer solution module based on discovery learning with a scientific approach to increase the critical thinking ability of 11th grade high school students. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1185(1): 012150. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1185/1/012150   [Google Scholar]
  38. Liliawati W, Zulfikar A, and Kamal RN (2018). The effectiveness of learning materials based on multiple intelligence on the understanding of global warming. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1013(1): 012049. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1013/1/012049   [Google Scholar]
  39. Lunetta VN, Hofstein A, and Clough MP (2005). Learning and teaching in the school science laboratory: An analysis of research, theory, and practice. In: Abell SK, Appleton K, and Hanuscin DL (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education: 393-441. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, USA.   [Google Scholar]
  40. Macale AM and Bulasag AS (2017). Development and validation of laboratory activities in high school chemistry based on societal issues. Journal of Nature Studies, 16(1): 27–33.   [Google Scholar]
  41. Magwilang EB (2019). Development and validation of a community-based learning resource package in inorganic chemistry. International Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 11(2): 33-41. https://doi.org/10.26803/ijhss.11.2.3   [Google Scholar]
  42. Manalastas RS and De Leon SP (2021). Development and evaluation of electronic instructional module in matter. European Journal of Humanities and Educational Advancements, 2(8): 107–127.   [Google Scholar]
  43. Manalo FKB (2021). Project I-Create (Intensive collaboration through research enhancement and advancement training and exercise): Direction towards improved science research program at San Pablo City Science Integrated High School. IOER International Multidisciplinary Research Journal, 3(1): 60–70. https://doi.org/10.54476/iimrj268   [Google Scholar]
  44. Marasigan NV (2019). Development and validation of a self-instructional material on selected topics in analytic geometry integrating electronic concepts. International Journal of Recent Innovations in Academic Research, 3(5): 2635–3040.   [Google Scholar]
  45. Mathew SS and Earnest J (2004). Laboratory-based innovative approaches for competence development. Global Journal of Engineering Education, 8(2): 167-174.   [Google Scholar]
  46. McCormick-Ell J and Connell N (2019). Laboratory safety, biosecurity, and responsible animal use. ILAR Journal, 60(1): 24-33. https://doi.org/10.1093/ilar/ilz012   [Google Scholar] PMid:31423527
  47. Nainggolan B, Hutabarat W, Situmorang M, and Sitorus M (2020). Developing innovative chemistry laboratory workbook integrated with project-based learning and character-based chemistry. International Journal of Instruction, 13(3): 895-908. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2020.13359a   [Google Scholar]
  48. NATA (2012). Guidelines for the validation and verification of quantitative and qualitative test methods. National Association of Testing Authorities Australia, Parramatta, Australia.   [Google Scholar]
  49. Noroozi O and Mulder M (2017). Design and evaluation of a digital module with guided peer feedback for student learning biotechnology and molecular life sciences, attitudinal change, and satisfaction. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 45(1): 31-39. https://doi.org/10.1002/bmb.20981   [Google Scholar] PMid:27322926
  50. Oribe VR, Tan JB, and Untalan LA (2015). An interactive module for pre-service teachers teaching grade 7 science. MSEUF Research Studies, 17(1): 81-94.   [Google Scholar]
  51. Padilla M (2018). The science process skills. National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Reston, USA.   [Google Scholar]
  52. Pareek RB (2019). An assessment of the availability and utilization of laboratory facilities for teaching science at secondary school. Science Education International, 30(1): 75–81. https://doi.org/10.33828/sei.v30.i1.9   [Google Scholar]
  53. Putri ER, Helendra H, Hartanto I, and Ahda Y (2019). Correlation of basic science process skills and learning outcomes of high and low level students in Junior High School 35 Padang. Jurnal Atrium Pendidikan Biologi, 4(2): 120-130. https://doi.org/10.24036/apb.v4i2.5854   [Google Scholar]
  54. Qasem FAA and Zayid EIM (2019). The challenges and problems faced by students in the early stage of writing research projects in L2, University of Bisha, Saudi Arabia. European Journal of Special Education Research, 4(1): 32–47.   [Google Scholar]
  55. Rogayan DV and Dollete LF (2019). Development and validation of physical science workbook for senior high school. Science Education International, 30(4): 284-290. https://doi.org/10.33828/sei.v30.i4.5   [Google Scholar]
  56. Sagcal RR, Valera NS, and Maquiling JT (2017). Development and Evaluation of context-based laboratory activities in chemistry using low-cost kits for junior public high school. KIMIKA, 28(2): 30–41. https://doi.org/10.26534/kimika.v28i2.30-41   [Google Scholar]
  57. Schmidt KM and Kelter P (2017). Science fairs: A qualitative study of their impact on student science inquiry learning and attitudes toward STEM. Science Educator, 25(2): 126–132.   [Google Scholar]
  58. Serafín Č (2014). Constructivism in the school of experimental work. In the SGEM 2014 International Multidisciplinary Scientific Conferences on Social Sciences and Arts, Albena, Bulgaria. https://doi.org/10.5593/sgemsocial2014/B11/S3.085   [Google Scholar]
  59. Shana Z and Abulibdeh ES (2020). Science practical work and its impact on students’ science achievement. Journal of Technology and Science Education, 10(2): 199–215. https://doi.org/10.3926/jotse.888   [Google Scholar]
  60. Suryanti E, Fitriani A, Redjeki S, and Riandi R (2019). Virtual laboratory as a media to improve the conceptual mastery of molecular biology. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1317(1): 012202. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1317/1/012202   [Google Scholar]
  61. Taherdoost H (2018). Validity and reliability of the research instrument; How to test the validation of a questionnaire/survey in a research. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3205040   [Google Scholar]
  62. Tan MLG (2019). An evaluation of DepEd-produced grade 7 biology modules by biology experts and science teachers. International Journal of Innovation in Science and Mathematics Education, 27(5): 27–42. https://doi.org/10.30722/IJISME.27.05.003   [Google Scholar]
  63. Theodorsson E (2012). Validation and verification of measurement methods in clinical chemistry. Bioanalysis, 4(3): 305–320. https://doi.org/10.4155/bio.11.311   [Google Scholar] PMid:22303834
  64. Torrefranca EC (2017). Development and validation of instructional modules on rational expressions and variations. The Normal Lights, 11(1): 43–73. https://doi.org/10.56278/tnl.v11i1.375   [Google Scholar]
  65. Urbano JM (2019). Development and evaluation of module on earth and space. ASEAN Multidisciplinary Research Journal, 2(1): 8–13.   [Google Scholar]
  66. Usmeldi (2018). The effectiveness of research-based physics learning module with predict-observe-explain strategies to improve the student’s competence. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1013: 12041. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1013/1/012041   [Google Scholar]
  67. Varga O (2013). Critical analysis of assessment studies of the animal ethics review process. Animals, 3(3): 907-922. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani3030907   [Google Scholar] PMid:26479540 PMCid:PMC4494455
  68. Walton RM (2001). Validation of laboratory tests and methods. Seminars in Avian and Exotic Pet Medicine, 10(2): 59-65. https://doi.org/10.1053/saep.2001.22053   [Google Scholar]
  69. Wijayaningputri AR, Widodo W, and Munasir M (2018). Effectiveness of guided-inquiry model to train science process skills of senior high school students. In the Proceedings of the Mathematics, Informatics, Science, and Education International Conference (MISEIC 2018), Atlantis Press, Yogyakarta, Indonesia: 59-63. https://doi.org/10.2991/miseic-18.2018.15   [Google Scholar]
  70. Willmot P and Perkin G (2015). Evaluating the effectiveness of a first year module designed to improve student engagement. Engineering Education, 6(2): 57-69. https://doi.org/10.11120/ened.2011.06020057   [Google Scholar]
  71. Yazon AD (2018). Validation and effectiveness of module in assessment of students learning. International Journal of Science and Research, 7(11): 1833-1836.   [Google Scholar]