Licencia Creative Commons Atribución 4.0 Internacional (CC BY 4.0)

Revista Cátedra, 7(1), pp. 94-108, January-June 2024. e-ISSN: 2631-2875

https://doi.org/10.29166/catedra.v7i1.4474

Open research in laboratory practice to learn

Chemistry in high school students

Investigación abierta en la práctica de laboratorio y el

aprendizaje de la Química en los estudiantes de

bachillerato

Fernanda Faicán-Juca

Unidad Educativa Nuestra Familia, Cuenca, Ecuador

mffaicanj@nuestrafamilia.edu.ec

https://orcid.org/0009-0003-9033-381X

Renato Manzano-Vela

Escuela Superior Politécnica de Chimborazo. Riobamba, Ecuador

Escuela Politécnica Superior, Facultad de Recursos Naturales

dennis.manzano@espoch.edu.ec

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7834-276X

(Received on: 05/09/2023; Accepted on: 25/10/2023; Final version received on: 02/12/2023)

Suggested citation: Faicán-Juca, F. y Manzano-Vela, R. (2024). Open research in laboratory

practice to learn Chemistry in high school students. Revista Cátedra, 7(1), 94-108.

Abstract

Experimentation as a methodological strategy used in the teaching-learning process in

chemistry presents a stagnation in the acquisition of knowledge, skills, and indispensable

abilities. Currently, practices are based on methodically following the procedure given in a

laboratory guide, causing a passive learning, where the student is not directly involved in

building their own knowledge. For this reason, the purpose of this study was to apply open

research in laboratory practice, since it is a methodology based on constructivist learning.

Its relationship with the learning of chemistry was investigated, in addition to determining

its influence and identifying its contribution to it. This research was non-experimental and

correlational in scope. On the other hand, a survey and an evaluation test were applied to

125 high school students of the Nuestra Familia Educational Unit. As main results, a positive,

moderate, and significant correlation was obtained between the open investigation in the

Licencia Creative Commons Atribución 4.0 Internacional (CC BY 4.0)

Revista Cátedra, 7(1), pp. 94-108, January-June 2024. e-ISSN: 2631-2875

https://doi.org/10.29166/catedra.v7i1.4474

laboratory practice with the learning of Chemistry. In addition, the results of the evaluation

test show a positive influence by obtaining 75% of students who reach and master the

learning. While 73.60% of students consider that the open research contributes

considerably in the acquisition of learning. As a consequence, the applied methodology

presents a superior cognitive contribution by developing and strengthening the research

process and executing it in the laboratory.

Keywords

Learning, experimentation, open inquiry, laboratory, Chemistry.

Resumen

La experimentación como estrategia metodológica empleada en el proceso de enseñanza-

aprendizaje en la Química presenta un estancamiento en la adquisición de conocimientos,

destrezas y habilidades indispensables. Actualmente, las prácticas se basan en seguir de

manera metódica el procedimiento dado en una guía de laboratorio, provocando un

aprendizaje pasivo, donde el estudiante no se involucra directamente en construir su propio

conocimiento. Por esta razón, el presente trabajo de estudio tuvo como finalidad aplicar la

investigación abierta en la práctica de laboratorio, al ser una metodología basada en el

aprendizaje constructivista. Se investigó su relación con el aprendizaje de la Química,

además de determinar su influencia e identificar su contribución en la misma. Esta

investigación fue de tipo no experimental y de alcance correlacional. Por otra parte, se aplicó

una encuesta y un test de evaluación a 125 estudiantes de bachillerato de la Unidad

Educativa Nuestra Familia. Como principales resultados se obtuvo una correlación positiva,

moderada y significativa entre la investigación abierta en la práctica de laboratorio con el

aprendizaje de la Química. Además, los resultados del test de evaluación demuestran una

influencia positiva al obtener un 75% de estudiantes que alcanzan y dominan los

aprendizajes. Mientras que el 73.60% de estudiantes consideran que la investigación

abierta contribuye considerablemente en la adquisición de aprendizajes. Como

consecuencia la metodología aplicada presenta un aporte cognitivo superior al desarrollar

y fortalecer el proceso investigativo y ejecutarlo en el laboratorio.

Palabras clave

Aprendizaje, experimentación, investigación abierta, laboratorio, Química.

Introduction

The Ministry of Education of Ecuador promotes the maximum development of students'

capabilities. Through the application of pertinent methodologies related to participation,

individual and/or collaborative, favoring critical and rational thinking, by carrying out

reading and research activities. In this regard, Brito et al. (2019) states that: "it contributes

from two areas: the cognitive related to intellectual development and the formative-

axiological, related to personality development" (p. 304). For this reason, the use and

management of educational laboratories is recommended. In order to strengthen the

quality of education, mainly in the acquisition and strengthening of scientific skills in

students.

It should be mentioned that the teacher's job is to guide the learning process using different

methodologies and teaching strategies in the classroom. In this way, the student constructs

his own knowledge individually and/or collaboratively. In this study, experimentation is

Licencia Creative Commons Atribución 4.0 Internacional (CC BY 4.0)

Revista Cátedra, 7(1), pp. 94-108, January-June 2024. e-ISSN:2631-2875

https://doi.org/10.29166/catedra.v7i1.4474

used as a didactic strategy where the student analyzes the phenomena directly. In addition,

Cueto and García (2017), indicate that: "significant learning occurs. Students, who already

have some previous theoretical knowledge, will be able to relate practice with theory" (p.

48).

Currently, at the experimental level, traditional methodologies are applied, as is the case of

experimental practices. For this type of practice, the use of laboratory guides is used. During

this process, a certain cognitive stagnation is perceived in the students, due to the fact that

all the information is provided in this document. Therefore, the student does not make an

effort to reflect, investigate, or get involved in constructing his own knowledge. This

problem has been pointed out by Llorente, (2016) in his article, where he examines the

impact of experimental practices on student learning and motivation. Although, he

highlights that experimental practices can motivate and generate good learning outcomes,

he also warns about the need to move towards more challenging approaches. His study

concludes that consecutive application of experimental practices can slow down cognitive

development. In addition to limiting students' ability to reflect, investigate and actively

participate in the construction of their own knowledge.

In view of this problem, a non-experimental research, with correlational scope, was carried

out to study the teaching-learning process. The open research methodology was used

through the planning and elaboration of a relevant model in the laboratory practices, called

road map. The study was carried out on high school students of the "Nuestra Familia"

Educational Unit. Thus, the present study proposes to analyze open research in laboratory

practice and its relationship with the learning of chemistry. Considering Stoichiometry as

the main axis of learning at all high school levels. For which we wish to determine the

influence of the open laboratory practice in order to identify the process of open research.

The relevance of this study lies in the fact that, upon performing an exhaustive search in

local and national databases, no similar research was found where the independent variable

of this study, i.e., open research in laboratory practice, is considered. However, we did find

degree works where experimental practices are employed with the use of a laboratory guide

as a didactic tool. Therefore, this study is useful to expand and update the data on the

learning of chemistry. As well as, proposals to improve the educational quality and the

teaching-learning system in Ecuador.

This study faces several difficulties and challenges that may affect the interpretation of the

results and the generalization of the conclusions. First, the implementation of open-ended

research in laboratory practice may encounter lack of familiarity among students, which

could influence the effectiveness of the proposed methodology. Finally, the difficulty in

controlling all external variables that could influence the teaching-learning process may

affect the internal validity of the study. Despite these challenges, addressing these

difficulties will provide a solid foundation for future research, and improvements in the

implementation of open-ended research in the educational context of Chemistry.

Despite the ambitious objectives and identified relevance, this study faces certain limits that

must be considered when interpreting its results. First, there is the geographical and

educational level limitation that could affect the generalization of the findings to other

educational institutions or academic levels. Also, the selection of stoichiometry as the main

focus of learning may limit the applicability of the results to other branches of chemistry.

Finally, the study does not address external factors, such as socioeconomic or cultural

conditions of the students, which could influence the results. These limits offer

opportunities for future research that could expand and contextualize the findings of the

Licencia Creative Commons Atribución 4.0 Internacional (CC BY 4.0)

Revista Cátedra, 7(1), pp. 94-108, January-June 2024. e-ISSN: 2631-2875

https://doi.org/10.29166/catedra.v7i1.4474

present study. The present paper is articulated within the research line "Education, science,

technology and innovation" and summarizes the most important elements and

considerations that were fully developed in the thesis work of (Faican-Juca, 2023).

This article follows a clear and systematic organization, beginning with a literature review

that establishes the context and grounds the research. It then details the methodology

employed in the study, providing a description of the procedures used to obtain meaningful

data. The results derived from the execution of the data collection instruments are

presented in a comprehensive manner, followed by a discussion. Finally, the article

concludes with a section summarizing the main contributions and conclusions drawn from

the study.

2. Bibliographic review

2.1 Teaching and learning of chemistry

Currently, Garcés et al. point out that the teaching and learning of chemistry continues to be

a complex process. It not only consists of the acquisition of theoretical knowledge, it also

aims to acquire and strengthen skills, abilities and competencies in the student body (Garcés

et al., 2018, p. 231-345). These being critical thinking, problem solving, cognitive and

communication skills, ability to formulate hypotheses, experimentation and interpretation,

among others. For this reason, Rodriguez and Cruz state that" it is crucial that a teacher

possesses not only a deep knowledge of the subject he or she teaches, but also solid

pedagogical skills" (Rodriguez and Cruz, 2020, p. 1). "The ability to communicate complex

concepts, motivate students and evaluate their progress are essential aspects that derive

from a pedagogical training, thus contributing to a more comprehensive and meaningful

education" (Lorduy and Naranjo, 2020; Martínez et al., 2018).

2.2 Experimentation as a didactic strategy

According to Neira, through experimentation, the teacher optimizes and strengthens

meaningful learning. While, with the planning and pertinent design of laboratory practices,

the acquisition of new knowledge and its relationship with previous knowledge is

guaranteed (Neira, 2021). In this way, experimentation is an effective strategy by providing

students with ideal moments for learning and strengthening their autonomy and curiosity.

As Molina et al. (2018) verify by stating that:

The teacher determines to a great extent the attitudes of the students and

their performance in a course, the way he/she conducts the course and

the use of didactic methodologies can generate a better or worse training

(p. 54)

As shown in Figure 1, Hernández discusses that the methodology applied in theoretical and

experimental teaching differs in the intervention and action of the students, therefore, there

is also a difference in the cognitive process to be developed. During a theoretical teaching,

the student is indirectly involved with the phenomenon given and explained by the teacher,

producing a passive and receptive learning. This implies a low cognitive process related to

the acquisition of knowledge. Hernandez also emphasizes that, in experiential teaching, the

student has a direct participation in the learning process. Because cognitive processes such

as observation, analysis, deduction among others are involved, provoking interest, curiosity

and inquiry (Hernández, 2013, p. 86-108).

Licencia Creative Commons Atribución 4.0 Internacional (CC BY 4.0)

Revista Cátedra, 7(1), pp. 94-108, January-June 2024. e-ISSN:2631-2875

https://doi.org/10.29166/catedra.v7i1.4474

Figure 1. Comparison between theoretical and experimental teaching. Taken from: (Hernández, 2013, p. 92).

Note: The figure represents the relationship between theoretical teaching (black arrows) and experimental

teaching (red arrow).

2.3 Laboratory practices

The work done in the laboratory is essential, therefore, different methodological strategies

should be used in the planning of the class (Rodríguez, 2017). There is a great variety of

types of laboratory practices, which have been classified by Herrón 1971 and by Priestley

1997. These two authors proposed a scale of five and seven levels of openness respectively

(Neira et al., 2021). "The levels of openness are based on the roles of the student and the

teacher, when the role of the student is greater in the learning process the level of openness

is high" (Cueto and Garcia, 2017; Zorrilla et al., 2020). The most commonly used laboratory

practices are:

 Demonstrative practices. Valverde states that in this type of practice the student acts

as observer and receiver, and the teacher is in charge of the whole experimental

process. Both the objective, material, method and solution are given, so it is at the

first level of openness and the cognitive process developed is knowledge acquisition

(Valverde et al., 2006, p. 62).

 Experimental practices: according to Llorente, in these practices, the teacher

develops a laboratory guide and the student is in charge of the execution following

the given procedure, in these practices the objective, material and method are given

completely, as for the solution it can be delivered in part. It is considered as second

or third level of opening, developing knowledge and understanding as a cognitive

process (Llorente, 2016, p. 8-9).

 - Open inquiry practices: Zorrilla focuses on the scale proposed by Herrón, open

inquiry practices are distinguished by adopting an investigative approach, where

the teacher establishes the objective, and the student assumes the responsibility of

exploring the materials, methods and possible solutions to address the proposed

problem (Zorrilla, 2018, p. 34). In Priestley's taxonomy, this type of practice is

placed at level 6, characterized by the assignment of the problem by the teacher.

While the student is in charge of developing the appropriate procedure and reaching

their own conclusions. Both classifications highlight the ability of open inquiry

practices to actively involve the student in the learning process. In addition to

fostering high-impact cognitive processes, such as analysis and synthesis. This is

confirmed by Jiménez, who indicates that this approach not only promotes the

acquisition of knowledge, but also stimulates critical thinking and intellectual

autonomy of the student. Finally, it contributes to deeper and more meaningful

learning (Jiménez et al., 2005, p. 9).

Professor

Textbook

Text

author

Researcher

Student

Phenomenon

Licencia Creative Commons Atribución 4.0 Internacional (CC BY 4.0)

Revista Cátedra, 7(1), pp. 94-108, January-June 2024. e-ISSN: 2631-2875

https://doi.org/10.29166/catedra.v7i1.4474

Laboratory practices are fundamental for the scientific and comprehensive training of

students by employing different processes and complying with basic work standards, as

explained by (Hernández et al., 2018):

with the approach of the experiment to the research activity, as well as

the requirements for management, constitute the foundations on which

the didactic procedures for the contribution to scientific training from

laboratory practices are based (p. 325).

3. Methodology

This research presented a non-experimental design because it dispensed with the

intentional manipulation of variables. "It seeks to understand the intrinsic dynamics of the

phenomena, providing valuable information about their nature and causal relationships

without disturbing their natural course" (Monje, 2011, p. 26). Its approach "was

quantitative and correlational in scope where it was determined as an independent

variable, open research in laboratory practice, for being manipulable and modifiable in the

research process" (Hernández et al., 2014). As a dependent variable, the learning of

chemistry, as it is the one whose behavior is affected by the previous variable. The primary

purpose was to analyze whether open research in laboratory practice is related to the

learning of chemistry, this being the hypothesis put forward. For which, we worked with

125 high school students of the Unidad Educativa Nuestra Familia, "no sampling was

applied, because it was a small population" (Paniagua and Condori, 2018, p. 45.

For the open investigation in the laboratory practice, the following phases were followed:

 Planning phase, the teacher prepared a document detailing the problem and the

objective to be achieved, called a roadmap. In this document, a contextualized

problem based on stoichiometry was included, in addition to specifying the

activities to be carried out during the pre-laboratory, laboratory and post-

laboratory phases.

- Execution phase, the student's work was divided into three parts:

Pre-laboratory which consists of the research process, this is the first part where

students inquired aspects about the use and employment of reagents, materials,

procedure to be applied, adequate and relevant chemical methods, analytical

calculations and safety standards to meet the objective and solve the problem posed.

Laboratory is the second part, which consisted of the execution of the practice,

complying with the previous research and constant teaching support.

Post-laboratory is the last part, where students were responsible for preparing and

presenting the corresponding report, in addition to completing the questionnaire

and Google Forms test.

3.1 Research techniques and instruments

For data collection, two techniques were applied with their respective instruments, which

were previously validated by professional experts and statistically tested in a pilot

population. Cronbach's Alpha Coefficient was calculated, where a reliability of 0.8008 was

obtained, which was subsequently interpreted with the scale described in the work of

(Supo, 2013). The result presented a significant reliability range. Therefore, the instruments

applied to the study population of "Nuestra Familia" were duly validated and reliable.

The first technique applied was the survey by means of a questionnaire as an instrument,

the same one elaborated in the Google Forms program. The students received the invitation

100

Licencia Creative Commons Atribución 4.0 Internacional (CC BY 4.0)

Revista Cátedra, 7(1), pp. 94-108, January-June 2024. e-ISSN:2631-2875

https://doi.org/10.29166/catedra.v7i1.4474

through the Classroom platform and responded online, individually, voluntarily and

anonymously. This form contained a total of 15 questions for the two variables. Eight

questions were posed with more than one answer option. They were aimed at investigating

the application, didactics and frequency of laboratory practices, as well as the roles of

teachers and students. These questions allowed collecting data for the independent variable

(open investigation in laboratory practice). On the other hand, for the dependent variable

(learning chemistry), five questions were posed. These addressed the relationship between

previous knowledge and acquired knowledge, as well as the attainment of skills, abilities

and competencies.

The second technique was the evaluation instrument using a diagnostic evaluation test. This

test consisted of 10 questions generated through Google Forms and shared with the

students by Classroom. It was used to determine the scale of learning obtained. Its questions

were based on the work done in the laboratory such as use and function of materials and

reagents. In addition, about physical-chemical processes and stoichiometric contents. The

quantitative results of this test contributed to the dependent variable. That is to say, they

allowed knowing and analyzing the learning of the students by using the scale of learning

achieved (qualitative scale) governed in the educational institution.

3.2 Data processing and analysis techniques

For data processing, the results of the questions corresponding to the same dimension were

grouped and the arithmetic mean was determined. Subsequently, these averages were

taken to the statistical software Minitab Statistical 20, in which contingency tables were

made with a greater representation. In addition, it was "determined the trends of the

responses according to the frequencies obtained" (Hernández et al., 2014), To test whether

the open-ended research in the laboratory practice is related to the learning of Chemistry.

That is, for hypothesis testing, the normality test and a nonparametric measure such as

Spearman's coefficient were performed.

4. Results

In order to specify the most relevant aspects in the development of laboratory practices, the

types of practices used in the educational institution were analyzed. Table 1 shows the types

of laboratory practices applied in the teaching of chemistry and their frequency. From the

students' point of view, they state that the most used are experimental practices with

56.35%. Next are the demonstrative practices with 23.20% and finally the practices with

open research with 20.44%. Regarding the cognitive contribution, the types of laboratory

practice and their impact on the acquisition and understanding of knowledge were

compared. According to the students' perspective, 44.27% indicated that experimental

practices have a greater impact, 28.73% stated that demonstrative practices and 27.00%

declared that practices with open research have a greater impact.

101

Licencia Creative Commons Atribución 4.0 Internacional (CC BY 4.0)

Revista Cátedra, 7(1), pp. 94-108, January-June 2024. e-ISSN: 2631-2875

https://doi.org/10.29166/catedra.v7i1.4474

Types of practices

Frequency

Cognitive

contribution

Demostrative

23.20 %

28.73 %

Experimental

56.35 %

44.27 %

Open research

20.44 %

27.00 %

Total

100.00 %

Table 1. Types of laboratory practices and their characteristics

In Table 2, for the degree of complexity, 65.60% of students revealed a high level of

complexity when performing practices with open research. They mainly indicated difficulty

during the investigative and analytical phase (stoichiometric calculations). Analyzing the

teaching support in this methodology, only 24.53% of students considered it to be optimal,

constant and adequate in each phase of the process. Regarding the complexity when

studying stoichiometry, considering that this is the axis of study, 64.80% of students

indicated a minor or low complexity. On the other hand, 35.2% stated a high or higher

complexity, in relation to the difficulty in understanding the problem posed and the analysis

of the chemical reaction produced in the laboratory practice.

Level

Open research

Stoichiometry

Complexity

Teacher

support

Complexity

High

65.60 %

24.53 %

35.20 %

Low

34.40 %

75.47 %

64.80 %

Total

100.00 %

Table 2. Open research characteristics and stoichiometry complexity.

Table 3 reflects the students' perspective on the benefits derived from the intervention and

application of open-ended research in laboratory practice. According to their evaluations,

the collaborative approach of this methodology has contributed significantly to the

development of key skills. Evidenced by outstanding percentages: 78.40 % in collaborative

work, 76.80 % in organization, 68.00 % in problem solving and 65.60 % in analysis.

102

Licencia Creative Commons Atribución 4.0 Internacional (CC BY 4.0)

Revista Cátedra, 7(1), pp. 94-108, January-June 2024. e-ISSN:2631-2875

https://doi.org/10.29166/catedra.v7i1.4474

Level

Skills

Analysis

Troubleshooting

Collaborative

work

Organization

High

65.60 %

68.00 %

78.40 %

76.80 %

Low

34.40 %

32.00 %

21.60 %

23.20 %

Total

100 %

Table 3. Skills obtained

In Table 4, the data reveal that 74.40 % acquired a high level of experimentation, 68.80 %

in observation, and 66.40 % in research, evidencing significant skills and competencies.

These results suggest that the implementation of open inquiry has had a positive impact on

strengthening essential skills for students. In comparison with other forms of laboratory

practices, such as the demonstrative and/or experimental ones employed throughout their

secondary education. These findings highlight the particular effectiveness of open inquiry

in fostering fundamental skills, abilities, and competencies for scientific learning.

Level

Skills and competencies

Observation

Research

Experimentation

High

68.80 %

66.40 %

74.40 %

Low

31.20 %

33.60 %

25.60 %

Total

100 %

Table 4: Skills and competences obtained

The learning process was evaluated through the application of a test with 10 questions that

collected information on the use of materials. Where 98.4%, 95.2% and 48% of students

were correct in questions 1, 2, 3 respectively. Questions 4, 5, 6, 7 determined the

understanding of physical-chemical processes, obtaining that 91.2%, 69.6%, 45.6% and

73.6% of students choose the correct answer for each question. Regarding stoichiometric

calculations, for question 8, 49.6% got it right, for question 9, 84.8% got it right, and for the

last question, 88% of students got it right.

103

Licencia Creative Commons Atribución 4.0 Internacional (CC BY 4.0)

Revista Cátedra, 7(1), pp. 94-108, January-June 2024. e-ISSN: 2631-2875

https://doi.org/10.29166/catedra.v7i1.4474

Figure 2. Percentage of correct answers by question

Each test had a final evaluation of 10 points and the scale of learning achieved was used. It

was obtained that 28% of the students mastered the learning, because they obtained a score

higher than 9/10. 47.20% of the students achieve the learning, whose valuation was

between 8.99 and 7. Finally, 4.80% do not achieve the learning related to stoichiometry, as

well as the correct use and function of materials and reagents, as shown in Table 5.

Scale of learning achieved

Range

Students

Percentage

Master the required learning

10 – 9.00

28.00 %

Achieving the required

learning

8.99 – 7.00

47.20 %

Is close to achieving the

required learning

6.99 – 4.01

20.00 %

Does not reach the required

learning

4.00 – 0

4.80 %

Total

125

100.00 %

Table 5. Learning scale. Taken from: (Subsecretaría de Fundamentos Educativos, 2016, p. 8).

In order to test the study hypothesis, which consists of relating the open investigation in the

laboratory practice with the learning of chemistry, the hypothesis test was performed.

Considering that the variables were quantitative and discrete, which did not present a

normal distribution in the normality test. The significance level was 95%. Therefore, a non-

parametric measure was used and Spearman's correlation coefficient was calculated. A

value of 0.550 was obtained for rho, as can be seen in the scatter diagram, Figure 3.

98.4

95.2

91.2

69.6

45.6

73.6

49.6

84.8

020 40 60 80 100 120

P1: Medir masa

P2: Realizar mezcla

P3: Medir volumen

P4: Método de separación

P5: Proceso físico-químico

P6: Evidencia de reacción química

P7: Carácterística del precipitado

P8: Interpretación de reacción química

P9: Rendimiento de la reacción

P10: Rendimiento porcentual

P10: Percentage yield

P9: Reaction yield

P8Chemical reaction interpretation

P7: Characteristics of the precipitate

P6: Evidence of chemical reaction

P5: physical-chemical process

P4: Separation method

P3: Measuring volume

P2: Perform mixing

P1: Measure mass

104

Licencia Creative Commons Atribución 4.0 Internacional (CC BY 4.0)

Revista Cátedra, 7(1), pp. 94-108, January-June 2024. e-ISSN:2631-2875

https://doi.org/10.29166/catedra.v7i1.4474

Figure 3. Spearman's correlation coefficient

Therefore, when performing the hypothesis test based on Spearman's correlation, it was

determined that the open investigation in the laboratory practice is related to the learning

of Chemistry. The interpretation of the rho value, as analyzed in Table 6, shows a positive,

moderate, and significant relationship or association. By obtaining a rho value of 0.550,

considering a level of significance of 0.05.

rho range

Interpretation

- 0.76 a – 1.00

Negative correlation between strong and perfect

- 0.51 a - 0.75

Negative correlation between moderate and

strong

- 0.26 a - 0.50

Negative correlation between weak and weak

- 0.01 a - 0.25

Negative correlation between weak and null

Null correlation

+ 0.01 a + 0.25

Positive correlation between weak and null

+ 0.26 a + 0.50

Positive correlation between weak and weak

+ 0.51 a + 0.75

Positive correlation between moderate and

strong

+ 0.76 a + 1.00

Positive correlation between strong and perfect

Table 6. Interpretation of Spearman's correlation. Adapted from: (Roy et al., 2019).

 Positive correlation whose meaning lies in the fact that the learning of chemistry

increases as the application of open-ended research increases.

 Moderate correlation means a moderate strength of association between the

variables by obtaining a value of 0.550.

 Significant correlation when generalizing these results to other study populations.

VI: Open research in laboratory practice

Matrix plot of V. Independent; V. Dependent. Dependent

Spearman correlation

Correlaci

VD: Learning chemistry

105

Licencia Creative Commons Atribución 4.0 Internacional (CC BY 4.0)

Revista Cátedra, 7(1), pp. 94-108, January-June 2024. e-ISSN: 2631-2875

https://doi.org/10.29166/catedra.v7i1.4474

5. Discussion

The results derived from the investigation, Figure 3, determined a positive, moderate and

significant association between the independent variables "open investigation in laboratory

practice" and the dependent variable "learning Chemistry". From Spearman's correlation

test, it is inferred that Chemistry learning is related to laboratory practice using open-ended

inquiry. According to the rho value of 0.550 which shows a positive association. This result

is corroborated with the study conducted by (Villanueva and Concha, 2020), in which it

demonstrates the importance of research in the experimental process. Although this

methodology has a moderate relationship with respect to learning, it should be considered

that there are other factors that prevent increasing this relationship since it does not

depend only on practice.

Experimentation with open research has a positive influence on the learning of high school

students, as shown in Table 1. However, 44.27 % of students still prefer traditional

practices, considering that the student is immersed in this paradigm where all information

is given to him/her in full. This result has been verified by Zorrilla et al., 2020 in their

doctoral thesis, where they indicate that the most developed experimental classes

correspond to low levels of openness. In these practices the student requires basic cognitive

processes, such as knowledge, application. Consequently, the student feels more

comfortable with traditional practices. Whereas, in open inquiry practices, it generates a

higher level cognitive development, because the student is fully involved in the process of

research and experimentation.

The teacher's action is considerably reduced, as shown in the analysis of Table 2. That is

why 24.53% of students indicate having obtained optimal support from the teacher

throughout the experimentation process. For a significant acquisition in relation to learning,

the student must demonstrate basic knowledge of experimentation. This is corroborated by

the result, where 65.60% of participants consider that open research presents a higher

degree of difficulty in its execution and is preferred by only 27% of the students. These

results are supported by the study of Llorente, 2016 where he recommends open research

practices for a greater scope in learning, considering the predisposition of the student.

Likewise, Cueto and García, 2017 demonstrated through their thesis the effectiveness of

research-based methodologies, even indicating that it facilitates learning and improves

achievement.

It should be emphasized that, these results differ with those obtained in Table 3 and 4,

where an optimal contribution of open inquiry is identified. By producing in students the

acquisition of skills, competencies and abilities. It was obtained that more than 65.60% of

the students acquired and strengthened skills such as: collaborative work, organization,

problem solving and analysis. Likewise, more than 66.40% acquired a high level of

experimentation, observation and research as skills. However, certain important aspects

should be considered, such as: teacher support, proper planning and elaboration of the road

map by the teacher, as well as research in reliable sources and equitable work, complying

with safety standards. Coinciding with the research of Hernandez et al., 2018 that proved

that, when considering the levels of openness in laboratory practices provide exceptional

and high-level results, for the scientific and academic training of students. In this study, it

was found that the level of openness, open research in laboratory practice positively

influences and contributes to the learning of Chemistry.

In Table 5, the results when evaluating the learning of stoichiometry applying the learning

scale achieved, given by the Ministry of Education. Favorable results were obtained,

106

Licencia Creative Commons Atribución 4.0 Internacional (CC BY 4.0)

Revista Cátedra, 7(1), pp. 94-108, January-June 2024. e-ISSN:2631-2875

https://doi.org/10.29166/catedra.v7i1.4474

indicating that 75% of the students reached and/or mastered the learning, by obtaining a

grade higher than 7/10. Considering that the questions addressed stoichiometric contents,

differentiation of physical-chemical processes and the appropriate use of laboratory

materials. This result contrasts with the study of Raviolo and Lerzo, 2016, where it is

indicated that, in order to guarantee the understanding of stoichiometry, and therefore the

obtaining of optimal evaluative results, it is necessary to develop experimental methods for

its teaching.

6. Conclusion

From the results obtained in this research, it is concluded that a positive influence was

determined between open research in laboratory practice and the learning of chemistry, by

presenting a moderate and positive relationship between the application of open research

and learning, although only 27% of students considered that open research has a high

cognitive contribution in the process. It should be emphasized that a considerable

contribution to learning was identified, since open research intervenes in the acquisition of

abilities and skills and competences with a percentage of 73.60% and 69.60% in the

students, respectively. In addition, the process was evaluated through the application of a

test, as a result it was obtained that 28% of students master the required learning and 47%

reach the learning, these values indicate a learning of Chemistry mainly of stoichiometry.

Finally, it was established that there is a considerable percentage of students, 44.27%, who

still prefer traditional laboratory practices mainly using laboratory guides.

In the course of the research, factors that impede the practice of open research were

identified, the main one being the educational curriculum, including the temporality and

frequency of its application. For future lines of research, it is recommended to carry out

studies that analyze the application of open inquiry in laboratory practice, considering the

use of materials and reagents of daily or home use. Also, to study the influence of open

inquiry in the laboratory and STEAM projects.

Bibliographic references

Brito, D., Maldonado, L., y Morillo, R. (2019). Nivel Bachillerato. En Currículo de los Niveles

de Educación Obligatoria. (Segunda, pp. 295-335). www.educacion.gob.ec

Cueto, R., y García, C. (2017). Física y Química en el aula, el aprendizaje a través de la práctica

[Tesis de Máster en Formación del Profesorado de Educación Secundaria]. Universidad

de Cantabria.

Faicán, F. (2023). Investigación abierta en la práctica de laboratorio y el aprendizaje de la

Química en los estudiantes de Bachillerato de la Unidad Educativa “Nuestra Familia”

periodo 2021-2022 [Tesis de Magister en Pedagogía de las Ciencias Experimentales

Mención Química y Biología]. Universidad Central del Ecuador.

Garcés, L., Montaluisa, Á., y Salas, E. (2018). El aprendizaje significativo y su relación con los

estilos de aprendizaje. Anales de la Universidad Central del Ecuador, 1(376), 231-245.

Hernández, L., Machado, E., Martínez, E., Andreu, N., y Flint, A. (2018). La práctica de

laboratorio en la asignatura Química General y su enfoque investigativo. Rev. Cubana

Quím, 30(2), 314-327.

Hernández, M. (2013). Reforma de la enseñanza experimental. En Enseñanza experimental

Química (Primera edición, pp. 86-108). Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.

107

Licencia Creative Commons Atribución 4.0 Internacional (CC BY 4.0)

Revista Cátedra, 7(1), pp. 94-108, January-June 2024. e-ISSN: 2631-2875

https://doi.org/10.29166/catedra.v7i1.4474

Hernández, R., Fernández, C., y Baptista, M. (2014). Definiciones de los enfoques

cuantitativo y cualitativo, sus similitudes y diferencias. En Metodología de la

Investigación (Sexta, pp. 88-100). McGRAW-HILL.

Jiménez, G., Llobera, R., y Llitjós, A. (2005). Los niveles de abertura en las prácticas

cooperativas de química. Revista Electrónica de Enseñanza de las Ciencias, 4, 4-26.

Llorente, P. (2016). Efecto de las prácticas experimentales en el aprendizaje y motivación de

los alumnos para la asignatura de química de primer curso de Bachillerato [Tesis de

Máster en Formación de profesorado de Secundaria - Especialidad Física y Química].

Universidad Internacional de la Rioja.

Lorduy, D. J., y Naranjo, C. P. (2020). Percepciones de maestros y estudiantes sobre el uso

del triplete químico en los procesos de enseñanza-aprendizaje. Revista Científica CIDC,

39(3), 324-340. https://doi.org/10.14483/23448350.16427

Martínez, L. D., Hinojo, F. J., y Díaz, I. (2018). Aplicación de las Tecnologías de la Información

y la Comunicación (TIC) en los Procesos de Enseñanza- Aprendizaje por parte de los

Profesores de Química. Información tecnológica, 29(2), 41-52.

https://doi.org/10.4067/s0718-07642018000200041

Molina, M. F., Rivera, J. C., Liliam, y Palomeque-F, A. (2018). Actitudes y perspectivas de los

estudiantes frente a un curso de química general: implicaciones y propuestas. Revista

Educación en Ingeniería, 14(27), 54-58. https://doi.org/10.26507/rei.v14n27.931

Monje, C. (2011). Metodología de la Investigación Cuantitativa y Cualitativa.

Neira, J. (2021). La experimentación en ciencias naturales como estrategia de alfabetización

científica. Revista UCMaule, 60, 102-116. https://doi.org/10.29035/ucmaule.60.102

Neira, J. C., Miño, L. P., y Fuentealba, M. I. (2021). Aproximación a las dificultades para la

ejecución de trabajos prácticos de laboratorio de biología en educación media. Revista

Convergencia Educativa, 10-extra, 24-33. https://doi.org/10.29035/rce.s10.24

Paniagua, F., y Condori, P. (2018). Investigación científica en educación (Porfirio Condori

Ojeda, Ed.; Segunda).

Raviolo, A., y Lerzo, G. (2016). Enseñanza de la estequiometría: Uso de analogías y

comprensión conceptual. Educación Química, 27(3), 195-204.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eq.2016.04.003

Rodríguez, R. (2017). El aprendizaje significativo de conceptos químicos, un estudio en el

contexto de la resolución de problemas y los estilos de aprendizaje [Tesis Doctoral en

Educación]. Universidad Pedagógica Nacional.

Roy, I., Rivas, R., Pérez, M., y Palacios, L. (2019). Correlación: no toda correlación implica

causalidad. Revista Alergia México, 66(3), 354-360.

https://doi.org/10.29262/ram.v66i3.651

Subsecretaría de Fundamentos Educativos. (2016). INSTRUCTIVO PARA LA APLICACIÓN DE

LA EVALUACIÓN ESTUDIANTIL.

Supo, D. J. (2013). Cómo validar un instrumento. www.bioestadistico.com

108

Licencia Creative Commons Atribución 4.0 Internacional (CC BY 4.0)

Revista Cátedra, 7(1), pp. 94-108, January-June 2024. e-ISSN:2631-2875

https://doi.org/10.29166/catedra.v7i1.4474

Valverde, J., Jiménez, L., y Viza, L. (2006). La atención a la diversidad en las prácticas en las

prácticas de laboratorio de Química: Los niveles de abertura. Enseñanza de las Ciencias,

24(1), 59-70.

Villanueva, M., y Concha, A. (2020). Laboratorio de química: indagación guiada.

EDUNOVATIC, 305. www.edunovatic.org

Zorrilla, E. (2018). Las prácticas de laboratorio en la enseñanza y el aprendizaje de las

Ciencias Naturales desde una perspectiva psicosocial [Tesis de Doctorado en

Educación]. Universidad Nacional de Cuyo.

Zorrilla, E., Quiroga, D. P., Morales, L. M., Mazzitelli, C. A., y Maturano, C. I. (2020). Reflexión

sobre el trabajo experimental planteado como investigación con docentes de Ciencias

Naturales. Ciencia, Docencia y Tecnología, 31(60 may-oct), 266-285.

https://doi.org/10.33255/3160/626

Authors

FERNANDA FAICÁN-JUCA obtained her master's degree in Pedagogy of Experimental

Sciences mention in Chemistry and Biology from the Universidad Central del Educador in

2023. She obtained her degree in Pharmaceutical Biochemistry from the Faculty of Chemical

Sciences at the University of Cuenca (Ecuador) in 2017.

She is currently a tenured teacher at Unidad Educativa Nuestra Familia. She is a leading

teacher in institutional projects such as "Formando científicos" and "Primeros Auxilios NF".

Her main research topics include application of innovative methodologies at the level of

laboratory practices, focusing specifically on chemistry learning.

RENATO MANZANO-VELA He obtained his degree in Chemical Engineering from the

Escuela Superior Politécnica de Chimborazo-Ecuador, Master in Chemistry with mention in

Chemistry-Physics from the Universidad Técnica de Ambato-Ecuador, Master in Pedagogy

with mention in curriculum from the Universidad Técnica del Norte-Ecuador, PhD

Candidate in the Doctoral Program in Chemistry at the University of Granada-Spain, Fellow

in the Master Molecular Simulation at the International University of Andalusia-Spain,

Master in the Master in Biotechnology at the State University of Milagro-Ecuador. Fellow in

the Master's program in Pedagogy with mention in Curriculum at the Universidad Técnica

del Norte-Ecuador, Master and Fellow in the Master's program in Management of Sanitary

Programs in Food Safety at the University for International Cooperation-Costa Rica. Fellow

as a participating member of the IX School of Experimental Physics of the Universidad

Autónoma de México. Evaluator in the science and entrepreneurship competitions

INFOMATRIX 2020, 2022 2023 and 100K LATAM.

Member of committee E01 on Analytical Chemistry of Metals, Minerals and Related

Materials in ASTM International. Researcher registered in SENESCYT. Teacher in the

Coordination of Admission and Leveling of the National University of Chimborazo, Teacher

and tutor in the Master's program in Pedagogy of Experimental Sciences mention in

Chemistry and Biology offered by the Central University of Ecuador, Teacher in the Faculty

of Health of the Regional University of the Andes, Researcher Teacher in the Faculty of

Natural Resources of the Polytechnic School of Chimborazo. Author and co-author of 20

scientific articles, 3 books and a book chapter in international publishers.