Abstract/Introduction:

* Question: You mention "increasing resource constraints" as a challenge. Could you elaborate
on the specific types of resource constraints you observed beyond just laboratory facilities?
* Answer: Beyond the absence of adequate laboratory facilities, the study highlights shortages
in chemicals, dedicated rooms, equipment, technical support, and well-structured manuals as
significant resource constraints. The expenses associated with equipping and maintaining a
functional laboratory, including chemicals and apparatus, are often prohibitive for many
educational institutions.
* Question: The study aims to "explore strategies for effective science teaching in the absence
of adequate laboratory facilities." What led you to believe that such strategies exist and are
implementable?
* Answer: The theoretical framework underpinning this study, drawing upon Experiential
Theory, Adaptive Expertise Theory, and Improvisation Theory, posits that educators can
develop and demonstrate a balance between efficiency and innovation, adapt their knowledge
and skills to novel situations, and utilize available resources creatively. The introduction also
states that this limitation "does not mean that quality science education must come to a halt",
but rather "challenges educators to adopt innovative and practical strategies that compensate
for the absence of traditional resources".
* Question: You state that the shortage of resources "significantly hampers the delivery of
effective science instruction." Can you give a concrete example of how this gap between
theoretical and practical understanding manifests in student learning?
* Answer: The study indicates that without active, experiential engagement through laboratory
practice, students' interest fades, leading to disengagement and ultimately learning outcomes
characterized by a lack of depth and motivation. One participant noted that students feel
disconnected without hands-on experiences, explaining, "Nadudula andang interest kung pure
discussion, demonstration sa klase kaysa mag laboratory hands on". This disconnection often
leads to "decreased motivation, poor academic performance, and a declining interest in
scientific fields".
* Question: You cite The Manila Times (2014) regarding the call to enhance science education
quality in the Philippines. How has the situation evolved since then, and what current national
policies or initiatives address this issue?
* Answer: While the study cites The Manila Times (2014) highlighting the growing call to
enhance science education quality due to the pivotal role of high-quality laboratory facilities, the
provided text does not offer information on how the situation has evolved since 2014 or specific
current national policies/initiatives. However, it does note that as of 2023, recent data reveals
that out of 12,390 high schools nationwide, 4,520 do not have laboratories, and many lack
access to modern digital tools.
* Question: What does your study add to the existing literature that primarily focuses on the
advantages of well-equipped laboratories?
* Answer: Existing research often focuses on the advantages of well-equipped laboratories but
provides limited insights into effective strategies for teaching science in their absence and offers
guidance for policymakers and educators to develop sustainable solutions for science education
in underfunded schools. This study specifically explores and evaluates effective strategies for
teaching science in schools that lack adequate laboratory facilities, assessing their effectiveness
in enhancing students’ understanding, engagement, and interest, while also identifying the
challenges faced.

Theoretical Framework:
* Question: How do the four theories (Experiential Theory, Adaptive Expertise Theory,
Improvisation Theory, Constructivism Theory) specifically intertwine to inform your
understanding of effective science teaching in resource-constrained environments?
* Answer: The framework uses these theories as conceptual lenses. Adaptive Expertise
Theory helps understand how teachers develop flexibility to adapt knowledge and skills to novel
situations and innovate within their domain, like maximizing limited resources or creating new
alternatives. Experiential Learning Theory, particularly Kolb's model, supports that learning
occurs not only through direct manipulation but also through thoughtful engagement with the
environment, reflection, and application of concepts, allowing for simulated and improvised
instruction to achieve comparable outcomes to traditional labs. Improvisation Theory illuminates
how teachers creatively adapt and leverage available resources, reframing the lack of labs as
an opportunity for innovative practices and revealing the ingenuity in their teaching strategies
using readily available materials. Constructivism Theory is mentioned as part of the guiding
framework, but the text does not explicitly detail its intertwining with the other theories in the
context of this specific research.
* Question: Can you provide a more detailed example of how "Adaptive Expertise Theory"
applies to the observed behaviors of the science teachers in your study?
* Answer: Adaptive Expertise Theory helps examine how science teachers "maximize their
limited resources or make a whole new creative alternative out of it to still provide quality
education to students despite the absence of adequate laboratory facilities". An example
provided in the results is teachers utilizing "Do-It-Yourself" (DIY) or homemade materials for
experiments, such as using a plastic cup instead of a beaker and a popsicle stick for paper
chromatography, to achieve the experiment's objective with available resources. This
demonstrates their flexibility and ability to adapt their skills and knowledge to novel situations.
* Question: Regarding "Experiential Learning Theory," while you mention various alternative
activities like community-based investigations and role-playing, how do you ensure these
activities still align with the "active experimentation" stage of Kolb's cycle?
* Answer: Kolb's Experiential Learning Theory outlines a continuous, cyclical process
including "concrete experience, reflective observation, abstract conceptualization, and active
experimentation". The study suggests that activities like community-based investigations, home-
based experiments, simulations, role-playing, and project-based learning can serve as
substitutes for laboratory work. The emphasis is on these alternatives fostering "not only
scientific literacy but also creativity, adaptability, and critical thinking skills". While the text
doesn't explicitly detail how each alternative activity guarantees alignment with "active
experimentation," it implies that when "guided by active learning frameworks," simulated and
improvised instruction can achieve comparable outcomes to traditional laboratory settings. The
concept is for students to engage thoughtfully with their environment, reflect on outcomes, and
apply concepts in varied contexts.
 * Question: "Improvisation Theory" suggests viewing the lack of labs as an "opportunity for
innovative teaching practices." Could you share an example of a particularly creative
improvisation you observed that truly transformed a learning experience?
* Answer: While the study emphasizes that improvisation allows teachers to "creatively adapt
and leverage available resources", a particularly creative example mentioned is the use of "Do-
It-Yourself" (DIY) experiments where teachers utilize everyday items like plastic cups for
beakers and popsicle sticks. This transforms the learning experience by making abstract
scientific concepts tangible and experiential using readily available materials. The research
noted that schools utilizing improvised teaching aids saw "better student engagement and
comprehension".
* Question: How did you ensure that the improvisational methods observed were not just
temporary fixes but genuinely contributed to deeper conceptual understanding?
* Answer: The study emphasizes that improvisation allows teachers to translate "abstract
scientific concepts into tangible, experiential learning opportunities using readily available
materials". It posits that this method "encourages hands-on learning, critical thinking, and
engagement in scientific practices". The results indicate that "through the introduction of
improvised materials allowed teachers to conduct practical experiments, thus improving
students’ understanding of scientific concepts". One participant's statement, "we are using DIY
instead of some apparatus...kung alin lang do mga available resources nga ma

Methodology:
* Question: You used a qualitative phenomenological design. How did this specific design help
you to capture the "experience, perception, and adjustment measures" of the teachers more
effectively than other qualitative approaches?
* Answer: The study states that qualitative research is appropriate because it is "more relevant
when dealing with experience, perception, and adjustment measures in teaching science when
laboratory conditions cannot be accessed". This design "makes it possible to scrutinize real-life
teaching procedures with emphasis on the participants' experience". It is also helpful in
providing "extensive details regarding varied alternative teaching styles as well as their
effectiveness," specifically because it investigates "the teacher's experience and adjustment
mechanisms".
* Question: In your purposive sampling, what specific criteria or characteristics (beyond "direct
experience") did you look for in selecting your participants to ensure the richness of data?
* Answer: The inclusion criteria for participants were explicitly stated as: 1. Must be an
instructor in the College of Teacher Education at Aklan State University; and 2. Must handle
science major. The exclusion criteria were instructors on leave or unavailable during the study
period, and instructors who declined to participate. The study aimed to select participants with
"relevant and firsthand knowledge about the issue" by choosing those with "direct experience
with the issue of teaching science in the absence of adequate laboratory facilities".
* Question: Could you elaborate on the "semi-structured interviews"? What were some of the
core questions you asked to initially guide the conversations, and what types of follow-up
questions did you find most effective in probing deeper?
* Answer: The study describes semi-structured interviews as an approach that "allowed
researchers to capture detailed responses from the experienced individuals and firsthand
insights into how science is taught without adequate laboratory facilities". It provided "flexibility
to ask follow-up questions, probe deeper and explore further, leading to richer data in order for
the participants to explain their teaching strategies, resourcefulness, and the impact it had on
the teaching and learning process". While the specific initial core questions are not listed, the
stated purpose suggests questions would have revolved around teachers' experiences,
challenges, and alternative strategies in the absence of labs. Effective follow-up questions
would have likely been those that allowed for detailed narratives and examples, exploring the
'how' and 'why' behind their adaptations.
* Question: You mentioned note-taking and audio recording for data collection. How did you
manage to take thorough notes while also actively engaging in the interview and listening for
nuances?
* Answer: The study states that interviews were conducted "with thorough note-taking and
audio recording to ensure that every detail of the conversation is accurately captured for later
analysis". This combination of methods "not only facilitated the preservation of verbal data but
also ensured nuance, tone, and emphasis in the conversation was captured for subsequent
analysis". The audio recordings were then transcribed verbatim, allowing for a thorough
examination. This implies that while notes captured immediate key points, the audio recordings
served as the primary, comprehensive record for later detailed analysis, allowing the interviewer
to focus more on engagement during the interview itself.
* Question: Regarding ethical considerations, how did you handle potential power imbalances
between the researchers and the instructors during the informed consent process?
* Answer: The study emphasized that ethical considerations were crucial, especially since it
involved human participants and was concerned with teachers' views. For informed consent, a
letter was prepared for respondents to sign as permission. It was ensured that participants were
"fully informed about the purpose, procedures, risks, and benefits of the study" and that their
participation was "voluntary". To address privacy and confidentiality, codes were used instead of
real names to protect identities, and data was used only for research purposes with ethical
disposal guidelines. The researchers also guaranteed that findings would reflect actual
experiences without manipulation or bias, and that questions were framed sensitively to avoid
discomfort. These measures aim to mitigate potential power imbalances by ensuring
transparency, voluntary participation, and protection of the participants' rights and identities.
* Question: When conducting thematic analysis, how did you ensure inter-coder reliability,
especially if multiple researchers were involved in the coding process?
* Answer: The study states that thematic analysis "began with the transcription of all
interviews to capture the raw dat

Results and Discussion:

* Question: Theme 1: Pedagogical Adaptation and Instructional Innovation: While virtual labs
and video presentations are mentioned, how do teachers assess the effectiveness of these
alternatives in terms of student learning outcomes compared to traditional labs?
* Answer: Participants acknowledged the use of virtual labs and online simulations as primary
alternatives, with one stating, "once na unavailable yung physical laboratory is yung pupuntahan
talaga natin is virtual lab". Another noted using videos "for them na makakuha sanda it
knowledge and maapply man if may time eon nga pwede sanda mag conduct it duyong certain
nga experiment". One participant found that virtual laboratories and interactive simulations
"significantly enhanced student engagement and understanding" and provided "visually rich
interactive experiences that allow students to experiment and observe outcomes in real time".
They also believed these tools lead to "deeper conceptual understanding and increased
motivation". However, another participant also stated that the skills gained from virtual labs are
"lacking" compared to hands-on experiences, specifically regarding the "skills nga gina-apply".
* Question: Can you provide another specific example of a "Do-It-Yourself" experiment that
successfully achieved a complex learning objective, and what challenges were faced in its
implementation?
* Answer: The study provides the example of using DIY materials for "paper chromatography,"
where plastic cups were used instead of beakers and popsicle sticks were used for other
apparatus. The aim was to "achieve do objective it isa ka-laboratory or experiment" with
available resources. While the study notes this approach helps teachers and students become
more resourceful and find practical solutions, it doesn't detail the specific learning objective for
paper chromatography or the challenges faced in its DIY implementation.
* Question: Theme 2: Comparative Value of Virtual and Physical Laboratory Experiences:
Given the clear preference for physical labs, how do teachers manage student expectations and
mitigate potential disappointment when only virtual alternatives are available?
* Answer: The study reveals a "perceived tension" and an "overwhelming sentiment"
emphasizing the irreplaceable value of hands-on physical laboratories. Teachers frequently
noted that virtual labs, while convenient, lack the "actual scenario" for handling chemicals and
developing essential practical skills. One participant stated, "nothing beats the actual naman
talaga... Kasi iba talaga yung first-hand experience". The text doesn't explicitly detail how
teachers manage student disappointment; however, their adaptive strategies, such as using DIY
experiments and video presentations, are likely attempts to provide meaningful engagement
despite the limitations.
* Question: The study by Olofsson, Hallstrom, and Erixon (2018) suggests simulations can
"oversimplify." Did your data reveal specific instances where this oversimplification negatively
impacted student learning?
* Answer: The study cites Olofsson, Hallstrom, and Erixon (2018) to support the idea that
simulations "can sometimes oversimplify important aspects of the real world, potentially limiting
students’ ability to engage in authentic scientific inquiry due to the restricted nature of virtual
laboratory environments". While the participants noted a concern about the lack of "actual
scenario" in virtual environments and a participant stated, "iba do skills sa hands-on compare sa
virtual lab...hindi practice it student do skills nga needed sa actual laboratory", the provided text
does not give a specific instance from the data where a virtual lab's oversimplification
demonstrably led to negative student learning outcomes.
* Question: Theme 3: Student Motivation and Engagement: Beyond anecdotal evidence, did
you observe any quantitative measures (e.g., attendance, assignment completion, test scores)
that correlated with the reported decline in student interest due to a lack of hands-on activities?
* Answer: The study primarily relies on qualitative data from teacher interviews regarding
student motivation and engagement. Participants reported that students feel "disconnected from
the subject matter without hands-on learning experiences". One participant directly linked the
lack of physical laboratory activities to a decline in student interest, stating, "Nadudula andang
interest kung pure discussion... owa na it engagement, lacking na do engagement ano karon do
results do learning it students bukon it meaningful or I mean sangkiri lang andang nalelearn
sangkiri lang do motivation". Another highlighted that "While virtual simulations help, they don't
fully replace the excitement and interactive nature of physical experiments". The provided text
does not include any quantitative measures like attendance, assignment completion, or test
scores.
* Question: What specific stra

Conclusions and Practical Implications:

* Question: What is the single most significant finding from your study that you believe
policymakers should immediately act upon?
* Answer: The study's conclusions highlight that despite innovative strategies like virtual labs
and DIY experiments, "challenges such as reduced hands-on experience and student
disengagement persist, highlighting the irreplaceable value of physical laboratories for effective
science teaching". Therefore, the most significant finding for policymakers is the "urgent need
for policy-level interventions to address the lack of laboratory resources", including "allocating
strategic funding for improvised science tools and digital platforms, supporting teacher training
programs focused on resourceful instruction, and facilitating partnerships between schools and
higher education institutions for shared access to laboratory facilities". The collective voice of
the faculty "underscores the severity of the current limitations and the perceived critical
importance of a dedicated laboratory facility".
* Question: For students, how can they be empowered to actively seek out and utilize these
alternative learning opportunities, rather than passively waiting for them to be provided?
* Answer: For students, the study recommends they "be encouraged to take an active role in
their science learning by engaging with virtual laboratories, participating in hands-on improvised
experiments, and exploring real-life applications of scientific concepts using locally available
materials". This encouragement should aim to promote "curiosity, critical thinking, and deeper
understanding". While the study suggests these opportunities, it doesn't explicitly detail
mechanisms to empower students to actively seek them out independently, beyond being
encouraged.
* Question: You recommend "training in improvisation" for teachers. What would a typical
training module on this topic look like, and what skills would it emphasize?
* Answer: A training module on improvisation for teachers would likely emphasize creative
problem-solving and resourcefulness in using readily available or environmental materials to
conduct practical experiments. It would focus on skills such as identifying everyday items that
can substitute for traditional lab equipment (e.g., plastic cups for beakers), adapting existing
experimental procedures to low-resource contexts, and fostering critical thinking in designing
simplified yet effective hands-on activities. It would also likely cover how to integrate these
improvised activities with theoretical concepts to ensure deeper understanding and
engagement.
* Question: For administrators, what are the biggest barriers to fostering an environment that
supports innovation in science teaching, and how can these be overcome?
* Answer: The study highlights that administrators play a crucial role in securing support and
resources. While it doesn't explicitly list "biggest barriers" to fostering innovation, the overall
context suggests barriers could include a lack of funding for alternative resources, insufficient
professional development opportunities, and perhaps a rigid adherence to traditional teaching
models. Overcoming these involves "facilitating collaboration with other institutions, encouraging
peer learning among teachers, and prioritizing professional development". This also implies
actively seeking and allocating "strategic funding for improvised science tools and digital
platforms" and establishing partnerships for shared laboratory access.
* Question: Looking ahead, what is the next logical step for research based on the findings of
this study?
* Answer: The study's conclusions suggest that while alternative strategies are employed, the
"challenges such as reduced hands-on experience and student disengagement persist,
highlighting the irreplaceable value of physical laboratories". Given this, a logical next step for
research could be to quantitatively assess the long-term impact of these alternative strategies
on student learning outcomes (e.g., skill proficiency, conceptual understanding, interest in
STEM fields) compared to traditional lab settings, perhaps through a quasi-experimental design.
Another step could involve developing and testing specific intervention programs or curriculum
modules focused on optimizing the implementation of DIY and virtual lab experiences in
resource-constrained schools, and then evaluating their effectiveness. Further research could
also explore the specific pedagogical training needs of teachers to effectively implement these
adaptive strategies and how to best support them in developing creative solutions.

"Lab Rats: Strategies for Science Teaching in the Absence of Adequate Laboratory Facilities"

1. What is the Topic About?

This study explores how science teachers deliver effective instruction without access to
standard laboratory facilities. It identifies alternative strategies such as improvised materials,
virtual labs, and hands-on DIY activities, and analyzes how these practices impact teaching and
learning.

2. What is the Significance of the Study?

Addresses Educational Inequality: Many schools in low-resource areas lack labs. This study
gives practical solutions for equitable science education.

Empowers Teachers: Provides realistic, applicable teaching strategies to enhance science

learning.

Supports Policy and Curriculum Innovation: It can influence curriculum developers to include
flexible, low-cost alternatives to traditional labs.

Responds to Post-Pandemic Needs: With increased remote and blended learning, this study
offers timely, practical interventions.
3. What is the Research Gap?

Most research focuses on science education with proper lab facilities.

There is limited literature on how science is taught effectively without a lab, especially in rural or
public schools in developing countries.

Few studies explore teacher-created strategies and the real-life improvisations used in under-
resourced settings.

4. What Theory Did You Base It On?

Primary Theoretical Framework:

Constructivist Theory (Bruner, Piaget)

Emphasizes learning through doing and experience.

Justifies the use of hands-on, improvised, and virtual activities as meaningful ways to construct
knowledge.

Supporting Theories:

Experiential Learning Theory (Kolb) – Learning through reflection on doing.

Social Learning Theory (Vygotsky) – Students learn through interaction and collaboration, which
supports group-based DIY science tasks.

Resource-Based Learning Theory – Highlights using available tools and materials to promote
deeper learning.

5. Is the Study Theory-Supported?

Yes. Your paper is grounded in established learning theories that validate your strategies.
Theories like constructivism and experiential learning support non-traditional approaches to
teaching science, especially when physical resources are lacking.

6. Interventions (if the study is done): What's Next?

If the study is already conducted, potential next steps include:

Wider Implementation: Share the strategies with more schools through training or printed
guides.
Teacher Workshops: Create professional development modules focused on improvised science
teaching.

Policy Recommendations: Present findings to education stakeholders to integrate DIY and

virtual lab approaches into curriculum guides.

Monitoring and Evaluation: Assess the long-term impact of these strategies on student
performance and engagement.

Further Research:

Quantitative study measuring effectiveness of DIY strategies on learning outcomes.

Explore student perspectives and experiences using these alternative strategies.