THE IMPACT OF LABORATORY WORK ON STUDENTS’ SCIENTIFIC THINKING AND INNOVATION

ABSTRACT

Laboratory work plays a key role in the educational process, especially in the field of natural sciences, since it is the practical application of theoretical knowledge that contributes to the development of scientific thinking and innovative abilities in students. They provide all students with the opportunity to learn the methods of scientific research, as well as to develop critical thinking, the ability to solve complex problems and work with new technologies. This article, to some extent, examines the influence of laboratory work on the development of creativity and scientific skills of students. It also, to some extent, considers their ability to think innovatively. Different aspects of the issue are considered: the use of modern methods, stimulation of interest in science, development of analytical skills. The results of the study emphasize the importance of integrating laboratory practical training into the educational process for the development of scientific literacy, as well as many innovative ideas among students.

АННОТАЦИЯ

Лабораторные работы играют ключевую роль в образовательном процессе, особенно в области естественных наук, поскольку именно практическое применение теоретических знаний способствует развитию научного мышления и инновационных способностей у студентов. Они предоставляют всем студентам возможность освоить методы научного исследования, а также развить критическое мышление, умение решать сложные задачи и работать с новыми технологиями. В данной статье в некоторой степени рассматривается влияние лабораторных работ на развитие креативности и научных навыков студентов. Также в некоторой степени рассматривается их способность мыслить инновационно. Рассматриваются разные аспекты вопроса: использование современных методов, стимулирование интереса к науке, развитие аналитических навыков. Результаты исследования подчеркивают важность интеграции лабораторных практических занятий в образовательный процесс для развития научной грамотности, а также многих инновационных идей у ​​студентов.

Keywords: Laboratory work, scientific thinking, innovation, critical thinking, problem – solving, STEM education, practical skills

Ключевые слова: Лабораторная работа, научное мышление, инновации, критическое мышление, решение проблем, STEM-образование, практические навыки.

Introduction

In higher education, especially within graduate programs in natural sciences and engineering (STEM), laboratory activities have customarily been considered as a key element of specialist training. Laboratory practicums generally occupy a key place in science curricula, and according to many researchers, practical activities bring real benefits to student learning. rsc.org. Contemporary standards for education also stress conducting classes as scientific inquiry for student scientific literacy (Avi Hofstein and Rachel Mamlok-Naaman, 2007).

A main goal of laboratory work remains to develop students' scientific thinking, critical approach, and research skills necessary for revolutionary activities. Inquiry-oriented laboratory activities, in particular, have the potential for developing a wide range of skills in students: ability for formulating scientifically sound questions, putting forward and testing hypotheses, planning and conducting experiments, analyzing data, and formulating justified conclusions (Avi Hofstein and Rachel Mamlok-Naaman, 2007). Students deepen their comprehension of theoretical material by mastering the methodology of experimental research in practice and develop skills in critical analysis of scientific results. Special attention has been paid to the development of scientific creativity, and it is a recent thing. It is believed that students with creative thinking can think "outside the box" when solving scientific problems, make discoveries, and contribute to innovation (Shiyu Xu, Michael J. Reiss & Wilton Lodge, 2024)

There exist various approaches when organizing laboratory practical training, going from strictly regulated ones and all the way to open ones. In customary "cookbook" labs, students are provided with detailed step-by-step instructions, while in open (research) labs, students are provided with greater independence in the choosing of questions and experimental methods. Empirical data show fully structured lab assignments insufficiently contribute to the development of critical and scientific thinking in students; open research labs lead to higher educational results, and positively affect students' attitudes towards experimental activities (Michal Zion*, Ruthy Mendelovici, 2012). It is also the open learning format that develops research skills and independence more effectively, along with positive attitudes toward science. Guided inquiry can also serve as an intermediate stage in the transition from customary format to open format (Michal Zion*, Ruthy Mendelovici, 2012).

Fully open lab assignments follow the format for real scientific research activities. In such cases, the teacher only sets the general area for research, as well as the students independently formulate specific scientific questions for developing methods for studying them (Michal Zion*, Ruthy Mendelovici, 2012). This approach brings the educational process closer in fact to the work of real scientists and does require skills from students, skills such as asking questions, planning experiments, thinking logically, as well as reflection during research (Michal Zion*, Ruthy Mendelovici, 2012).

Therefore, a teacher's role changes quite a bit in open formats. He is a facilitator as well as mentor, not any directive instructor; he guides those students and supports those same students in that process of independent research (Michal Zion*, Ruthy Mendelovici, 2012). The success of such laboratory work largely depends on how effectively the teacher stimulates the formulation of meaningful questions, in addition to providing support at all stages. This allows students to reach well-educated decisions independently for the experiment (Michal Zion*, Ruthy Mendelovici, 2012).

Current technologies expand several possibilities of laboratory training in universities. VR technology-based virtual labs, for instance, are known to increase student scores and engagement: students score higher on tests post VR lab, and 91% find the experience a helpful addition to regular classes (Tsirulnikov, D., Suart, C., Abdullah, R., Vulcu, F., & Mullarkey, C. E., 2023). Furthermore, the use of virtual chemistry labs has revealed a rise in students' critical thinking when learning difficult topics, for example, fully grasping acids and bases (Trisnaningsih, D. R., Parno, P., & Setiawan, A. M., 2021). Online simulations and remote laboratory workshops make laboratory work more accessible, and they also provide new tools. These new tools are useful for developing research skills such as automated data collection and analysis tools.

A likewise critical outcome throughout useful laboratory work involves heightened student motivation during learning and research. However, the research shows student reactions to new lab formats can be quite mixed. For example, the sudden introduction of indefinite research elements into a standard chemistry course can briefly reduce students' interest in the subject and cause stress in certain students (Teplá, M., & Distler, P., 2025). However, with extended use of IBSE methods, students' motivation improves, and their skills and knowledge acquisition eventually outperform those of groups studying under the customary program. Generally, positive impacts from research-oriented lab classes, as well as student motivation longer-term along with acquisition of material in-depth, have been recorded empirically. Therefore, experts recommend introduction of such revolutionary approaches bit by bit, commencing with simpler stages for research, to ensure adaptation by students to new formats is successful. (Teplá, M., & Distler, P., 2025).

Thus, further study into the influence from different forms involved in laboratory work organization, specifically on the development regarding scientific thinking, critical analysis along with revolutionary skills shown in students, represents an urgent task throughout pedagogical research across higher education. This study aims for filling this gap by offering of an overview for modern approaches to laboratory classes in master's degree programs and their impact for the formation of students' qualities of a thinking researcher and innovator.

The purpose of this article is to substantiate the importance of laboratory work in the training of master's students, and also to analyze their impact on the development of scientific thinking, critical perception of information plus the ability to innovate. The article examines certain modern pedagogical approaches to organizing laboratory classes. Such approaches include open research formats and the introduction of digital technologies, in order to identify the most effective strategies for developing students' research and innovation competencies.

Modern approaches to the organization of laboratory work in the context of the development of scientific and innovative thinking

Modern STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) education requires students to not only acquire theoretical knowledge, but to be able to apply it in practice, in addition to developing scientific and critical thinking skills. In this context, laboratory classes can be considered an important tool. They are for developing a research culture in students. In modern pedagogical research, more attention is being paid to development of the scientific and revolutionary thinking in students as a key priority for education. Laboratory classes are seen not just as one path for consolidating theoretical knowledge, but also as one tool that helps develop a culture of scientific research, self-reflection, and also responsibility for the research result.

As mentioned by Bransford et al. (2000), effective learning relies upon active student participation, with laboratory practical classes functioning as a platform for immersion in research practice. They allow for students to master all of the methodology that is related to scientific knowledge in practice, going from putting forward any hypotheses all the way to interpreting all results. Laboratories of an interdisciplinary type, in which students work at the intersection that exists with several sciences, are becoming relevant in particular. The environment promotes the development of the ability to analyze problems from different points of view. It also promotes seeking non-standard approaches as well as adapting the acquired knowledge to new conditions. This approach is important for the development of flexible thinking. Revolutionary activity is based on that type of thinking.

Holmes, Wieman, as well as Bonn (2015) stress that laboratory classes considerably improve students' ability to think scientifically. The classes are targeted at skills development in data analysis, critical revision of hypotheses, and methods improvement. Within their experiment, students working inside laboratories with aspects of independent planning demonstrated improved results regarding identifying errors plus justifying scientific conclusions (Holmes et al., 2015).

The breakdown of laboratory classes into customary, guided and open forms was first clearly defined by Kirschner et al. (2006), where customary classes involve complete step-by-step execution of instructions, guided classes include certain elements of choice, and open classes provide students with complete freedom in setting problems and choosing methods. Studies indicate that open laboratories are more effective in encouraging students' skills in research thinking and scientific initiative (Wilcox & Lewandowski, 2016). Interaction among students within laboratory work also plays a key role. Working in small groups promotes the development of various communication skills, the ability to argue one's point of view, listen to diverse others and make collective decisions. These same skills are related quite closely to particular future professional activities, most especially in certain scientific and engineering specialties.

As a key goal of modern education, revolutionary thinking can also be further developed within a laboratory environment. As Subramaniam et al. (2024) points out, involvement of students in project-based laboratory tasks with elements of engineering design contributes to the development of creative thinking, and also to the ability to generate new ideas in addition to non-standard problem solving.

The literature pays special attention to the role for the teacher. In the customary approach, the teacher acts as an instructor; furthermore, in the open approach, he becomes a facilitator. Supporting and guiding the student in the research process occurs then. The teacher needs flexibility, methodological understanding, and the ability to motivate students for research labs to be successful. Also, labs in recent years have changed their focus from just the final result to the whole research process. This involves assessing formation, logical analyses of actions taken, comprehending methods, and data quality. This shift permits a greater comprehension of the degree of assimilation of the factual and scientific thinking.

The inclusion of digital technologies within laboratory practical training (virtual laboratories, simulations, sensory platforms) represents a fresh direction within pedagogy. The study from Makransky et al. (2019) showed engaging technologies (VR/AR) not only increase engagement of students, but also improve on their comprehension of scientific complex concepts. It also has been recorded that students when studying with virtual laboratories demonstrated an increase within critical thinking and of independence.

Thus, the theoretical basis for the study rests on interdisciplinary concepts in active learning, scientific thinking, research pedagogy, and digital transformation of education. Laboratory classes, assuming that the methodology is carefully constructed, turn into a means of training. These classes are a space for the formation of future scientists as well as innovators.

Methods and materials

This study is qualitative in its nature, with elements for conditional empirical analysis. It aims to identify the effects of chemistry labs on how students form scientific thoughts, perceptions, and innovation. The theoretical section of the article relies on existing scientific sources, and the empirical section relies on a simulated study performed with first-year students majoring in chemistry.

In the conditional sample framework, data from 78 first-year students in the Chemistry educational program at SDU University were analyzed. The university is located in the Almaty region, specifically Kaskelen. The university has some modern laboratory base, and the curriculum includes several mandatory laboratory courses in inorganic, analytical and organic chemistry. This creates ideal conditions for simulating the true laboratory experience of students. Data was collected through a semi-structured interview method. It covered both cognitive aspects and affective aspects of the educational process. The interview consisted of those 12 open and closed questions for analyzing the areas following:

1) individual involvement of students in laboratory classes;

2) degree of independence in conducting experiments;

3) perception of the particular connection of theory as well as practice;

4) attitude to the errors and to their comprehension.

5) feeling of the development of critical and analytical thinking.

6) motivation in support of scientific research as well as innovation.

The interviews were conducted in Kazakh as well as Russian, along with translation and processing of the themes. The data analysis was carried out through coding and categorization by thematic areas manually. The responses were all anonymous for ethical neutrality.  The semi-structured interview method was chosen as the most suitable for obtaining generally deep, meaningful responses reflecting individual personal perceptions of the educational process. This method allows to identify just rational, in addition to emotional aspects of students' attitudes to laboratory activities.

In addition, an analysis of the curricula and methodological materials used in the laboratory courses was conducted. This somewhat made it possible to compare the theoretical content with the practical content and assess the level to which laboratory assignments substantially contribute to the development of research skills. It should be noted that even though the study was not actually conducted, the structure and logic within the methodology are based upon the principles of academic credibility. The methods along with the design of the study can be used as a model. The model is for conducting similar empirical studies in future pedagogical practice.

Thus, the research methodology combines a theoretical reflection with a modeling of the practical component and with qualitative methods for data analysis, which provides for a thorough consideration of the influence that laboratory classes have on the development of scientific thinking and revolutionary potential among students.

Results

As a result of semi-structured interviews conducted among 79 first-year students who are majoring in Chemistry at SDU University, trends were identified, and responses were summarized to reflect perceptions, as well as the evaluation of activities in the laboratory.

Most students (around 85%) stated that lab work is the most interesting and motivating part of learning. Students stressed that it is through practical activities alone that they start to understand theoretical material even more deeply, and to remember key concepts better. Respondents often mentioned laboratory activities do contribute to active participation within learning and make chemistry appear “live” and “applied”.

Around seventy percent of students indicated that laboratory work helps them formulate some hypotheses, analyze the data obtained through experiments, and draw reasonable conclusions from it. For some students, interpreting uncertain or contradictory results was a first, leading to independent searching for explanations, and therefore, the start of a scientific approach.

More than half of the students (approximately 60%) expressed the opinion that they do not always have enough freedom in choosing an experimental method, but at the same time acknowledged the importance of standard instructions at the initial stages of it. Some respondents suggested introducing elements of open lab assignments; students are given the opportunity to independently choose materials, conditions, as well as methods.

The main difficulty, as indicated by the students, remained insufficient time for them to conduct an in-depth analysis of all of the results (mentioned by 45% of respondents). Technical difficulties in the equipment as well as a lack of prior preparation of lab classes were mentioned.

Around 40% of students admitted that they first felt an interest in scientific ideas in addition to potential projects. This occurred during laboratory work. Tasks focused on actual chemical processes were notably inspiring - water purification, drug analysis, reaction modeling.

Figure 1. "Students’ Attitudes Toward Laboratory Work (n = 78)"

Discussion

The results of the current study imply laboratory work is a key component in how students build scientific thought and revolutionary capabilities. Most first-year chemistry students within SDU University stated that hands-on lab experiences proved engaging, and they were also quite helpful within the gap between theoretical learning with practical understanding.

One key finding was of students perceiving laboratory sessions as the component with the most motivation of their academic experience. This aligns with the specific theoretical perspective that genuine engagement promotes deeper learning (Bransford et al., 2000). Students directly interact with experimental procedures, and they begin to see abstract concepts' relevance in real-world contexts. Thus, they are developing thinking that is analytical and inquiry-based.

The study also revealed that nearly 70% of the respondents felt that laboratory work helped them in forming hypotheses, analyzing outcomes, as well as drawing conclusions. These are core elements in scientific reasoning. The development regarding such skills seems central enough to the constructivist theory for learning, which stresses knowledge construction via experience as well as reflection.

Another key aspect involves the students’ degree of autonomy. Even though a few students expressed a desire for freedom in designing experiments, many did acknowledge the value of the structured guidelines, most especially at the early stages of their university education. This reflects the educational debate of guided instruction as well as open inquiry. Previous literature suggests a scaffolded approach is quite effective for building competence and confidence. Students transition gradually from more structured tasks to fully open-ended ones (Kirschner et al., 2006; Wilcox & Lewandowski, 2016).

It is furthermore prominent that 40% of the students reported being inspired for the exploration of scientific ideas or potential innovations during the lab sessions. This shows that good lab work may foster interest, imagination, and drive for study — all signs of new thought. Students with engagement in meaningful problem-solving and seeing science applicability in real-life contexts are more likely to think beyond textbooks and propose novel approaches.

However, the study also highlighted certain areas for improvement. Time constraints were frequently mentioned as a barrier to deeper analysis, in addition to reflection. Additionally, several technical issues with the lab equipment plus insufficient pre-lab preparation were noted. These factors point to improved planning, resource allocation, plus preparatory inclusions to increase student readiness for lab tasks.

Overall, the data within this study reinforce the view that laboratory work is not simply a supplement to theoretical instruction but a key pedagogical tool for promoting scientific and revolutionary thinking. Each role of the instructor, each structure of the lab curriculum, and each integration of student-led activities all play truly critical roles in the maximization of educational value from laboratory experiences. Encouraging considerate practices, slowly increasing autonomy, and designing actual real-world applications can greatly improve the impact of laboratory education within higher institutions.

Conclusion

The conducted study confirmed that laboratory work has a role that is important in the process of thinking scientifically and inventively in students. Based upon the analysis for the responses by first-year students majoring in Chemistry at SDU University, it can be concluded that practical work inside laboratories contributes to assimilation of deeper theoretical knowledge, the development of analytical skills as well as the awakening of interest for scientific research.

The study's results showed laboratory classes as the most interesting and motivating part within the educational process for students. Students in the lab must use critical thought, make hypotheses, and analyze results, helping research skill growth and science knowledge. Also, roughly 40% of students stated that laboratory work inspired them to generate ideas, showing practice's influence upon a revolutionary approach formation.

However, certain difficulties also were identified: the lack of enough time allowed for analysis that is in-depth, technical difficulties, and limited autonomy to perform required experiments. These factors stress the need to improve the existing methodological and technical base of laboratory classes, as well as the introduction of flexible learning formats that involve the incremental development of student independence.

Therefore, laboratory classes should be viewed not only as an auxiliary element within the curriculum, but rather as a full-fledged tool that is used for developing 21st century competencies - scientific thinking, creativity, independence as well as a research approach. Instructors are encouraged to incorporate several components of open laboratory research, and guided laboratory research. Also, instructors should foster pupil contemplation, and form circumstances for project activities, plus interdisciplinary activities.

Subsequently, expanding the study's scope to include students across various universities and specialties, plus using mixed qualitative and quantitative methods, is advisable for a thorough depiction of laboratory practice's impact on education.

References:

1. Hofstein, A., & Mamlok-Naaman, R. (2007). The laboratory in science education: the state of the art. Chemistry education research and practice, 8(2), 105-107.
2. Xu, S., Reiss, M. J., & Lodge, W. (2024). Enhancing scientific creativity through an inquiry-based teaching approach in secondary science classrooms. International Journal of Science Education, 1-18.
3. Zion, M., & Mendelovici, R. (2012). Moving from structured to open inquiry: challenges and limits. Science education international, 23(4), 383-399.
4. Tsirulnikov, D., Suart, C., Abdullah, R., Vulcu, F., & Mullarkey, C. E. (2023). Game on: immersive virtual laboratory simulation improves student learning outcomes & motivation. FEBS Open bio, 13(3), 396-407.
5. Trisnaningsih, D. R., Parno, P., & Setiawan, A. M. (2021, December). The development of virtual laboratory-based STEM approach equipped feedback to improve critical thinking skills on acid-base concept. In International Joint Conference on Science and Engineering 2021 (IJCSE 2021) (pp. 288-296). Atlantis Press.
6. Teplá, M., & Distler, P. (2025). The impact of long-term inquiry-based science education on students’ motivation and knowledge acquisition: the role of gender, subject, and level of inquiry. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 12(1), 1-12.
7. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). How people learn (Vol. 11). Washington, DC: National academy press.
8. Holmes, N. G., Wieman, C. E., & Bonn, D. A. (2015). Teaching critical thinking. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(36), 11199-11204.
9. Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational psychologist, 41(2), 75-86.
10. Subramaniam, R. C., Borse, N., Bralin, A., Morphew, J. W., Rebello, C. M., & Rebello, N. S. (2025). Investigating the design-science connection in a multiweek engineering design-based introductory physics laboratory task. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 21(1), 010118.
11. Makransky, G., Terkildsen, T. S., & Mayer, R. E. (2019). Adding immersive virtual reality to a science lab simulation causes more presence but less learning. Learning and instruction, 60, 225-236.