Low-cost laboratories and active learning in science education
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.64747/wtyxy436Keywords:
active learning, low‑cost school laboratory, scientific inquiry, educational equity, Ecuadorian AndesAbstract
This study assesses a frugal intervention that combines low‑cost school laboratories with active‑learning sequences in science for upper elementary and lower‑secondary students (grades 5–10) in rural and peri‑urban areas of Ecuador’s Andean highlands (Chimborazo and Cotopaxi). We used a quasi‑experimental pre‑post design with nonequivalent groups plus qualitative components. The program comprised modular kits (mechanics, electricity, matter/mixtures, biodiversity), short inquiry‑based guides, formative assessment rubrics, and teacher coaching. Twenty‑four classes (N = 596) participated. Outcomes were analyzed with multilevel models, robustness ANCOVA, and propensity‑score weighting. Findings show moderate gains in scientific inquiry (g ≈ 0.45) and small‑to‑moderate gains in motivation (g ≈ 0.26) relative to traditional practice, with larger effects in mechanics and electricity than in matter/mixtures and biodiversity. A partial mediation (~38%) indicates that active‑learning intensity (on‑task time, discussion, argumentation) explains a substantial share of the effect. The positive interaction of treatment × rurality suggests slightly greater benefits in rural schools, helping narrow territorial gaps. The annualized cost per student was ≈ USD 1.84 and the incremental cost‑effectiveness ≈ USD 4.09 per 0.2 SD, demonstrating an excellent cost‑impact ratio with locally sourced materials and community maintenance. We conclude that frugal labs integrated with active pedagogy are feasible, effective, and sustainable for improving science learning in resource‑constrained settings. Future work should include cluster randomized trials, standardization of lower‑effect units, and streamlined monitoring of active‑learning intensity for scaling.
References
Ariza, J. Á., & Nomesqui, C. (2023). RaspyControl Lab: A fully open‑source and real‑time remote laboratory for education in automatic control systems using Raspberry Pi and Python. HardwareX, 13, e00396. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ohx.2023.e00396
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173
Brown, T. A. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research (2.ª ed.). Guilford Press. https://doi.org/10.5555/FA-CFA-2015
Cao, X., Zhang, Y., Li, J., & Chen, H. (2025). Systematic review and meta‑analysis of the impact of STEM education on student outcomes. Frontiers in Psychology, 16, 1579474. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1579474
Choudhury, D., Sharma, P., Bose, S., & Mitra, S. (2024). Developing a low‑cost, open‑source, locally manufactured workstation for digital slide capture and analysis. EBioMedicine, 100, 105112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ebiom.2024.105112
Flores‑Godínez, R., Alarcón‑Paredes, A., Guzmán‑Guzmán, I. P., Maldonado‑Astudillo, Y. I., & Alonso‑Silverio, G. A. (2025). Enhancing students’ interest in physics concepts with a low‑cost STEM tool focused on motivation in rural areas of developing countries. Education Sciences, 15(8), 994. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15080994
Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(23), 8410–8415. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1319030111
Hedges, L. V., & Hedberg, E. C. (2007). Intraclass correlation values for planning group‑randomized trials in education. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 29(1), 60–87. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373707299706
Ješková, Z., Kostečková, L., & Kireš, M. (2022). Active learning in STEM education with regard to the use of digital tools. Education Sciences, 12(10), 686. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12100686
Kraft, M. A. (2020). Interpreting effect sizes of education interventions. Educational Researcher, 49(4), 241–253. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X20912798
Lukas, F., Zimmermann, S., & Weber, A. (2024). Remotely operated optical lab equipment for education: A DIY approach. Optical Engineering, 63(7), 071414. https://doi.org/10.1117/1.OE.63.7.071414
Martella, A. M., Gentry, M., & Park, S. (2023). How rigorous is active learning research in STEM? Educational Psychology Review, 35, 45–78. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-023-09826-1
McDermott, S., Allan, M., & White, E. (2023). Controlling and scripting laboratory hardware with open‑source workflows. Royal Society Open Science, 10, 221236. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.221236
Reid, D. P., Tóth, P., & Majsak, D. (2022). Open‑source remote laboratory experiments for controls and instrumentation. Measurement and Control, 55(1–2), 117–128. https://doi.org/10.1177/03064190221081451
Ruo Roch, M., Pinna, L., & Depari, A. (2022). VirtLAB: A low‑cost platform for electronics lab experiments. Sensors, 22(13), 4840. https://doi.org/10.3390/s22134840
Ruiz, M. F. R. (2025a). Evaluación formativa con e‑rúbricas y aprendizaje por indagación en Ciencias Naturales (7.º–10.º EGB, Guayaquil). Horizonte Científico Educativo International Journal, 1(2), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.64747/emgnq411
Ruiz, M. F. R. (2025b). Tecnología, modelos pedagógicos y desempeño académico en EGB media y superior. Horizonte Científico International Journal, 3(2), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.64747/aj9hhg57
Stieha, V., Cavanagh, A. J., & Eddy, S. L. (2024). An exploration of the relationship between active learning and student motivation. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 23(4), arXX. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.23-01-0000
Theobald, E. J., Hill, M. J., Tran, E., Agrawal, S., Arroyo, E. N., Behling, S., … Freeman, S. (2020). Active learning narrows achievement gaps for underrepresented students in undergraduate STEM. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(12), 6476–6483. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1916903117
Wenzel, T., White, S., & Pearce, J. (2023). Open hardware: From DIY trend to global transformation in science. PLOS Biology, 21(4), e3001931. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3001931
Zhang, X., Liu, Y., & Wang, H. (2025). Collaborative science experiments based on virtual laboratories in primary education. AIMS Mathematics & STEM Education, 2(1), 013. https://doi.org/10.3934/steme.2025013
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Authors retain copyright and grant the journal the right of first publication. This work is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
