Examining experienced chemistry teachers’ perception and usage of virtual labs in chemistry classes: a qualitative study using the technology acceptance model 3

Abstract

Guided by the Technology Acceptance Model 3 (TAM-3), this study concerning VL focuses to examine chemistry teachers’ experiences, perceived ease of use, perceived usefulness, use intentions, actual use, and factors that affect them and to create a model of the real use of VL by chemistry teachers. The research was carried out in the holistic single case study design and data were collected from 26 chemistry teachers. It was found that only four chemistry teachers included the different VL applications in their lessons during and after distance education. However, although the chemistry teachers’ acceptance of the inclusion of VL in distance chemistry lessons is high, it was determined that some factors prevented teachers from putting VL into real use. The first factor affecting the teachers’ perceptions of the usefulness of VL is the thought that the problems encountered during the face-to-face laboratory, such as safety, inability to have every experiment done, and cost, will disappear with the use of VL. The other factor is that they think that the inclusion of VL will increase students’ participation because it attracts their attention. It was determined that chemistry teachers’ perceptions of ease of use regarding technology in general and VL, in particular, were primarily affected by technical difficulties such as teachers’ knowledge and skills related to technology, internet connection, lack of appropriate VL applications, and problems arising from students. On the other hand, it has been concluded that the most important factors affecting the teachers who transform the use of VLs into real behavior are the contribution of VL to chemistry teaching, safety, and time-saving. From a theoretical perspective, this study focuses on the main factors affecting chemistry teachers’ decisions to adopt VL for the inclusion of VL in chemistry lessons. On the practical side, this study will provide insight for chemistry teachers and university academics to develop strategies to help chemistry teachers find ways to increase their adoption of the VL in chemistry classes in ways that contribute to student learning.

Full text

Education and Information Technologies
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11985-1
Abstract
Guided by the Technology Acceptance Model 3 (TAM-3), this study concerning
VL focuses to examine chemistry teachers’ experiences, perceived ease of use,
perceived usefulness, use intentions, actual use, and factors that aect them and
to create a model of the real use of VL by chemistry teachers. The research was
carried out in the holistic single case study design and data were collected from
26 chemistry teachers. It was found that only four chemistry teachers included the
dierent VL applications in their lessons during and after distance education. How-
ever, although the chemistry teachers’ acceptance of the inclusion of VL in distance
chemistry lessons is high, it was determined that some factors prevented teachers
from putting VL into real use. The rst factor aecting the teachers’ perceptions
of the usefulness of VL is the thought that the problems encountered during the
face-to-face laboratory, such as safety, inability to have every experiment done,
and cost, will disappear with the use of VL. The other factor is that they think that
the inclusion of VL will increase students’ participation because it attracts their
attention. It was determined that chemistry teachers’ perceptions of ease of use
regarding technology in general and VL, in particular, were primarily aected by
technical diculties such as teachers’ knowledge and skills related to technology,
internet connection, lack of appropriate VL applications, and problems arising from
students. On the other hand, it has been concluded that the most important factors
aecting the teachers who transform the use of VLs into real behavior are the con-
tribution of VL to chemistry teaching, safety, and time-saving. From a theoretical
perspective, this study focuses on the main factors aecting chemistry teachers’
decisions to adopt VL for the inclusion of VL in chemistry lessons. On the practical
side, this study will provide insight for chemistry teachers and university academics
to develop strategies to help chemistry teachers nd ways to increase their adoption
of the VL in chemistry classes in ways that contribute to student learning.
Received: 12 December 2022 / Accepted: 20 June 2023
© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature
2023
Examining experienced chemistry teachers’ perception
and usage of virtual labs in chemistry classes: a qualitative
study using the technology acceptance model 3
Senem ÇolakYazici1· CananNakıboğlu2
Extended author information available on the last page of the article
1 3

Education and Information Technologies
Keywords Virtual laboratory · Chemistry education · Distance education ·
Technology-aided education · Science education
1 Introduction
Due to the nature of chemistry topics and concepts that require understanding three
dierent levels of knowledge (macroscopic, sub-microscopic, and symbolic), dier-
ent teaching strategies, methods, and techniques are required in chemistry classes.
Moreover, it was indicated that activities performed in learning environments such
as laboratories, virtual laboratories, and games expose students to realistic problems,
enabling them to concentrate on the problem situation and use their information pro-
cessing capacity (Bellotti et al., 2010; Nechypurenko et al., 2022). For this reason,
including laboratory or applied experimental activities in chemistry lessons will not
only enable students to better understand dierent levels of chemistry by integrat-
ing them with each other but also enable them to focus on real-life problems. Many
experiments within the scope of secondary education chemistry courses can be prac-
ticed in two ways as virtual and face-to-face laboratories. Face-to-face chemistry
laboratories not only provide students with dierent psychomotor skills but also con-
tribute signicantly to their learning. However, the need for time, space, and too
many chemicals has shown that chemistry teachers do not prefer to use a lot of face-
to-face laboratories in their lessons (Fevzioğlu et al., 2011; Nakiboğlu, 2021). On the
other hand, virtual laboratories (VLs) can provide a laboratory learning environment
for teachers with the features to overcome all these situations. Research has also
shown that VLs allow for seeing the results by making the experiments that cannot
be transferred to the laboratory environment observable. Besides, it has also been
concluded that the learning outcomes obtained in VL experiments that can be carried
out in face-to-face laboratories are quite similar to the results obtained in face-to-face
laboratories (Seifan et al., 2020).
With the inclusion of distance education and technology in the chemistry lesson
teaching environment, it can be expected that VLs will be given more space in the
lessons. On the other hand, accepting new technology and its integration into the sup-
port always brings some diculties. For this reason, identifying factors that inuence
the adoption of virtual laboratory inclusion in distance chemistry lessons is essential
to providing its acceptability by the teachers, and eective usage and sustainability
in chemistry classes. A better understanding of these factors can also provide crucial
information for educators, school administrators, and other education stakeholders.
In addition, determining the factors aecting the situation of chemistry teachers who
intended to include VLs in their classes but could not use them or did not adopt the
usage of the VLs would also contribute to understanding this situation. For this rea-
son, a qualitative study was designed to explore the experiences and/or perspectives
and thoughts of the chemistry teachers who use or do not include the VL in their les-
sons during compulsory distance education. Guided by the Technology Acceptance
Model 3 (TAM-3), the current study concerning VLs focuses on examining chemis-
try teachers’ experiences, perceived ease of use, perceived usefulness, use intentions,
actual use, and factors that aect them.
1 3

Education and Information Technologies
1.1 The theoretical and practical background of the study
In this section, the theoretical and practical structure of the study is discussed sepa-
rately, since the study examines the situation of chemistry teachers about adding
VL to chemistry classes in the distance education process based on the technology
acceptance model.
1.1.1 Virtual laboratories and their role in chemistry education
VLs are considered interactive environments where simulated experiments can be
conducted. Interactive VLs are two-dimensional simulations that address targeted
concepts. They can also be dened broadly as “experimental playgrounds” provid-
ing tools that can be used to interact in a virtual environment with objects related to
experiments in a particular scientic eld/subject (such as chemicals in a chemis-
try laboratory) that can be applied in a face-to-face laboratory or simply moved to
the virtual environment. A VL application is based on real tools and carries many
components such as chemicals, heaters, glass materials, and chemical reactions into
the virtual environment following reality (Wästberg et al., 2019). VLs not only pro-
vide an environment close to the real experimental environment but also compare
and visualize dierent experimental results with various parameters. Thus, through
increased use of VLs, it can be ensured that the retention of chemistry learning can
be improved by allowing the learner to see alternative situations (Liu et al., 2022).
Within this context, VL applications increase students’ positive attitudes toward
chemistry and improve interactive and collaborative teaching and learning processes
(Climent-Bellido et al., 2003).
It is a signicant part of chemistry education that students make experiments in the
laboratory environment in chemistry lessons and that laboratories become a learning
environment. With laboratory activities in chemistry lessons, individuals have the
opportunity to create their own experiences with concrete materials. Many labora-
tory-oriented chemistry education studies conducted for many years have revealed
that conducting experimental studies in chemistry classes has signicant eects on
students’ learning and development of cognitive and process skills (Hofstein et al.,
2005; Hofstein & Naaman, 2007). With the introduction of technology into teaching
environments and the understanding that it has important eects on learning, tech-
nology has begun to be used for laboratory studies. Many studies have been carried
out, including experiments that will contribute to the understanding of particle-sized
events such as chemistry, and simulations for a better understanding of such issues.
At this point, it has been seen that many disadvantages of running face-to-face chem-
istry laboratories can be avoided with the advantages of VL applications given below.
The advantages of the VLs are: (a) oer accessibility anywhere and anytime; (b) pro-
vide the opportunity to repeat enough to allow the learner to learn at their own pace;
(c) In groups formed in face-to-face laboratories, one student is more active and the
others remain passive, but in virtual laboratories, the student has the opportunity to
experiment individually; (d) They are economic due to not requiring substances; (e)
They are harmless to the environment due to not requiring the use of chemicals; (f) In
particular, it is not possible to understand the mechanism of subjects such as chemi-
1 3

Education and Information Technologies
cal reactions, molecular symmetry, the position of substituent groups in molecules
that require high visual-spatial intelligence, and there is the possible contribution
to concretizing these subjects by visualizing them in virtual laboratories; (g) They
provide visualization of environments that cannot be experimented with in any way
in daily life; (h) They allow for some experiments, especially in the eld of health,
which cannot be conducted due to ethical issues; (i) They contribute to critical think-
ing and problem-solving skills; (j) They provide student-centered learning; k) They
have also many other advantages such as oering interesting software suitable for
Generation Z born in the age of technology (Achuthan et al., 2017, 2018; Madhuri
& Goteti, 2022).
Besides them, it has been shown that the combination or integration of virtual and
face-to-face laboratory practice in chemistry classes can also bring many advantages.
For example, Achuthan et al. (2017) concluded that students’ training in VLs before
face-to-face laboratories increased learning signicantly (> 100%) compared to those
who experimented only in face-to-face laboratories. Dalgarno et al. (2009) have
investigated the eectiveness of a VL as a preparatory resource for distance educa-
tion chemistry students by providing students with a CD-ROM containing the virtual
chemistry laboratory and a simulated 3D environment developed as an accurate rep-
resentation of the teaching laboratories. They found that the VL can be an eective
tool to help students develop their familiarity with the laboratory environment before
their laboratory sessions. Qu et al. (2022) investigated virtual chemistry laboratory
modules as a potential learning resource that complements traditional in-person
experiments. They reached the result that independent learning through modules
had an overall positive impact on learning when used in conjunction with traditional
methods. Bortnik et al. (2017) have focused to determine the eect of a virtual chem-
istry laboratory on student achievement in university-level chemistry courses. They
have assessed the eectiveness of a virtual chemistry laboratory related to enhanc-
ing student scientic literacy, research skills, and practices through a comparison
with the traditional in-class format. They found that the adopted approach blending
both virtual and hands-on learning environments has the potential to enhance student
research skills and practices in analytical chemistry studies.
When the literature on VLs is examined, it is seen that there are also dierent
types of studies on the use of VLs in chemistry teaching. Especially, it is noticed that
studies examining the eects of VLs on students’ conceptual understanding and dif-
ferent skill acquisitions come to the fore. Josephsen and Kristensen (2006) examined
the responses of undergraduate chemistry students to the SimuLab computer-based
learning environment simulating a 20-hour laboratory assignment. The SimuLab used
by them was a cognitive tool designed to help students to acquire experimental and
analytical skills based on a classical qualitative and quantitative analysis scheme and
to develop their ability to interpret experimental results. They concluded that Simu-
Lab reduced cognitive load, allowing students to focus their attention on higher-level
processes, leaving more room for scientic reasoning. In some chemistry education
research, it is seen that virtual labs and normal hands-on format lab applications
focus on the eects of conceptual teaching. Hawkins and Phelps (2013) conducted
a university-level electrochemistry lab in two groups with two dierent methods. At
the end of the study, when students compared conceptual and factual understanding,
1 3

Education and Information Technologies
they concluded that although there were dierences in student results in some parts
of the test, there was no signicant dierence in the scores in the pre-test, post-test, or
practical setup test. However, they stated that their study showed that a VL simulation
is as good as a normal applied general chemistry laboratory in teaching electrochem-
istry concepts and voltaic battery installation. They also suggested that more research
is needed to determine the eectiveness of VLs to replace more traditional hands-on
lab experiences.
Additionally, in some of the studies conducted with VLs in chemistry lessons, it
was determined that they also aected students’ cognitive learning (Achuthan et al.,
2018; Climent-Bellido et al., 2003; Sari et al., 2021; Tüysüz, 2010). For example,
Climent-Bellido et al. (2003) conducted an educational experiment to assess the soft-
ware’s inuence on student understanding of some basic organic chemistry labora-
tory techniques by using Virtual Chemistry Laboratory (VCL). They revealed that
the use of VCL helps students gain a better understanding of the techniques and
basic concepts used in laboratory work. They also put forth that using the program
particularly contributes towards improving the progress of those students with the
greatest learning diculties. Similarly, Tüysüz (2010) investigated VCL eects on
9th-grade students’ achievements and attitudes. This study showed that VL applica-
tions positively aected students’ achievements and attitudes compared to traditional
teaching methods. Some of the studies have also shown that the use of VLs in chem-
istry lessons is successful in correcting students’ alternative conceptions as well as
learning diculties. In one of these studies, Achuthan et al. (2018) elaborated on a
methodology designed to discover the alternate conceptions stemming from teaching
molecular symmetry in a typical classroom environment and the impact of the VL
environment in correcting these misconceptions. Their results suggested that there
was a signicant statistical improvement in understanding molecular symmetry con-
cepts after subjecting students to the interactive VL platform.
Some studies have been conducted to examine the dierent advantages of VLs in
chemistry lessons and dierent teaching approaches and applications. In one of this
study conducted by Tatlı and Ayas (2011), it was found that the virtual chemistry
software lessened the burden on teachers and provided several contributions such as
making use of time more eciently, applying a constructivist learning approach, and
managing the process in a planned manner. It was also observed that VLs are success-
ful enough to be used as a supportive and alternative medium compared to face-to-
face lab environments. In another study, Tatli and Ayas (2013) also concluded that the
students who joined VL activities could associate the results with daily life, and they
felt comfortable in the laboratory environment and had the chance to examine each
experiment on macroscopic, molecular, and symbolic levels. In addition, in some
review studies carried out, it has been shown that some disadvantages of VLs have
been determined as well as the advantages of VLs based on the studies examined.
In their review study, Ali and Ullah (2020) examined the contribution of VLs in
chemistry education in generally. They analyzed the benets of VLs in chemistry
education, compared the 2D and 3D virtual chemistry laboratories, and suggested
guidelines/solutions for the development/ improvement of future virtual chemistry
education. For this purpose, they reviewed the studies related to the use of virtual
chemistry laboratories (VCLs) in chemistry education published as full articles both
1 3

Education and Information Technologies
in conferences and scientic journals during the period 1997 − 2020. It was found in
the studies on the use of virtual labs for chemistry classes that the use of the applica-
tion has several advantages such as encouraging the students, increasing participation
in the class, ensuring the cognitive prociency acquired in real laboratories, allowing
for dierent activities in the class as they require less time, providing materials that
support self-learning, and increasing the learning. As concluded by the authors, the
disadvantages observed in the several studies such as: that students have diculty
using the applications since not every country has virtual lab software in its native
language; in some of the applications, there are not sucient instructions to enable
students to use them or some of the virtual labs are not adequate for the class.
Besides aforementioned studies concerning VLs, the importance of the use of arti-
cial intelligence in virtual laboratory applications is also increasing day by day in
terms of the fact that the experimental and analysis results obtained are almost the
same as the face-to-face laboratory (Paranjape et al., 2021; Samarakou et al., 2014;
Schi, 2021). It is indicated that especially in virtual laboratories where augmented
reality and articial intelligence are used, visuality and personalized feedback increase
learning. In addition to increasing visuality, articial intelligence laboratories, where
students can interact according to their own needs, allow the student to choose mate-
rials and applications that are suitable for their abilities (Hou, & Lin, 2017; Wahyono
et al., 2020). Thus, a learning environment suitable for learning speed is provided
with personalized feedback.
1.1.2 Technology acceptance model
While some of the teachers who used technology in their teaching period during the
distance education period or for dierent reasons continued to use technology in their
lessons after the compulsory use period, some of them returned to traditional teach-
ing methods. While it is known that the inclusion of technology in classes contributes
to many competencies like problem-solving skills, intellectual thinking skills, and
digital competence, it can be the right question why some educators include tech-
nology in their lessons while others do not. It can be said that one of the important
reasons for this may be that teachers do not adopt technology suciently.
Technology acceptance can be dened as the process of people accepting and
using technology or their intention to use it. With the application of information tech-
nologies in almost every eld, the acceptance of technology and the adoption of
its use have become an important eld of study. Accordingly, it has been directed
to investigate which factors people adopt and start to adopt the technology. Many
technological or psychological factors aect people’s decisions and/or behaviors to
use technological systems (Çivril & Özkul, 2021). Various theories and models have
emerged in order to reveal and understand these factors and to examine their atti-
tudes and behaviors toward adopting developing technologies. One of these models
is the technology acceptance model (TAM) which is the most widely used model
for identifying factors that contribute to the acceptance of technology (Venkatesh &
Davis, 2000; Zhu & Zeng, 2022). According to this model, people’s tendency to use
an application is directly proportional to their belief that it will help them do their job
better. The original purpose of the TAM proposed by Davis (1989) was to identify the
1 3

Education and Information Technologies
factors that facilitate the integration of technologies into an organization and discover
why users accept or reject technology (Lindsay et al., 2011). Although the TAM is the
most widely used model for identifying factors that contribute towards acceptance of
technology, some criticisms have been done about TAM. Venkatesh and Bala (2008)
indicated that one of the most common criticisms of TAM has been the lack of action-
able guidance to practitioners. TAM has two determinants like perceived usefulness
(PU) and perceived ease of use (PEU). According to Davis’ theory, PU is whether
the technology will enhance the user’s job performance, and PEU relates to whether
using the system will be free from eort (Lindsay et al., 2011). Several studies have
been done to address the limitation by identifying determinants of key predictors
in TAM. Venkatesh and Davis (2000) identied general determinants of perceived
usefulness and Venkatesh (2000) identied general determinants of perceived ease of
use. So, Venkatesh and Davis (2000) developed the TAM 2 theory to further explain
the construct of perceived usefulness.
The TAM2 model has been extended to include additional key determinants of
TAM’s PU constructs, incorporating social inuences and cognitive instrumental
processes. While the social inuence category includes subjective norm, voluntari-
ness, image, and experience, the cognitive instrumental processes category, job rel-
evance, output quality, and result demonstrability are considered. It was accepted
that the TAM2 was limited in that it only explores the basis of the PU component
and ignores the PEOU construct (Lindsay et al., 2011; Venkatesh & Bala, 2008).
Then, Venkatesh and Bala (2008) combined TAM 2 with the perceived ease of use
(USE) developed by Venkatesh (2000) to become TAM-3 TAM-3 expanded on ear-
lier versions of the model by incorporating social norms, human and social change
processes, and adding additional determinants of perceived ease of use and perceived
usefulness. As seen in Fig. 1, TAM 3 developed by Venkatesh and Bala (2008) has
17 variables such as anchor factors (Computer self-ecacy, Perception of ecacy,
Computer anxiety, and Computer playfulness), adjustment factors (Perceived enjoy-
ment, Objective usefulness), Image, Job relevance, Output quality, Result demonstra-
bility, Subjective norm, Experience, and Voluntariness aecting Perceived usefulness
and Perceived ease of use to then aecting Behavioral intention and Use Behavior
(UB) (Setiyani et al., 2021).
1.2 Purpose and research questions of the study
As explained above in the sub-section “Virtual laboratories and their role in chem-
istry education” of the study, in research on the use of VL in chemistry lessons at
dierent levels, the use of VL in chemistry lessons contributes to students’ learning
and development of dierent skills. It is also important in terms of removing some of
the limitations of real chemistry laboratories. Although the TAM in diverse areas and
in dierent ways has been applied, no study has been found on the factors aecting
the use of VL in chemistry education, which is so eective, on teachers’ acceptance
and use of technology related to any TAM model. On the other hand, a few studies
were found in which students’ perceptions of using VLs, even in dierent disciplines,
were examined according to the TAM model (Çivril & Özkul, 2021; Estriegana et al.,
2019). Çivril and Özkul (2021) have conducted a study concerning laboratory appli-
1 3

Education and Information Technologies
cations of circuit analysis within an associate degree program at a distance teaching
university to examine the learners’ intentions to use a VL within the framework of the
technology acceptance model (TAM). They carried out a qualitative case study rst
and then conducted a quantitative phase. They used content analysis for the analysis
of qualitative data, and the partial least squares structural equation model for the
analysis of quantitative data. They developed a TAM-based research model which
is a useful conceptual framework for understanding and explaining the intentions of
learners’ virtual laboratory usage. They have indicated that the results of their study
would be guided institutions to integrate VLs eectively into the education process
and to increase and disseminate the use of VLs by learners. Estriegana et al. (2019)
investigated student acceptance of virtual laboratory and practical work as an exten-
Fig. 1 The TAM-3 (The Technology Acceptance Model 3) model. Retrieved from Venkatesh and Bala
(2008) Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions. Decision Sciences.
2008, 39, 273–315. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.2008.00192.x
1 3

Education and Information Technologies
sion of the technology admission model. They focused on students’ acceptance of
technology and the process of adopting an online learning environment incorporating
web-based resources, such as virtual laboratories, interactive activities, educational
videos, and a game-based learning methodology. In this study, which was carried out
as a quantitative study, they analyzed their data using structural equation modeling.
Although their study was based on the technology acceptance model (TAM), the
study included and assessed other factors such as perceived eciency, playfulness,
and satisfaction, which are not explained by the TAM. They found that this extension
of the TAM provides a useful theoretical model to help understand and explain users’
acceptance of an online learning environment incorporating virtual laboratory and
practical work.
Based on all these explanations, it can be said that there is a lack of studies explor-
ing teachers’ perception and usage of virtual Labs in Distance Chemistry Classes by
using the Technology Acceptance Model 3. In addition, there is almost no qualitative
study conducted with TAM 3, and also almost no adapted model was reached at the
end of this type of study. Only Usmanova et al. (2020) at the end of a qualitative
study for a healthcare setting using technology acceptance model-3, were able to
present a model drawing adapted to TAM-3. On the other hand, identifying factors
that inuence the adoption of VL inclusion in distance chemistry lessons are essential
to providing its acceptability by the teachers, and eective usage and sustainability
in chemistry classes. The degree to which any factor inuences a teacher’s decision
could help in understanding whether the teacher reached a certain level of usage and
why.
Guided by the Technology Acceptance Model 3 (TAM-3), this study focuses on
examining chemistry teachers’ experiences, perceived ease of use, perceived useful-
ness, intentions of use, actual use, and factors aecting them in the context of VL.
Accordingly, the research problems are listed below:
1. What are the constructs of chemistry teachers’ perceived usefulness in the con-
text of the inclusion of VL in chemistry courses?
2. What are the constructs of chemistry teachers’ perceived ease of use in the con-
text of the inclusion of VL in chemistry courses?
3. What are the factors which aect chemistry teachers’ use behavior concerning
VL, and the barriers to user behavior and behavioral intention in the context of
VL?
4. Can a specic VL technology acceptance model based on TAM3 be proposed in
the context of the inclusion of VL in chemistry courses?
2 Method
2.1 Design
The case study design was chosen to conduct the present study since it was aimed
at obtaining thorough information on the parameters related to chemistry teachers’
acceptance and use of the VLs in their chemistry classes. The case study is dened
1 3

Education and Information Technologies
by Creswell et al. (2007) as a qualitative research approach through which one or
more cases are examined in depth within a certain period and themes are created in
association with the case(s). There are dierent case study designs. The study was
structured according to the holistic single case design, one of the case study designs
since the group of chemistry teachers was considered as a single analysis unit. There
are several reasons for using the holistic single case design. One of them is that if
there is a well-formulated theory, it is used to conrm or refute it (Yıldırım & Şimşek,
2021, p.313). In this study, it was decided that the inclusion of virtual laboratories by
chemistry teachers in the distance education process was suitable for the single case
pattern, since it was investigated whether it works in accordance with the TAM-3
model (It shown in Fig. 1). The reason to choose TAM-3 in the current study is that
it includes determinants that could possibly inuence both perceived usefulness (PU)
and perceived ease of use (PEU). For the current research, the PU of chemistry teach-
ers can be considered as the perception that the inclusion of VL in distance education
chemistry courses will increase students’ participation in the course, contribute to
their learning, and contribute to the elimination of the disadvantages of face-to-face
laboratories, thus achieving the goals of the chemistry course. In addition, it was
thought that teachers’ experiences with VL were eective on their PU. The chemistry
teachers’ PEU could be regarded as the degree to which chemistry teacher thinks that
their technology self-ecacy and knowledge, and the suitability of external condi-
tions facilitate the usage of VL.
2.2 Context of study and participants
Although the main source of training chemistry teachers for high school (it is also
called upper secondary school) in Turkey is the chemistry teaching programs of edu-
cation faculties, people who graduated from the chemistry department of the faculty
of science and literature or who graduated from chemistry engineering can also get
a chemistry teacher license by taking the necessary pedagogy courses. However, no
matter what source they come from, they must be successful in the exams for teach-
ers in order to work in public schools. On the other hand, there is no requirement to
be successful in this type of exam in order to teach in private schools. Although the
education faculty chemistry teaching programs are currently a four-year program, in
the past, between 1998 and 2013, they were in the form of a ve-year non-thesis mas-
ter program. In addition, chemistry teachers can continue their master’s with a thesis
and then doctorate programs if they desire. For this reason, the chemistry teachers
involved in the study have dierent graduate degrees such as undergraduate, non-
thesis master, master, and doctoral graduates. In Turkey, where 12 years of compul-
sory education is implemented, high schools are 4 years. While chemistry subjects
together with other science disciplines subjects are included in the science course in
secondary school, chemistry is included as a separate course in high schools. There
are dierent types of high schools such as Anatolian High School, Science High
School, and Vocational High School, and two dierent high school chemistry cur-
riculums are used in Science High schools and other high schools. In these two cur-
ricula, the units and topics are the same, only in the Science High School curriculum
the number of achievements is higher, and more experimental studies are included.
1 3

Education and Information Technologies
Turkey is located in both Europe and Asia and has seven geographical regions. The
same high school chemistry curriculum is used in all regions.
For the sample selection, the maximum diversity sampling method was used to
explore whether groups with dierent attributes had a shared phenomenon and show
dierent aspects of the problem addressed with that dierentiation, and information
was collected from all regions of the country and included in the research (Gündoğan
& Özgen, 2020). For this purpose, attention was paid to the inclusion of teachers
from all seven regions in Turkey in the study. In addition, chemistry teachers who
work in dierent high school types, have dierent professional experiences and have
dierent graduations are included. On the other hand, more female chemistry teach-
ers participated in the study. According to, the 2021–2022 year National Education
Statistics Formal Education, there is information that the number of female teach-
ers is higher than male teachers in all high schools teachers (MEB, 2022). For this
reason, one reason more female teachers participated in the study is related to the
high number of women in chemistry teachers in Turkey, while on the other hand,
participation in the study is on a voluntary basis and more female teachers agree to
participate in the study. Although teachers with dierent working years were allowed
to participate in the study, only one of the chemistry teachers included in the study
had a professional experience of fewer than 5 years. For this reason, all chemistry
teachers participating in the study were considered as experienced chemistry teach-
ers. Finally, 26 experienced chemistry teachers, six male and 20 female, took part in
the study. Data were collected during the academic year of 2021–2022. The distribu-
tion of chemistry teachers in the study according to their demographic characteristics
and codes is shown in Table 1.
As seen from Table 1, most of the teachers were 36 years old and older (f:19,
73.1%), and the teachers with 6–10 years of service constituted the majority with a
frequency of 11 (42.3%). The majority of the chemistry teachers participating in the
research graduated from a faculty of education, department of chemistry teaching
(f:16, 61.5%). As for the degrees of graduation, 12 (46.2%) teachers had a non-thesis
master’s program degree, nine (34.6%) had a bachelor’s degree, three (15.4%) had a
master’s degree with a thesis degree and one (3.8%) had a doctoral degree. Chemis-
try teachers from seven geographical regions of Turkey participated in the research;
the highest participation rate was from the Black Sea Region with a frequency of 10
(38.5%). While the schools of 16 (61.5%) teachers are located in city centers while
the schools of 10 (38.5%) teachers are located in districts. Finally, some of the partic-
ipating teachers were working in Anatolian high schools with a maximum frequency
of 12 (46.2%) in the study.
2.3 Data collection and analysis
The data were collected from the participants with a “written opinion form” via
Google Forms. The opinion form submitted to the teachers via Google Forms is com-
posed of three dierent parts which are the voluntary participation form, and two
sections collecting demographic data and teacher opinions. The teachers were asked
about gender, age, degree of graduation, years of service, school location, region of
school, and program of graduation in the part collecting the demographic data. In the
1 3

Education and Information Technologies
Table 1 Codes of chemistry teachers according to their demographics
Demographics Chemistry Teacher’s No f %
Gender Female CT1, CT2, CT3, CT4, CT6, CT7, CT8, CT10, CT11,
CT14, CT15, CT16, CT17, CT18, CT19, CT20, CT21,
CT22, CT24,CT25
20 76.9
Male CT5, CT9, CT12, CT13, CT23,CT26 6 23.1
Age 27–30 years CT17 1 3.8
31–35 years CT11, CT12, CT19,
CT20, CT22, CT23
6 23.1
36 years and
older
CT1, CT2, CT3, CT4, CT5, CT6, CT7, CT8, CT9,
CT10, CT13, CT14, CT15, CT16, CT18, CT21, CT24,
CT25, CT26
19 73.1
Graduation
Degree
bachelor’s
degree
CT8, CT9, CT11, CT12, CT13, CT15, CT16, CT17,
CT19
9 34.6
non-thesis mas-
ter’s program
CT2, CT4, CT5, CT6, CT7, CT10, CT14, CT18,
CT20, CT22, CT23, CT24
12 46.2
masters with a
thesis degree
CT1, CT3, CT21, CT26 4 15.4
doctorate degree CT25 1 3.8
Years of service 1–5 years CT19 1 3.8
6–10 years CT1, CT3, CT4, CT5, CT11, CT12, CT17, CT20,
CT21, CT22, CT23
11 42.3
11–15 years CT2, CT6, CT7, CT14, CT18 5 19.2
16–20 years CT8, CT10, CT15, CT16, CT24,26 6 23.1
Other CT9, CT13, CT25 3 11.5
School location Province CT2, CT6, CT7, CT10, CT11, CT12, CT14, CT15,
CT16, CT17, CT18, CT20, CT23, CT24, CT25, CT26
16 61.5
District CT1, CT3, CT4, CT5, CT8, CT9, CT13, CT19, CT21,
CT22
10 38.5
Region of
school
Mediterranean CT2, CT3, CT4, CT7 4 15.4
Eastern Anatolia CT6, CT10 2 7.7
Aegean CT22, CT26 2 7.7
Southeastern
Anatolia
CT5, CT15 2 7.7
Central Anatolia CT21 1 3.8
Marmara CT1, CT14, CT19, CT20, CT25 5 19.2
Black Sea CT8, CT9, CT11, CT12, CT13, CT16, CT17, CT18,
CT23, CT24
10 38.5
Program of
graduation
Chemistry
Teaching
CT1, CT3, CT4, CT5, CT6, CT7, CT8, CT10, CT13,
CT14, CT16, CT21, CT22, CT23, CT25, CT26
16 61.5
Department of
Chemistry
CT2, CT9, CT11, CT12, CT15, CT17, CT18, CT19,
CT20, CT24
10 38.5
Type of School
Served
Anatolian High
School
CT2, CT3, CT4, CT5, CT6, CT7, CT15, CT18, CT21,
CT22, CT24, CT26
12 46.2
Anatolian İHL CT16, CT20 2 7.7
Project İHL CT23 1 3.8
Science High
School
CT8, CT9, CT13 3 11.5
Private high
school
CT10, CT11, CT17, CT25 4 15.4
Vocational high
School
CT1, CT14, CT19 3 11.5
Other CT12 1 3.8
1 3

Education and Information Technologies
third part asking about teacher opinions, the participating chemistry teachers were
asked 19 questions; of those questions, three were yes/no questions, and 16 required
explanation. When developing the opinion form, researchers created separate ques-
tion pools and picked questions from among them to form a shared question pool
that was t for the study’s objective. The researchers chose the questions to be used
in the study from the shared question pool. Questions chosen by each researcher
were compared, and 19 questions t for the objective were agreed upon for use in
the study. Before submitting the three-part form to the participants, the study was
reviewed by an academic from educational sciences to conrm the comprehensibility
of the questions and perform a validity study. The content and comprehensibility of
the questions were examined by a chemistry teacher who has a doctorate degree in
chemistry teaching and often uses virtual lab and technology-aided teaching methods
in their classes.
Data analysis Both deductive and inductive content analyses were used together in
data analysis. Deductive analysis is a method in which a previously created concep-
tual framework directs the content analysis, and inductive analysis is an analysis
method in which the concepts and themes emerging from the data are at the forefront.
The study data were rst analyzed with inductive content analysis, and concepts and
themes were determined, and then their deductive analysis was made according to
the components of the TAM3 model, and two analysis methods were used together.
Deductive analysis helped to guide the sub-questions of the research, and the themes
included in the data were reached with the analysis made according to TAM3. On the
other hand, in the rst analysis of the data, the data analysis framework was deter-
mined with inductive analysis and analytical generalizations were reached. One of
the purposes of reducing qualitative data to numbers is to diversify and enrich it with
numbers. It is also possible to present the qualitative data numerically and to compare
the themes and categories that emerged as a result of the analysis. The qualitative data
obtained for this purpose were reduced to numbers when appropriate and tabulated.
In addition, direct quotations were included in the data presentation and the nd-
ings were described. Numerical presentation of qualitative data has also been used to
increase data reliability. Inter-coder reliability was established as follows: Answers to
the questions were coded by two authors and analyzed separately. Next, the authors
compared the codes together. The agreement between the authors was found to be
83.3%. Per the coding control that yields internal consistency, inter-coder agreement
is expected to be at least 80% (Baltacı, 2017), and the inter-coder reliability was
achieved accordingly.
All chemistry teachers participated in the study voluntarily, and ethical principles
were taken into account. Ethical permission for the study was obtained from the
Duzce University Scientic Research and Publication Ethics Committee. The teach-
ers were briefed about the study, and no data were collected from the teachers who
did not want to complete the form.
Ethical Committee Approval: Decision 2022/281 of Duzce University Scientic
Research and Publication Ethics Committee.
1 3

Education and Information Technologies
3 Findings
The study ndings are presented by groups formed according to the research problems.
Research Problem 1 What are the constructs of chemistry teachers’ perceived useful-
ness in the context of the inclusion of VL in chemistry courses?
The data analysis indicated that the chemistry teachers’ perceptions of the usefulness
(PU) in the context of the inclusion of VL in distance chemistry courses could be
categorized into two constructs, including “job relevance” and “results demonstra-
bility”. The ndings regarding these two constructs and the factors aecting these
structures are explained separately below.
3.1 Job relevance
Findings about job relevance were obtained with two questions. In the rst of these
questions, the perception of the importance of technology in helping chemistry
teaching or inuencing chemistry teaching was tried to be revealed. While 57.7%
of the teachers answered yes to the question “Do you think chemistry lessons can be
taught eectively with technology in terms of theory and experimentation?“ it was
found that 42.3% of the chemistry teachers thought that chemistry classes could not
be taught eectively via technology. After that, chemistry teachers were asked to
explain their answers with regard to teaching eective chemistry classes theoreti-
cally and experimentally via technology. Table 2 shows the reasons why chemistry
teachers think that the use of technology will increase eciency in chemistry lessons.
When the reasons put forward by the teachers who think that the use of technol-
ogy will increase the eciency in chemistry lessons are examined, it is seen that
Table 2 The reasons of chemistry teachers who think that the use of technology will increase eciency
in chemistry lessons
The reasons Chemistry
Teacher’s
No
Frequency %
The use of technology can be ecient for teaching, as all kinds of
experiments can be accessed during the chemistry lesson conducted
with technology.
CT4, CT8,
CT15,
CT23, CT26
5 19.2
Technology is necessary/ecient/useful in teaching chemistry. CT7, CT17,
CT22, CT26
4 15.4
The chemistry course conducted with technology can be productive
because it attracts the attention of the student / is fun to the student.
CT11, CT23,
CT25
3 11.5
The use of technology can be ecient for teaching because of
providing visuality during the chemistry lesson conducted with
technology.
CT3, CT5,
CT23
3 11.5
The use of technology can be ecient for teaching because the
chemistry course conducted with technology contributes to the
student’s learning.
CT19, CT26 2 7.7
The use of technology can be ecient for teaching because the
chemistry course conducted with technology enables the student to
think in three dimensions.
CT18 1 3.8
1 3

Education and Information Technologies
they have a perception that the use of technology provides eciency in the conduct
of teaching. As it can be seen from Table 2, there are reasons based on the percep-
tion of technology as benecial in conducting experiments that the most repeated
answers could not have done face-to-face because of the laboratory impossibilities or
the danger of the experiments. As an example of such explanations, quotations from
the explanations of two chemistry teachers are given below.
“We will be able to see many experimental environments that we could not
reach before, with technology. Materials and simulations that we cannot reach
will also be accessible with the help of technology (CT4).”
“Experimentally, it is not possible to do every experiment in laboratory condi-
tions; it would be useful to have children observe it even in a virtual environ-
ment (CT8).”
It was understand that some of the chemistry teachers thought that the inclusion of
technology in teaching would be benecial in terms of teaching, since technology is
a part of our lives.
“Technology has become an indispensable part of our day, and education
should be beneted from it (CT7).”
Another reason why technology is perceived as useful is that teaching with the use
of technology in the lessons attracts the attention of the students and sometimes even
makes the environment fun, so that the lesson becomes more productive. In addition,
it has been determined that teachers think that visuality is benecial for learning,
especially by providing students with three-dimensional thinking. Excerpts from the
statements of teachers regarding these thoughts are given below.
“Three-dimensional visuals and experiments on many subjects attract the
attention and interest of students (CT11).
“As you know, not all of our schools have equal physical opportunities in the
country’s conditions. Since laboratory materials are dangerous and expensive,
I think that using laboratory systems developed with the 3D feature in virtual
environments can be more practical and fun and increase the eciency of the
lesson. (CT23).”
“Since scientic data is abstract, it is of great importance to visualize the data
and integrate it with the experiment for understanding (CT5).”
The perception of the CT26 coded teacher, who is one of the teachers who use virtual
labs in his lessons, is included in more than one reason as seen in Table 2, and it is
seen from the explanation below that the most important thought of this teacher is
that technology contributes to the learning of students.
1 3

Education and Information Technologies
“Chemistry course mostly includes abstract topics. It is extremely important
to use technological tools (simulation, animation, VR, AR, three-dimensional
printers, etc.) in chemistry education so that students can better understand the
subjects by constructing them in their minds. In addition, experiments that can-
not be performed in the laboratory for various reasons can be performed using
virtual laboratory programs (CT26).”
The explanations of teachers who gave a negative answer to this question about the
fact that chemistry lessons can be taught eectively with technology in terms of the-
ory and experiment were also analyzed. It has been determined that a signicant part
of these teachers (CT2, CT6, C14, C21, CT24) think that technology cannot replace
a face-to-face laboratory in chemistry teaching and that it will not be productive, and
that the most important perception of them is that they think that “chemistry experi-
ments will be more ecient by doing and living”. As an example of such explana-
tions, quotation from a chemistry teacher is given below.
“Learning by doing and experiencing provides more permanent learning
(CT14).”
Some of the teachers think that the lack of their experience in technology (CT1) and/
or their technical inadequacies (CT10 and CT20) are other important factors in the
inability to get eciency from the lessons conducted with technology. The explana-
tion of the teacher coded CT1 is “…….I think it will be dicult since I do not have
much experience.“ As it is understood from this explanation, teacher experience also
has an eect on the eectiveness of technology in teaching. This nding is thought to
be a relationship between experience and PU on the model to be created by the pres-
ent study. It was determined that two other reasons for the ineectiveness of teaching
chemistry through technology are the perceptions that” student control is dicult in
distance education environments (CT13)” and “the inability to interact eectively
with students (CT16)”.
In the second question was directed to reveal the perceptions of chemistry teach-
ers about job relevance in the context of the inclusion of VL in distance chemistry
courses the teachers were asked whether using dierent VL applications actively in
chemistry classes would increase student participation in the lesson. The chemistry
teacher’s answers were analyzed as rst increase, partially increase and not increase.
The ndings of this analyze are given in Table 3. Then, the teachers were asked to
explain why they thought this way about their answers.
Table 3 Teacher views on whether using dierent VL applications actively in chemistry classes would
increase student participation in the class
Answer Chemistry Teacher’s No Frequency %
Increases CT1, CT2, CT3, CT5, CT6, CT7, CT8,
CT10, CT11, CT12, CT13, CT14, CT15,
CT17, CT18, CT20, CT22, CT23, CT25,
CT26
20 76.9
Partially increases CT4, CT9, CT19, CT21, CT24 5 19.2
Not increase CT16 1 3.8
1 3

Education and Information Technologies
As seen in Table 3, except for only one teacher (CT16), 76.9% of the chemistry
teachers thought that they would increase, while 19.2% of the teachers stated that
they would increase it partially. The explanation of the teacher coded CT16 that the
active use of dierent VL applications in chemistry lessons will not increase the par-
ticipation of the students in the lesson is as follows.
“Virtual labs should not be used too frequently; otherwise, they would become
ordinary (CT16).”
The analysis ndings of the explanations of the teachers who thought that the inclu-
sion of VL in distance chemistry courses will increase and partially increase students’
participation in the lesson are given in Table 4.
As can be seen from Table 4, 30.8% of chemistry teachers stated that the use of VL
in distance chemistry lessons would increase student participation in the lesson and
did not put forward a detailed reason for this. It was determined that 26.9% of chem-
istry teachers thought that the inclusion of VL in distance chemistry lessons increases
the participation of the students or the lesson becomes productive as it attracts the
Table 4 The reasons of chemistry teachers who think that the use of VL will increase student participation
in chemistry lessons
The answers Chemistry
Teacher’s No
Frequency %
The inclusion of VL in distance chemistry courses will increase
student participation in chemistry lessons.
CT2, CT8,
CT10, CT12,
CT13, CT14,
CT15, CT18
8 30.8
The inclusion of VL in distance chemistry lessons increases the
participation of the students as it attracts the attention of the stu-
dents/the lesson becomes productive.
CT1, CT3,
CT7, CT17,
CT20, CT21,
CT26
7 26.9
Whether the inclusion of VL in distance chemistry courses af-
fects interest or participation in the course depends on student
characteristics.
CT4, CT9,
CT11, CT19,
CT24
5 19.2
The inclusion of VL in distance chemistry courses will attract the
attention of the students.
CT6, CT23,
CT25
3 11.5
The inclusion of VL in distance chemistry courses provides a qual-
ity and more productive learning environment.
CT5 1 3.8
The inclusion of VL in distance chemistry classes ensures learning
is permanent.
CT22 1 3.8
Table 5 The technology-derived problems in chemistry classes during the distance education period
Theme Code Chemistry Teacher’s No Frequency %
Technological
challenge
Internet connection CT3, CT4, CT5, CT7, CT8
CT10, CT13, CT15, CT16,
CT18, CT22, CT26
17 65.4
Technological inadequacies CT1, CT13, CT20, CT24
Accessibility of VL application CT1
Student
challenge
Students’ shortcomings CT5, CT15, CT21, CT25 6 23.1
Not attending class CT14, CT26
1 3

Education and Information Technologies
attention of the students. An example explanation of a teacher with the code CT26
who is one of the teachers who think in this way and uses virtual labs in his lessons
is given below.
“I think that the inclusion of VL in distance chemistry lessons will increase
the interest, desire, and motivation of the student as it will increase their sense
of curiosity. Therefore, the student’s participation in the lesson will be higher
(CT26).”
It is seen that 19.2% of chemistry teachers think the inclusion of VL in distance
chemistry courses aects interest or participation in the course depending on student
characteristics. It was determined that this situation was attributed to student charac-
teristics such as the fact that the students were actually related to the course or the age
of the student. An excerpt from the explanation of the CT4 is given below.
“It increases the interest of the students who are really interested in the course;
I do not think that it will attract students who are not interested. Even if it does,
it draws very little. (CT4).”
The explanation of CT11, who thinks that the inclusion of VL in distance chemistry
lessons can increase interest, especially for students who are younger, is as follows.
“I think that the interest of the 9th and 10th-grade students will increase a lot
(CT11).”
One of the reasons why the inclusion of VL in chemistry courses increases the inter-
est and participation of the students in the course is seen from the following excerpt,
which is related to the fact that students are very close to technology and therefore
oer an environment that they are more accustomed to.
“Today’s students want to be active in the lessons and they like to use technol-
ogy. Virtual laboratory applications will surely attract the attention of students
(CT25).”
A chemistry teacher, CT5, indicated that experiments are very important and that the
inclusion of VL will increase student success and create a productive lesson environ-
ment. An excerpt from this teacher’s statement is given below.
“One of the reasons for the low success in chemistry and other science courses
is the necessity of testing and observing scientic data after being theoretically
given, so, better quality and productive classroom environment will be created
(with the use of VL). (CT5).”
1 3

Education and Information Technologies
3.2 Results demonstrability
Since, the result demonstrability is the degree to which an individual believes that the
results of using a system are tangible, observable, and communicable (Moore & Ben-
basat, 1991 cited in Venkatesh & Davis, 2008). It has been examined what chemistry
teachers think about adding VL to chemistry lessons can produce eective results for
teaching and whether VL is benecial or not. For this purpose, the question “If you
compare virtual chemistry laboratories with face-to-face chemistry laboratory appli-
cations, what can you say about the advantages of VLs?“ was posed. Analysis of this
question determined that teachers’ perceived benets and concrete results in the case
of using VLs can be categorized into six groups: Safe environment, infrastructure and
materials, usefulness for the students, economical, time-saving, ease of use. It was
observed that some teachers’ explanations were also included under several groups
at the same time. This situation was stated during the explanations and each group or
theme is explained in order, starting with the highest frequency, below.
Safe environment It has been determined that 15 of 26 chemistry teachers have the
perception that the inclusion of VL into distance chemistry lessons will be extremely
benecial, especially in conducting dangerous experiments or providing a safe labo-
ratory environment. Excerpts from the statements of two teachers regarding this issue
are given below.
“I think it can provide a laboratory environment in schools without labora-
tories, and dangerous experiments can be done in a virtual laboratory…..
(CT1).”
Another safety perception under this heading is related to avoiding the harmful
eects of chemicals used in a face-to-face lab environment. One teacher expressed
this situation as follows:
“It will minimize the damage caused by chemicals (CT2).”
The advantage put forward by a teacher (CT24) about providing a safe environment
was determined to prevent chaos in the laboratory environment. Although the CT24
whose statement is given below actually thinks that face-to-face laboratory is more
benecial, he only stated that the lab environment is safe as the only benet.
“Only chaos can be avoided (CT24)”.
Infrastructure and materials It was found that eight of the 26 chemistry teachers
thought that the inclusion of VL in distance chemistry courses would eliminate the
reasons for not being able to conduct experiments due to the lack of a place to con-
duct experiments in some schools or the lack of experimental materials such as the
chemicals. As an example of this theme, the explanation of CT4, whose excerpt is
given below, was also evaluated in the previous theme, “safe environment”.
1 3

Education and Information Technologies
“It provides a safe environment for dangerous experiments. It makes experi-
ments that cannot be done due to lack of material possible (CT4).”
Usefulness for the students The expressions under this theme were seen in the expla-
nations of ve teachers. It has been observed that teachers have a perception that the
inclusion of VL in distance chemistry courses may be benecial in some respects for
their students. They stated that students will be able to experiment one by one with
the virtual laboratory, and that they will also have the chance to see many experi-
ments and their fear of making mistakes can be prevented. As an example of this
theme, the explanation of CT7, whose quote is given below, was also evaluated in the
previous theme, “safe environment” and “infrastructure and materials”. In addition,
this expression is also included in the next theme, “economical”.
“…….no shortage of materials, low cost, laboratory accidents are not seen,
students can progress in accordance with their individual pace, avoiding fear
of making mistakes (CT7).”
Economical Three chemistry teachers in the study stated that conducting experi-
ments in a virtual environment is also economical since it will not cause material and
chemicals consumption. Below is an excerpt from CT5’s statement, which is also
evaluated under dierent themes.
“………in addition, since there are sometimes problems with safety in labo-
ratory environments, many problems (lack of necessary equipment, lack of
materials) and the problems that will arise along with it will be eliminated, and
it will be very economical in terms of cost (CT5).”
Time-saving Three chemistry teachers stated that incorporating VL into distance
chemistry classes would reduce time spent on experiments. It is seen that CT26,
one of the teachers, stated that besides its many benets, it will save time because it
does not require laboratory preparation and cleaning before and after the experiment.
Excerpts from two teacher statements on this subject are given below.
“It is safer and less time consuming (CT14).”
“…………It is safer, there is no shortage of materials, experiments can be done
in a shorter time, no preliminary or post-experiment adjustments, more repeat-
able ….(CT26).”
Ease of use It was determined that three of the 26 chemistry teachers had the percep-
tion that the inclusion of VL in distance chemistry courses would provide ease of use
in some respects. It is seen that teachers think that especially the use of VL will facili-
tate classroom management for experiments or that it is easier to have students do
the experiments. Excerpts from the statements of the two teachers are given below.
“Not dangerous, easy for experiments and classroom control (CT6).”
1 3

Education and Information Technologies
“………all lab experiments will be easier to show (CT23).”
Research Problem 2 What are the constructs of chemistry teachers’ perceived ease of
use in the context of the inclusion of VL in chemistry courses?
Venkatesh (2000) cited that individuals will form early perceptions of perceived ease
of use of a system based on several anchors related to individuals’ general beliefs
regarding computers and computer use. One of these anchors suggested by Venkatesh
(2000) is computer self-ecacy. “Computer self-ecacy refers to individuals’ con-
trol beliefs regarding his or her personal ability to use a system (Venkatesh & Bala,
2008, p.278)” and relates to the level of belief of an individual has the ability to
perform a task (Lindsay et al., 2011). In this study, it was preferred to use “tech-
nology self-ecacy” as a more general concept, including other technology-related
components instead of computer self-ecacy. Because the use of VL requires not
only computer self-ecacy but also other personal technological competencies, such
as selecting appropriate applications and using applications. Another one of these
anchors is perceptions of external control which are related to individuals’ control
beliefs regarding the availability of organizational resources and support structures
to facilitate the use of a system. This determines whether an individual believes the
organizational and technical support is suitable (Lindsay et al., 2011).
The data analysis indicated that the chemistry teachers’ perceptions of the ease of
use (PEU) in the inclusion of VL in distance chemistry courses could be categorized
into two constructs, including “technology self-ecacy” and “perception of external
control”. The ndings regarding these two constructs and the factors aecting these
structures are explained separately below.
3.3 Technology self-efficacy
In order to determine how technology self-ecacy aects chemistry teachers’ per-
ceptions of the ease of use of VL inclusion in distance chemistry lessons, a question
was asked to the teachers whether they think that their knowledge of technology is
eective in including VLs in their chemistry lessons. After receiving yes, no and
partially yes answers to this question, they were asked to explain their answers to this
question in another question. When the explanations of PCTs question were exam-
ined, it was seen that they could be categorized under three themes. The rst of these
is the eect of technology knowledge on the use of VLs, the data collected under
this theme will be presented under this subsection, and the others are the eect of
teachers’ VL use on their behavioral intentions and VL usage behaviors. Findings
related to the last two themes, in other words, the eects of teachers’ technology-
related competencies on their usage intention and actual use will be presented sepa-
rately under the “behavioral intention” and “use behavior” sections. As a result of the
analysis of the question, 58.3% of the chemistry teachers stated that their technology
knowledge had an eect on incorporating VLs into their lessons, while 8.3% stated
that it had a partial eect. It was determined that 37.5% of the teachers thought that
their technology knowledge had no eect on including VLs in their lessons. The fol-
1 3

Education and Information Technologies
lowing is an excerpt from T26’s statement, which supports the idea that the use of VL
brings together many competences for technology.
“It may vary depending on the ease of use or interface of the virtual labora-
tory program to be used. I generally think that technological knowledge has an
impact (CT26).”
3.4 Perception of external control
In order to reveal the external factors that prevent chemistry teachers from facilitating
their use of technology, rstly the teachers were asked whether they had any tech-
nology-driven problems in chemistry classes during the distance education period.
20 out of 26 chemistry teachers stated that they had problems during distance educa-
tion. Afterwards, it was tried to determine the chemistry teachers’ thoughts about the
source of the problems they experienced.
As seen in Table 5, external conditions that make it dicult for teachers to use
technology are categorized into two themes. The rst theme is “technological chal-
lenge” and it is seen that the most important technical problem that teachers experi-
ence during distance education is an internet connection. 12 of the teachers stated that
they and their students experienced internet connection problems during the lessons,
which negatively aected the eciency of the lesson. They stated that some of the
students were less interested in the lesson because of these connection problems and
these caused classroom management diculties. In addition, it has been determined
that they experience technical problems such as accessing applications. Excerpt from
a teacher’s statement regarding this issue is given below.
“My students couldn’t connect to the lesson, they struggled for a long time, and
they waited, which caused them to move away from the lesson. By the way, I
also couldn’t connect (CT8).”
The second important challenge seems to be related to students. These are grouped
into two. The rst of these is the inadequacy of students in the use of technology or
applications. The other is that they do not participate in the lesson. It has been deter-
mined that all these situations negatively aect teachers’ conduct of their lessons.
Quotations from teacher statements are given below.
“There are problems in following the applications, students may not use the
applications correctly or they do not (CT21).”
“All of the students could not attend the lesson, since the cameras were not on,
I could not see what they did if they listened to the lesson. Some wrote that his
microphone was not working (CT14).”
Research Problem 3 What are the factors which aect chemistry teachers’ use behav-
ior concerning VL, and the barriers to user behavior (UB) and behavioral intention
(BI) in the context of VL?
1 3

Education and Information Technologies
Since the use behaviors show individual behavior in using an information system and
behavirol intention related to the formulated plan do or not do particular behavior in
the future, in this section, teachers’ UB of VL and its inuencing factors, as well as
barriers to UB, were examined. While the explanations of the teachers who used VL
in their classes were evaluated in order to nd an answer to the part of the research
question related to UB, the explanations of those who had never used VL were evalu-
ated to nd answers to both the UB and BI part. Below are the ndings in order.
3.5 Use Behavior(UB)
In order to reveal whether the teachers were able to transform the use of VL in chem-
istry lessons into behavior, in other words, whether they used the virtual laboratory in
their chemistry lessons or not, in order to reveal their real use of VL, they were asked
directly. Only four (CT14, CT23, CT25, CT26) of the 26 chemistry teachers stated
that they used VLs in their lessons, while the remaining 22 chemistry teachers stated
that they did not use virtual laboratories. Later the teachers who included VLs in
their chemistry lessons were asked the following questions: Which VLs’ applications
have you used in the chemistry lessons? How frequently and for which experiments
have you used it? CT14 expressed that she had used applications for the experiments
included in the ninth- and tenth-grade subjects in Education Information Network
(EIN), whereas the remaining three teachers provided the below explanations on the
applications they had used and the way how they had used them.
“I have used the virtual lab application of the company Jetonsoft. I have uti-
lized it for subjects such as titration, classication of solutions, and equilibrium
vapor pressure (CT23).”
“I have used PhET simulations (CT25).”
“Virtual lab, Phet, EBA. I use them for teaching the subjects of chemical reac-
tions, acids and bases, gases, mixtures, and electrochemistry (CT26).”
Later, in order to disclose the factors that aect teachers’ UB of VL, teachers were
asked “Why did you prefer to use VLs in your classes?“ The factors that aect teach-
ers’ use of VL were categorized under two themes. The rst one is the use of VL in
case of physical deciencies or the inability to conduct a face-to-face laboratory due
to safety, and the other is the use of VL because of its contribution to teaching and
learning. The expressions of CT14 and CT27 teachers are included under the rst
theme. Since there is no physical lab environment, CT14 using VL expressed this
situation as shown below. As can be seen from the explanation of CT26 under this
theme, reasons such as lack of material, safety, and time saving have led teachers to
use VL.
“Since we do not have a laboratory at school (CT14).”
1 3

Education and Information Technologies
“Safety, lack of materials, inability to conduct face-to-face education, insuf-
cient course times (CT26).”
The second theme, the factors aecting teachers’ actual use of VL, is related to the
contribution to learning and teaching. While CT23, one of the teachers, stated that a
more permanent learning can be achieved with the use of VL, CT25 stated that she
uses VL in her lessons, especially because it facilitates the teaching of the micro-
scopic dimension of chemistry. Excerpts from the explanations of these teachers are
given below.
“I think that learning by doing and experiencing is more permanent (CT23).”
“Features provide better understanding of micro dimension in chemistry lesson
(CT25).”
3.6 Barriers to chemistry teachers’ UB and BI
In order to determine what prevented chemistry teachers’ UB and BI in the context
of VL, the question “Could you explain the reason why you have never used VLs in
your classes?” was asked to the chemistry teachers who stated that they did not use
VLs before. The ndings concerning the chemistry teachers’ explanations for this
question are given in Table 6.
When Table 6 is examined, it is seen that the barriers to chemistry teachers’ IB and
BU in the context of VLs were grouped under ve themes. There are two codes under
the rst theme, “technology self-ecacy”, and these are “unawareness of VLs’ appli-
cation” and “lack of technology knowledge”. As stated by half of the teachers, the
most important reason why teachers do not include VL in chemistry lessons is either
their lack of technology knowledge or not having heard of VL applications. Excerpts
from the statements of two teachers on this subject are given below.
Table 6 Barriers to chemistry teachers’ UB and BI in the context of VL
Theme Code Chemistry Teacher’s No Frequency %
Technology
self-ecacy
Unawareness of VLs’ application CT3, CT4, CT5, CT10, CT17 11 50.0
Lack of technology knowledge CT7, CT8, CT11, CT15,
CT18, CT20
Technological
issues
Inaccessibility CT1, CT2, CT7, CT12, CT24 9 40.9
No smart board/applications CT5, CT21
Technological incompetence CT2
Internet connection CT21
Teacher- related
issues
Belief CT9, CT13 3 13.6
Diculty of use CT6
Time Time consuming CT8, CT16, CT22 3 13.6
Student- related
issues
Low student achievement level CT9 2 9.1
Students not attending class CT19
1 3

Education and Information Technologies
“I can’t see myself enough in this regard (CT11).”
“Both the low student achievement level and my lack of condence in my vir-
tual laboratory knowledge (CT15).”
“I am not aware of the existence of such an application (CT3)”.
Another major barrier to teachers’ intention to use VLs is “technology-related bar-
riers”, expressed by about 41% of teachers. The expressions of the teachers under
this theme were grouped under four codes. It has been seen that the most important
obstacle related to technology is that a signicant part of the teachers cannot access
VL applications. Some of the teachers stated that reasons such as technical inadequa-
cies in their schools and internet connection problems aected their inclusion VL to
their lessons. Exemplary excerpts from the statements of two teachers who said that
inability to access VL applications and at the same time technology-related inadequa-
cies prevented them from using VL are given below.
“I couldn’t access VLs apps. I used experiment videos instead of VL (CT1).”
“Technological inadequacy and lack of my virtual laboratory program (CT2).”
The statement of CT21, which shows the internet connection as a barrier to using VL,
is as follows.
“Internet infrastructure and smart board applications in schools are insu-
cient (CT21).”
Another obstacle to chemistry teachers’ use of VL is “teacher-related issues”. In par-
ticular, since the teachers do not believe VL will be as ecient as a face-to-face labo-
ratory, this belief prevents them from intending or using VL. In addition, it is seen
that teachers who nd it challenging to use VL do not include VL in their lessons. The
excerpts from the teachers’ statement regarding this are given below.
“I don’t think (VL) will be ecient (CT9)”.
“Since I thought it would be better face to face (I didn’t use VL) (CT13).”
“Even teaching remotely was quite challenging (CT6).”
Three teachers, on the other hand, stated that they did not use VL because the dura-
tion of the courses in distance education was short and therefore they did not train the
teaching of the subjects. Relevant citations are presented below.
“Because I couldn’t catch the time for lecture (CT16)”.
“Curriculum duration is limited (CT22)”.
1 3

Education and Information Technologies
“Our lesson times were limited, we hardly trained our subjects….(CT8).”
With the last theme, it shows that some situations caused by the student prevent the
teacher from adding VL to the lesson. It has been understood that the absenteeism of
the students in distance education or the low academic achievement of the students in
some schools prevent teachers from adding VL to their lessons.
“Both the low student academic level and my lack of condence in my virtual
lab knowledge (CT15).“
“Due to the low participation of the students in the lesson (CT19)”.
Research Problem 4 Can a specic VL technology acceptance model based on TAM3
be proposed in the context of the inclusion of VL in chemistry courses?
The VL technology acceptance model based on TAM3 in the context of the inclusion
of VL in distance chemistry courses was developed based on the qualitative ndings
obtained in the rst three research questions, and presented in Fig. 2.
As seen in Fig. 2, it was constructed an integrated model of technology acceptance
presents a nomological network of the determinants of individuals’ technology adop-
tion and use in the context of VL. The data on the factors aecting the VL usage
behavior and the determinants of the perception of ease of use showed that the data
were compatible with each other and the ndings conrmed each other. Thus, the
validity of the proposed model was supported. In addition, in the explanations for real
use, teachers associated both PU and PEU with their work. Thus, the connection of
the right and left sides of the model in Fig. 2 could be conrmed as it was associated
with the data in PEU and PU.
Fig. 2 Adapted VL technology acceptance model based on TAM3 in the context of the inclusion of VL
in chemistry courses
1 3

Education and Information Technologies
4 Discussions and conclusion
In this study, chemistry teachers’ perceptions of using or not using VLs during and after
distance education were discussed and the factors aecting this situation were deter-
mined under the guidance of the TAM-3 model. Using the TAM-3 model to interpret
the ndings allowed us to construct a model which contains factors that shaped the
perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness of VLs. Thus, at the end of the study,
a model including teachers’ experiences, perceived ease of use, perceived usefulness,
use intentions, actual use, and factors that aect them has able to been introduced.
As seen from this model, it was concluded that chemistry teachers’ perceptions about
PU were “job relevance” and “result demonstrability” as determinants. Venkatesh
and Davis (2000) proposed six determinants of perceived usefulness. Job relevance
and result demonstrability factors are related to cognitive instrumental processes that
explain the eects of various determinants on perceived usefulness and behavioral
intention. Other factors that did not emerge in the model created in this study are the
subjective norm and image which are the two determinants of perceived usefulness
that represent the social inuence processes. The subjective norm is related to the
degree to which an individual perceives that most people who are important to him/
her think he/she should or should not use the system. The image refers to the degree
to which an individual perceives that the use of innovation will enhance his or her
status in his or her social system (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008). This situation showed
that chemistry teachers were not aected by the opinions about their environment
when they added VL to their chemistry lessons, and the important point that aected
them was whether the use of VL could contribute to the results related to their work.
Because the job relevance is regarding users’ perceptions of how a technological sys-
tem could help achieve goals in the job (Venkatesh & Davis, 2000). It was found that
chemistry teachers had a perception that the use of technology provides eciency in
the conduct of teaching and the teachers think that the use of technology in the les-
sons will increase the interest of the students in the lesson, and even sometimes they
can make the lesson more productive by making the environment fun. In addition,
it has been determined that teachers think that visuality was benecial for learning,
especially by providing students with three-dimensional thinking. This nding con-
curred with the nding of Zhu and Zhang (2022) that instructors perceived that online
teaching fullled its purpose in educating students during the pandemic and enabled
students to achieve most of the learning objectives.
Result demonstrability is “the degree to which an individual believes that the
results of using a system are tangible, observable, and communicable” (Moore &
Benbasat, 1991 cited in Venkatesh & Davis, 2008). It is regarding the perceived ben-
ets and demonstrable outcomes upon using a technological system Venkatesh and
Davis (2000) indicated that if a system produces eective job-relevant results desired
by a user and does so in a noticeable fashion, users of the system can understand
how useful such a system really is. So, it has been examined what chemistry teachers
think about adding VL to chemistry lessons can produce eective results for teaching
and whether VL is benecial or not. Regarding this, it was concluded that teachers’
perceived benets and concrete results in the case of using VLs can be categorized
into six groups: Safe environment, infrastructure, and materials, usefulness for the
1 3

Education and Information Technologies
students, economical, time-saving, and ease of use. They thought that the inclusion
of VL into chemistry lessons would be extremely benecial, especially in conducting
dangerous experiments or providing a safe laboratory environment, eliminating the
reasons for not being able to conduct experiments due to the lack of a place to con-
duct experiments in some schools or the lack of experimental materials such as the
chemicals, conducting experiments in a virtual environment is also economical and
reduce time spent on experiments.
Another conclusion is related to the factors which aect chemistry teachers’ use
behavior concerning VL, and the barriers to user behavior (UB) and behavioral inten-
tion (BI) in the context of VL. At the end of the study, it was concluded that only
four of the 26 chemistry teachers were able to transform the use of VL into behav-
ior. According to Setian et al. (2021) indicated that use behaviors show individual
behavior in using an information system and behavioral intention related to the plan
to do or not do particular behavior in the future. For this reason, it is important to
determine why the teachers who teach in VL lessons do this. Based on the ndings
on this subject, it was concluded that almost all of the factors that aect teachers’ use
of VL are the reasons that prevent teachers from experimenting in a real laboratory
environment. The teachers stated that there was no reason for VL, especially the lack
of a laboratory environment in schools or the inability to experiment with the lack of
chemicals, and they also used VL because they could have dangerous experiments
done in VL without worry. The fact that all these do not require a certain cost and
more time can also be considered in connection with these results. This situation is
also compatible with the results of the studies carried out with chemistry teachers
about not being able to do face-to-face labs or do too much in chemistry classes
(Boesdorfer & Livermore, 2018; Nakiboğlu & Sarıkaya, 1999). As a result of Boes-
dorfer and Livermore (2018)’s study of secondary school chemistry teachers’ use of
laboratory activities, they indicated that materials for laboratory activities, especially
in chemistry, cost money and often require time and eort to purchase and prepare;
they can be expensive. They found that the teachers who participated in the study
teachers’ current funding level materials do aect their choices at times, though not
‘often’. In addition, in this study, it was determined that teachers tend to nd alterna-
tive laboratory activities when they think that they cannot do a laboratory activity that
they planned. Solikhin et al., (2019) have studied with experienced chemistry teach-
ers concerning VL usage and have also indicated that the VL is one of the practicum
media that can resolve the limitation of tools, materials, and learning time. It can be
said that the ndings of this study support the results of our study. Because it has
been determined that teachers also use VL as an alternative to the face-to-face labo-
ratory. It was found that another factor that aects chemistry teachers’ use behavior
concerning VL is their beliefs concerning learning and teaching will be better in VL
environments.
Regarding the factors aecting the teachers’ not using VL, it was concluded that
teachers could not include VL in their lessons, especially because they had problems
accessing VL applications and lack of knowledge and experience on how to imple-
ment VL applications. In the study conducted on whether teachers include experi-
mental studies in their courses in the distance education process, Nakiboğlu (2021)
determined that teachers could not include experimental studies in their courses in
1 3

Education and Information Technologies
the distance education process due to a lack of technological knowledge. A similar
barrier was also expressed by Zhu and Zhang (2022) and they indicated that this
situation was eective in the acceptance of technology by the teachers. They saw
that instructors encountered challenges in using technology at the initial stage of the
online course transition, then they learned the use of technologies through workshops
and provided resources quickly.
In addition, it has been determined that there are some technical reasons such
as internet connection as another obstacle. Zhu and Zhang (2022) have found that
instructors faced technology challenges that were out of their control, such as the
instability of the Internet. Another problem was determined to be a problem with
students. The fact that students were dicult to control in distance education also
aected teachers. Regarding the students, it was determined that the chemistry teach-
ers stated that the students did not use VL due to their lack of knowledge about the
use of VL. A conclusion supporting this idea was also expressed by Ali and Ullah
(2020). In their review, they found that some of the existing VCLs used on-screen
textual instructions to guide students on what to do and in what order or order to
perform an experiment. However, even though the students read the text guidance,
all the students stated that they could not follow these instructions because they could
not understand how to actually perform a task. Freyermuth et al. (2022) also pointed
out that inadequate user manuals included in some of the current virtual lab applica-
tions make it even more dicult for teachers and students who already lack relevant
knowledge.
Based on the results obtained in this study, the following recommendations can
be made.
First of all, teachers should be given the necessary training on theoretical knowl-
edge about VL and how VLs can participate in the lesson. This can be achieved with
in-service training courses for teachers in the profession, but more important teacher
education programs should add courses on this subject. So, in-service training can
be carried out to train chemistry teachers in using virtual labs with cooperation
between MNE and universities. Furthermore, activities for using virtual labs should
be included in the courses taken by pre-service teachers studying at the department
of chemistry teaching.
Another problem for teachers is to solve the problems of not being able to access
VL applications; this diculty can be eliminated by adding CDs including some
applications to the textbooks. Moreover, it can be recommended to have students
conduct experiments in virtual labs beforehand so that they can gain experience and
repeat the same experiment in the physical laboratory environment later.
In addition to all these, it should be realized that the use of VL is another important
dimension in terms of more accurate use of our world’s resources and sustainability
carried out in every eld for the future. Considering both the high cost and the envi-
ronmental damage of the chemicals used, VL usage in chemistry classes will reduce
the need for physical resources by moving chemistry laboratories to virtual environ-
ments. For this reason, it can be suggested that teachers should be made aware of the
positive eects of using VLs on sustainability and therefore they should be encour-
aged to use VLs.
1 3

Education and Information Technologies
Based on the results of the study and the model reached, the theoretical and practi-
cal contributions of the study can be stressed as follows.
There is a lack of qualitative studies exploring teachers’ perception and usage
of virtual labs in distance chemistry classes by using the TAM 3 and, reaching an
adapted model at the end of the study. Hence, the result of this study will ll an
important research gap in this aspect. From a theoretical perspective, the present
study will contribute to the knowledge of technology adoption and use of VL by iden-
tifying the factors that aect the adoption by chemistry teachers of VL participation
in chemistry classes. On the practical side, the outcome of the study will provide an
opinion for chemistry teachers and university academics to develop strategies to help
chemistry teachers nd ways to increase their adoption of the VL in chemistry classes
in ways that contribute to student learning.
4.1 Limitations
The study has some limitations. These are related to participant demographics. The
sample is somewhat disproportionate as there are more women represented than male
teachers. Since the high number of female chemistry teachers in the study, the nd-
ings did not provide an opportunity to interpret based on gender. The inability to
comment on the use and acceptance of technology by inexperienced chemistry teach-
ers due to the lack of participation of too many rst-year teachers in the study was
considered another limitation of the study.
TAM 3, which constitutes the theoretical framework of the current study, is one of
several theoretical models developed by previous studies on individuals’ adoption of
new technologies. On the other hand, in recent years, the Unied Theory of Accep-
tance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) and the expanded version of it, UTAUT2,
have been used to research and test dierent factors that aect individuals’ adoption
of new technologies. UTAUT has four predictors which are performance expectancy,
eort expectancy, social inuence, and facilitating conditions (Venkatesh, 2022).
UTAUT2 includes users’ hedonic motivation, perceived price value, and habits
(Yang & Wibowo, 2022). Yang and Wibowo (2022) have indicated that the original
UTAUT and UTAUT2 models have been criticized for their exclusion of certain rel-
evant factors, including trust. This new model, in which the trust factor is added, is
also referred to as extending the UTAUT2 in some studies (Verkijika, 2018). Another
group of researchers who created a model by modifying the original UTAUT and
extending it with additional variables is Marinković et al. (2020). They added satis-
faction as a variable to UTAUT in this model. In this study, in which the commercial
aspect predominates, satisfaction was expressed as meeting the expectations of the
customers. They stated that in the context of mobile technology, satisfaction is also
related to a user’s desire to be involved in the process of creating new services.
Regarding “trust” It has been stated that trust is very crucial in helping individuals
to accept and use new technologies, especially since it reduces the concerns of users
about purchasing transactions and product quality in electronic markets (Yang &
Wibowo, 2022). Since the theoretical framework of this study is TAM3, the absence
of the trust component in the model reached at the end of the study can be considered
as one of the limitations of the study. There are various aspects of individuals’ trust
1 3

Education and Information Technologies
and dierent factors that aect it markets (Yang & Wibowo, 2022). For this reason,
we intend to examine the use of VL in chemistry teachers’ lessons and their trust and
also to consider what factors aect teachers’ may trust in future studies.
In some studies, although TAM was used, dierent factors were added and its rela-
tionship in technology adoption was examined such as engagement. Alalwan (2022)
studied the usage of social media for engagement with consideration of the TAM
and created a model of the real use of social media for engagement by conducting
an empirical examination of students’ adoption of the actual use of social media for
education. The current study does not contain any data from teachers about the use
of VL to help students strengthen their relationships with their peers and create a vir-
tual student community. Since laboratory environments are the places where student
interaction is the most, the levels of such interactions and their contribution to student
learning can also be taken into account in future studies.
Considering the aforementioned limitations, the studies planned for the future
can be summarized as follows. First of all, considering the limitations related to the
sample of this study, it is planned to work with a larger sample by including physics
and science teachers other than chemistry teachers. In addition, considering the new
variables added as a result of the expansion of UTAUT, it is considered to organize a
new data collection tool. Another qualitative study is planned by conducting in-depth
interviews with a smaller working group. Finally, based on the limited literature on
the comparison between face-to-face laboratories and virtual labs, the authors are
planning future academic studies on the matter.
Funding The authors declare that no funds, grants, or other support were received during the preparation
of this manuscript.
Data availability Our manuscript has no associated data.
Declarations
Conflict of interest The authors declare no conicts of interest.
References
Achuthan, K., Francis, S. P., & Diwakar, S. (2017). Augmented reective learning and knowledge reten-
tion perceived among students in classrooms involving virtual laboratories. Education and Informa-
tion Technologies, 22, 2825–2855. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-017-9626-x.
Achuthan, K., Kolil, V. K., & Diwakar, S. (2018). Using virtual laboratories in chemistry classrooms as
interactive tools towards modifying alternate conceptions in molecular symmetry. Education and
Information Technologies, 23(6), 2499–2515. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-018-9727-1.
Alalwan, N. (2022). Actual use of social media for engagement to enhance students’ learning. Education
and Information Technologies, 27(7), 9767–9789. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11014-7.
Ali, N., & Ullah, S. (2020). Review to analyze and compare virtual chemistry laboratories for their use
in education. Journal of Chemical Education, 97(10), 3563–3574. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.
jchemed.0c00185.
Baltacı, A. (2017). Nitel Veri Analizinde Miles-Huberman Modeli. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler
Enstitüsü Dergisi, 3(1), 1–15.
1 3

Education and Information Technologies
Bellotti, F., Berta, R., & De Gloria, A. (2010). Designing eective serious games: Opportunities and chal-
lenges for research. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 5, 22–35. https://
doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v5s3.1500.
Boesdorfer, S. B., & Livermore, R. A. (2018). Secondary school chemistry teacher’s current use of labora-
tory activities and the impact of expense on their laboratory choices. Chemistry Education Research
and Practice, 19(1), 135–148. https://doi.org/10.1039/C7RP00159B.
Bortnik, B., Stozhko, N., Pervukhina, I., Tchernysheva, A., & Belysheva, G. (2017). Eect of virtual ana-
lytical chemistry laboratory on enhancing student research skills and practices. Research in Learning
Technology, 25, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.25304/rlt.v25.1968.
Çivril, H., & Özkul, A. E. (2021). Investigation of the factors aecting open and distance education learn-
ers’ intentions to use a virtual laboratory. International Review of Research in Open and Distance
Learning, 22(2), 143–165. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v22i2.5076.
Climent-Bellido, M. S., Martínez-Jiménez, P., Pontes-Pedrajas, A., & Polo, J. (2003). Learning in
Chemistry with virtual Laboratories. Journal of Chemical Education, 80(3), 346–352. https://doi.
org/10.1021/ed080p346.
Creswell, J. W., Hanson, W. E., Plano, C., V. L., & Morales, A. (2007). Qualitative research designs:
Selection and implementation. The Counseling Psychologist, 35(2), 236–264. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0011000006287390.
Dalgarno, B., Bishop, A. G., Adlong, W., & Bedgood, D. R. Jr. (2009). Eectiveness of a virtual laboratory
as a preparatory resource for distance education chemistry students. Computers & Education, 53(3),
853–865. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.05.005.
Davis, F. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technol-
ogy. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340. https://doi.org/10.2307/24900810.2307/249008.
Estriegana, R., Medina-Merodio, J. A., & Barchino, R. (2019). Student acceptance of virtual laboratory
and practical work: An extension of the technology acceptance model. Computers & Education, 135,
1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.02.010.
Freyermuth, A. T., Medellín, G., Martín, G. U., & Puleo, J. A. (2022). A virtual laboratory for conduct-
ing “hands-on” experiments on water wave mechanics. Continental Shelf Research, 243, 104760–
104768. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csr.2022.104760.
Gündoğan, S., & Özgen, H. (2020). The relationship between the quality of school life and the school
burnout. International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education, 9(3), 531–538. https://doi.
org/10.11591/ijere.v9i3.20686.
Hawkins, I., & Phelps, A. J. (2013). Virtual laboratory vs. traditional laboratory: Which is more eective
for teaching electrochemistry? Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 14(4), 516–523. https://
doi.org/10.1039/C3RP00070B.
Hofstein, A., & Naaman, R. M. (2007). The laboratory in science education: The state of the art. Chemistry
Education Research and Practice, 8(2), 105–107. https://doi.org/10.1039/B7RP90003A.
Hofstein, A., Navon, O., Kipnis, M., & Mamlok-Naaman, R. (2005). Developing students’ ability to ask
more and better questions resulting from inquiry-type chemistry laboratories. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 42, 791–806. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20072.
Hou, H. T., & Lin, Y. C. (2017, July). The development and evaluation of an educational game integrated
with augmented reality and virtual laboratory for chemistry experiment learning. In 2017 6th IIAI
International Congress on Advanced Applied Informatics (IIAI-AAI) (pp. 1005–1006). IEEE.
Josephsen, J., & Kristensen, A. K. (2006). Simulation of laboratory assignments to support students’ learn-
ing of introductory inorganic chemistry. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 7(4), 266–279.
https://doi.org/10.1039/b6rp90013e.
Lindsay, R., Jackson, T. W., & Cooke, L. (2011). Adapted technology acceptance model for
mobile policing. Journal of Systems and Information Technology, 13(4), 389–407. https://doi.
org/10.1108/13287261111183988.
Liu, L., Ling, Y., Gao, Q., & Fu, Q. (2022). Supporting students’ inquiry in accurate precipitation titration
conditions with a virtual laboratory tool as learning scaold. Education for Chemical Engineers, 38,
78–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ece.2021.11.001.
Madhuri, J. V., & Goteti, L. P. (2022). Using virtual laboratories in Chemistry through guided inquiry-
based approach. Journal of Positive School Psychology, 6(2), 369–374.
Marinković, V., Đorđević, A., & Kalinić, Z. (2020). The moderating eects of gender on customer satisfac-
tion and continuance intention in mobile commerce: A UTAUT-based perspective. Technology Anal-
ysis & Strategic Management, 32(3), 306–318. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2019.1655537.
1 3

Education and Information Technologies
MEB (2022). https://www.meb.gov.tr/2021-2022-orgun-egitim-istatistikleri-aciklandi/haber/27552/tr.
date of access: 04.01.2023.
Nakiboğlu, C. (2021). Covid-19 sürecinde kimya öğretmenlerinin derslerinde deneysel çalışmalara yer
verme durumunun incelenmesi. Maarif Mektepleri Uluslararası Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 5(2),
115–142.
Nakiboğlu, C., & Sarıkaya, Ş. (1999). Ortaöğretim kurumlarında kimya derslerinde görevli öğretmenlerin
laboratuvardan yararlanma durumunun değerlendirilmesi. D.E.Ü. Buca Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi
Özel Sayı, 11, 395–405 (1999).
Nechypurenko, P. P., Selivanova, T. V., Chernova, M. P., Evangelist, O. O., Modlo, Y. O., & Soloviev, V.
N. (2022). Using the Virtual Chemical Laboratories in Teaching the Solution of Experimental Prob-
lems in Chemistry of 9th Grade Students While Studying the Topic “Solutions” 1st Symposium on
Advances in Educational Technology (AET 2020) 1, 319–335.
Paranjape, K., Schinkel, M., Hammer, R. D., Schouten, B., Panday, N., Elbers, R. S., & Nanayakkara,
P. W., P (2021). The value of articial intelligence in laboratory medicine: Current opinions and
barriers to implementation. American Journal of Clinical Pathology, 155(6), 823–831. https://doi.
org/10.1093/AJCP/AQAA170.
Qu, A., Nicolas, M., Leung, E. M., Jones, S. M., Katyal, P., Punia, K., Maxeld, M., & Montclare, J. K.
(2022). Exploring the viability and role of virtual laboratories in chemistry education using two
original modules. Journal of Chemical Education, 99(4), 1596–1603. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.
jchemed.1c00892.
Samarakou, M., Fylladitakis, E. D., Prentakis, P., & Athineos, S. (2014). Implementation of Articial Intel-
ligence Assessment in Engineering Laboratory Education (pp. 299–303). International Association
for the Development of the Information Society.
Sari, R. P., Mauliza, M., Nazar, M., & Nahadi, N. (2021). The implementation of performance assessment
through virtual laboratory to college students’ creative thinking skills. Jurnal Penelitian Pendidikan
IPA , 7(1), 5–10. https://doi.org/10.29303/jppipa.v7i1.484.
Schi, D. (2021). Out of the laboratory and into the classroom: The future of articial intelligence in edu-
cation. AI & society, 36(1), 331–348. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-020-01033-8.
Seifan, M., Robertsonb, N., & Berenjiana, A. (2020). Use of virtual learning to increase key laboratory
skills and essential non-cognitive characteristics. Education for Chemical Engineers, 33, 66–75.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ece.2020.07.006.
Setiyani, L., Eendy, F., & Slamet, A. A. (2021). Using Technology Acceptance Model 3 (TAM 3) at
selected private technical high school: google drive storage in e-learning. Utamax: Journal of Ulti-
mate Research and Trends in Education, 3(2), 80–89. https://doi.org/10.31849/utamax.v3i2.6746.
Solikhin, F., Ikhsan, J., & Sugiyarto, K. H. (2019). A need analysis in developing virtual laboratory accord-
ing to the chemistry teachers. In Journal of Physics: Conference Series (Vol. 1156, No. 1, p. 012020).
IOP Publishing.
Tatli, Z., & Ayas, A. (2013). Eect of a virtual Chemistry Laboratory on Students’ achievement. Educa-
tional Technology & Society, 16, 159–170.
Tüysüz, C. (2010). The eect of the virtual laboratory on students’ achievement and attitude in chemistry.
International Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 2(1), 37–53.
Usmanova, G., Gresh, A., Cohen, M. A., Kim, Y. M., Srivastava, A., Joshi, C. S., & Anderson, J. (2020).
Acceptability and barriers to use of the ASMAN provider-facing electronic platform for Peripartum
Care in Public Facilities in Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan, India: A qualitative study using the tech-
nology acceptance Model-3. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health,
17(22), 8333. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17228333.
Venkatesh, V. (2000). Determinants of perceived ease of use: Integrating control, intrinsic motivation,
and emotion into the technology acceptance model. Information systems research, 11(4), 342–365.
Venkatesh, V. (2022). Adoption and use of AI tools: A research agenda grounded in UTAUT. Annals of
Operations Research, 1–12.
Venkatesh, V., & Bala, H. (2008). Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on interventions.
Decision sciences, 39(2), 273–315. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.2008.00192.x.
Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model:
Four longitudinal eld studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186–204. https://doi.org/10.1287/
mnsc.46.2.186.11926.
Verkijika, S. F. (2018). Factors inuencing the adoption of mobile commerce applications in Cameroon.
Telematics and Informatics, 35(6), 1665–1674.
1 3

Education and Information Technologies
Wahyono, I. D., Putranto, H., Saryono, D., & Asfani, K. (2020). Development of a Personalized Virtual
Laboratory Using Articial Intelligent. In International Conference on Learning Innovation 2019
(ICLI 2019) (pp. 101–107). Atlantis Press.
Wästberg, B. S., Eriksson, T., Karlsson, G., Sunnerstam, M., Axelsson, M., & Billger, M. (2019). Design
considerations for virtual laboratories: A comparative study of two virtual laboratories for learn-
ing about gas solubility and colour appearance. Education and Information Technologies, 24(3),
2059–2080. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-018-09857-0.
Yang, R., & Wibowo, S. (2022). User trust in articial intelligence: A comprehensive conceptual frame-
work. Electronic Markets, 32(4), 2053–2077. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-022-00592-6.
Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2021). Sosyal Bilimlerde Nitel Araştirma Yöntemleri, Seçkin Yayıncılık,
p313.
Zhu, M., & Zhang, Y. (2022). Medical and public health instructors’ perceptions of online teaching: A
qualitative study using the Technology Acceptance Model 2. Education and Information Technolo-
gies, 27(2), 2385–2405. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10681-2.
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps
and institutional aliations.
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under
a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted
manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and appli-
cable law.
Authors and Aliations
Senem ÇolakYazici1· CananNakıboğlu2
Senem Çolak Yazici
scolakyazici@gmail.com
Canan Nakıboğlu
canan@balikesir.edu.tr
1 Department of Mathematics and Science Education, Duzce University, Duzce, Turkey
2 Department of Mathematics and Science Education, Balıkesir University, Balıkesir, Turkey
1 3