By Emsale Jahiu-Pali
Practical work plays an important role in biology education because it enables students to connect theoretical knowledge with observation, experimentation, and scientific inquiry. This article examines biology teaching at a secondary school in Ulcinj, Montenegro, where opportunities for laboratory-based learning remain limited due to resource constraints. Drawing on classroom observations and reflective teaching practice between 2024 and 2026, the article explores students’ responses to practical activities and considers their implications for learning. The observations suggest that practical activities increased student engagement, stimulated curiosity, and supported understanding of biological concepts by connecting abstract ideas to observable phenomena. At the same time, limitations were revealed in students’ familiarity with laboratory procedures and challenges arose in the implementation of inquiry-based science education in a resource-constrained setting. The study shows that even modest opportunities for practical work can make a meaningful contribution to conceptual understanding, scientific literacy, and students’ engagement with science.
Where Biology Becomes Visible
Scientific literacy has become one of the defining educational challenges of the twenty-first century. Contemporary societies depend upon citizens to understand scientific evidence and engage thoughtfully with complex environmental and social questions such as public health, biodiversity loss, decreasing food security, and climate change (OECD 2023; Schneegans and Nair-Bedouelle 2021). Schools therefore carry a responsibility that extends beyond the transmission of knowledge. They must help young people develop habits of observation, interpretation, and critical reflection that shape their understanding of the world around them.
Among the natural sciences, biology occupies a distinctive place. It is the science of life itself, yet many of the processes it seeks to explain remain invisible to the naked eye. Students encounter cells, genes, bacteria, and biochemical reactions first through diagrams, definitions, and textbook descriptions. While theoretical instruction provides an essential foundation, abstract explanations alone do not always allow students to grasp the dynamic nature of living systems. Practical work offers a way of narrowing this distance between representation and reality. Through observation, experimentation, and investigation, students can engage directly with biological phenomena and witness processes that might otherwise remain confined to the pages of a textbook. Learning acquires a different texture when students are invited not only to read about science but also to participate in it. In such moments, biology becomes less a body of information to be memorized and more a process of inquiry and discovery (Oliveira and Bonito 2023).
Yet such opportunities remain unevenly distributed in many countries’ schools, where practical learning is limited by inadequate laboratory facilities, outdated equipment, and shortages of essential materials. Teachers are therefore often expected to cultivate inquiry, experimentation, and scientific thinking with only part of the resources necessary for such work (Oliveira and Bonito 2023; Gericke, Högström, and Wallin 2023).
This article describes biology teaching at the Secondary School “Vëllazërim-Bashkim” in Ulcinj, Montenegro, between 2024 and 2026. Drawing on classroom observations and teaching experience, it considers how students respond when practical learning opportunities become available, how such experiences shape their understanding of biological concepts, and what obstacles emerge when laboratory-based teaching is pursued in a resource-constrained environment. The study seeks to illuminate the possibilities and limitations of practical biology education in a setting where the level of students’ curiosity often exceeds the material conditions available to support it.
When Students Bridge Theory and Observation in the Biology Classroom
For decades, science educators have argued that learning in the sciences is most effective when students are given opportunities to connect theoretical knowledge with direct experience (Oliveira and Bonito 2023; Gericke, Högström, and Wallin 2023). Laboratory work occupies a central place in this process because it allows concepts encountered in textbooks to be observed, tested, and interpreted in practice. Rather than receiving information passively, students become participants in the construction of knowledge. The value of this connection between theory and practice has been widely documented in science education research (Oliveira and Bonito 2023; Chengere et al. 2025). For example, when if comes to biological phenomena, practical activities help students move beyond the memorization of definitions and encourage deeper conceptual understanding (Oliveira and Bonito 2023). Concepts such as cell division, genetics, osmosis, or microbial growth are often difficult to grasp when presented solely through diagrams or verbal explanations. Laboratory experiences provide a concrete point of reference through which abstract processes become observable and meaningful (Chengere et al. 2025).
Researchers have further argued that practical work supports what educational theorists describe as “meaningful learning” (Oliveira and Bonito 2023; Chengere et al. 2025). Understanding develops not simply through exposure to information but through opportunities to connect new knowledge with previous experiences and observations. Laboratory activities allow students to make these connections by linking biological concepts to tangible phenomena. In this way, practical work serves as a bridge between representation and reality, helping learners develop a more coherent understanding of scientific ideas. In biology education, recent studies continue to confirm the importance of laboratory learning (Oliveira and Bonito 2023; Chengere et al. 2025). For instance, guided inquiry activities have been shown to strengthen science process skills and improve students’ ability to explain biological concepts using evidence (Chengere et al. 2025). Practical experiences also help students recognize that biological knowledge emerges through observation, experimentation, and interpretation rather than through the simple transmission of factual information (Oliveira and Bonito 2023). Consequently, laboratory learning contributes not only to what students know but also to how they come to know it.
Practical Work and Student Engagement
However, the educational value of practical work extends beyond conceptual understanding. A substantial body of research suggests that active participation in learning activities also has a positive influence on student motivation, engagement, and curiosity (Liu, Tahri, and Qiang 2024). When students are invited to investigate questions, manipulate materials, and observe outcomes directly, they are often more willing to participate actively in the learning process. Inquiry-based approaches place students in a more active role and encourage them to assume greater responsibility for their own learning. Rather than functioning primarily as recipients of information, students become investigators who formulate observations, test ideas, and evaluate evidence (Urdanivia Alarcón et al. 2023). This shift in classroom dynamics has been associated with higher levels of interest and increased participation in science lessons (Urdanivia Alarcón et al. 2023; Liu, Tahri, and Qiang 2024). Several studies have specifically highlighted the relationship between hands-on learning and student motivation. Practical activities introduce elements of exploration, discovery, and problem-solving that increase learners’ curiosity and sustain attention over longer periods of time (Liu, Tahri, and Qiang 2024). Experimental work often invites students to ask questions, anticipate results, and interpret unexpected outcomes, thereby making learning a more interactive experience. Engagement is particularly important in science education because sustained interest often influences future educational choices. Positive experiences in practical science have been linked to greater enthusiasm for scientific subjects and stronger confidence in engaging with scientific ideas (Liu, Tahri, and Qiang 2024). By creating opportunities for participation and exploration, practical work can therefore contribute to more inclusive and meaningful learning environments.
Practical Work, Scientific Thinking, and Resource Constraints
Beyond its contribution to understanding and engagement, practical work plays an essential role in the development of scientific thinking. Science is not merely a collection of established facts; it entails a process of observation, questioning, evidence gathering, and interpretation. Practical activities introduce students to these habits of inquiry by requiring them to formulate explanations, analyze results, and evaluate evidence (Kotsis 2024; Strat, Henriksen, and Jegstad 2024). Inquiry-based learning has become a major reference point in contemporary science education because it mirrors many aspects of authentic scientific practice. Through experimentation and investigation, students learn to identify patterns, consider alternative explanations, and refine their understanding in response to evidence. Such experiences contribute to the development of critical thinking and problem-solving skills that extend beyond the science classroom (Arifin et al. 2025). Laboratory work also familiarizes students with uncertainty, an often overlooked dimension of scientific learning. Indeed, experiments do not always produce expected results, and when outcomes differ from predictions, students reflect on possible explanations, question assumptions, and consider sources of error (Gericke, Högström, and Wallin 2023). These moments serve as valuable opportunities for developing scientific reasoning and intellectual independence.
Despite broad agreement concerning the educational value of practical work, researchers continue to identify significant barriers to its implementation. Insufficient laboratory infrastructure, limited access to equipment, shortages of consumable materials, and financial constraints remain common challenges in many educational settings (Oliveira and Bonito 2023; Gericke, Högström, and Wallin 2023). Such limitations can restrict opportunities for inquiry-based learning and make it difficult for teachers to provide regular hands-on experiences.
The literature therefore presents a clear picture: practical work supports conceptual understanding, strengthens engagement, and cultivates scientific thinking. Less visible in the extant research, however, are the everyday strategies through which teachers attempt to foster these outcomes when laboratory opportunities are limited. The discussion that follows contributes to this conversation by offering a practitioner perspective from a secondary school in Montenegro, where the aspiration to teach science through inquiry often encounters the practical realities of resource constraints.
Case-Study: A Secondary School in Montenegro
The Secondary School Vëllazërim-Bashkim in Ulcinj, Montenegro, serves students enrolled in both the general Gymnasium program and a range of vocational tracks. In this study, students (approximately fourteen to eighteen years of age) in biology classes were observed between 2024 and 2026.. Their educational context is characterized by a commitment to science education despite significant constraints in laboratory resources. As in many of Montenegro’s schools where practical facilities are limited, biology is taught primarily through classroom instruction, textbooks, visual materials, and teacher demonstrations. Opportunities for laboratory-based learning exist but remain occasional rather than routine. This circumstance creates a notable contrast between the inquiry-based ambitions of contemporary science education and the practical realities of everyday teaching.
Rather than presenting a formal experimental study, this article adopts a reflective practitioner approach. Its purpose is not to establish causal relationships through controlled research procedures but to examine classroom experiences accumulated over several years of teaching. The reflections presented here developed through continuous interaction with students and through repeated observation of how learners responded to different forms of instruction. Particular attention was paid to moments when practical activities were introduced into lessons that were otherwise largely theoretical. These observations draw on several complementary sources. These include classroom discussions, informal conversations with students, practical activities, field-based learning experiences, and participation in the national Days of Science and Innovation program in 2024. During this event, students were able to engage in activities that differed from those in their regular classroom routine and that offered opportunities for observation, experimentation, and direct interaction with biological phenomena. Additional observations emerged from practical exercises carried out during the school year, including microscopy activities, simple microbiological demonstrations, DNA extraction, dissections, and environmental projects. Comparisons between lessons conducted entirely through theoretical instruction and those incorporating practical elements provided further opportunities for reflection. Particularly valuable were students’ spontaneous reactions to these experiences. Their questions, comments, willingness to participate, and ability to connect practical activities with subsequent classroom discussions offered insight into how learning unfolded across different instructional settings. Over time, recurring patterns became visible, making it possible to analyze more systematically the relationship between practical work, engagement, and conceptual understanding.
The observations presented here should be interpreted within their limitations. They derive from a single school context and are based on reflective teaching practice rather than quantitative measurement. No formal testing, surveys, or experimental comparisons were conducted for research purposes. The conclusions therefore remain interpretive and exploratory. Their value lies not in statistical generalization but in offering a grounded account of how practical biology teaching is experienced in a resource-constrained educational environment.
Learning Through Practice: A Biology Classroom in Montenegro
Practical Activities as Catalyst for Student Engagement
One of the most consistent observations made during the period from 2024 to 2026 concerned the effect of practical activities on student engagement. Although opportunities for laboratory work were limited, students responded enthusiastically whenever lessons moved beyond textbook-based instruction and incorporated observation, experimentation, or direct participation. This pattern emerged across different age groups and educational programs. It was visible among students in the Gymnasium program as well as those enrolled in vocational tracks. During classroom discussions, students frequently expressed a desire for more practical activities, often commenting that exclusively theoretical lessons could become repetitive and demanding. Practical exercises, by contrast, introduced an element of discovery and participation that captured their attention and encouraged them to become more actively involved in the learning process.
A particularly revealing example came from activities involving Petri dishes. In one practical exercise, students placed samples from their fingertips onto culture media and observed the subsequent development of bacterial colonies. Although the activity was conducted under limited conditions and without access to equipment such as an autoclave, it generated considerable interest. Students became curious not only about bacterial growth itself but also about questions of hygiene, contamination, and microbiological analysis. To extend the activity, students later visited a microbiology laboratory in Ulcinj, where laboratory staff explained professional procedures used to prepare, observe, and interpret microbial cultures. The experience allowed students to connect classroom learning with scientific practice beyond the school environment. Similar reactions were observed during activities involving DNA extraction from banana tissue, microscopy observations, dissections, and demonstrations exploring the physiological effects of adrenaline on cardiac function. Students were eager to participate directly, frequently asking questions about procedures, expected outcomes, and possible variations of the experiments. Interest often extended beyond the lesson itself, with students requesting additional activities and expressing curiosity about experiments that had not yet been performed.
Participation in the national Days of Science and Innovation event in 2024 reinforced these impressions. For three days, a group of students engaged in biological activities that placed practical investigation at the center of learning. What stood out was not only the level of enthusiasm but also the breadth of participation. Students who were typically highly successful academically showed strong engagement, but so did students who were usually less active during theoretical lessons. Strikingly, practical activities appeared to engage students across different levels of academic achievement. Students who were usually less active during theoretical lessons became noticeably more involved when lessons included experimentation and observation. They asked questions, volunteered to participate, and discussed their observations with classmates, suggesting that practical work may create additional points of entry into scientific learning. Over time, these experiences suggested that practical work possesses an inclusive quality that is not always present in conventional classroom instruction. In line with other studies, by creating opportunities for direct participation, practical activities appeared to attract students with different levels of academic achievement and encourage a broader range of learners to engage with scientific content (Urdanivia Alarcón et al. 2023).
Students’ Observation-Based Understanding of Biological Concepts
Students’ understanding of biological concepts were enhanced by practical activities, which helped students connect abstract ideas with observable phenomena, making biological processes easier to understand and remember. This was particularly noticeable during activities involving DNA extraction, microscopy, and simple microbiological investigations. Concepts that students initially encountered through textbook descriptions acquired a different level of meaning when students were able to observe physical evidence directly. During DNA extraction activities, for example, students saw the material being isolated rather than simply reading about genetic information in theoretical terms. Similarly, microscope observations allowed students to move beyond diagrams and engage directly with biological structures.
Such activities suggest that practical experiences may serve as lasting reference points through which subsequent learning is interpreted. Rather than relying solely on textbook definitions, students often used examples derived from their own laboratory observations. For instance, when encountering new material connected to a previous experiment, students spontaneously drew comparisons and asked whether similar processes might be occurring in other biological contexts. These references showed that practical experiences functioned as cognitive anchors. Students were able to recall concepts more readily when those concepts had previously been connected to an observation, experiment, or demonstration they had participated in. Moreover, their responses during classroom discussions were often more precise and more confident following practical activities. Explanations also tended to be grounded in examples they had personally observed rather than in memorized definitions alone.
Thus, practical work appears to support understanding not because it replaces theoretical instruction but because it gives students an additional framework through which to interpret what they have learned. Biological concepts become associated with experiences, images, and observations that students can revisit mentally long after the activity itself has ended. In this sense, practical learning helps transform biological knowledge from something merely studied into something experienced.
Revealing the Limits of Experience-Based Learning
At the same time, practical activities revealed important gaps in students’ scientific skills and previous laboratory experience. While students were enthusiastic participants, many demonstrated limited familiarity with basic laboratory procedures and equipment. These difficulties were most visible during microscopy activities. Students often required detailed guidance when preparing observations, adjusting equipment, or identifying structures visible through the microscope. Tasks that might be considered routine in well-equipped laboratory environments frequently required substantial support and explanation. In many cases, students struggled to describe procedures independently or to explain why particular steps were necessary.
Similar challenges emerged during other practical exercises. Handling materials, following experimental procedures, and interpreting observations were not always straightforward. Although students were highly motivated, their confidence often reflected enthusiasm rather than prior practical experience. The gap between curiosity and technical competence became apparent whenever activities required familiarity with laboratory methods. Many students struggled to explain laboratory procedures independently and required considerable guidance when using microscopes or handling laboratory materials. However, these difficulties did not suggest a lack of ability. Rather, they highlighted the limited opportunities students had previously had to engage with practical scientific work. In this sense, practical activities served not only as learning experiences but also as windows into competencies that remained underdeveloped because of limited past laboratory exposure.
The challenges extended beyond students themselves. The implementation of practical learning was constrained by limited laboratory facilities, shortages of reagents and consumable materials, and the absence of modern equipment. These limitations restricted both the frequency and the range of activities that could be offered. As a result, many practical experiences depended on improvisation, adaptation, or external support. Yet perhaps the most important conclusion that can be made is that noticeable educational benefits emerged out of limited opportunities for practical engagement. Students consistently demonstrated curiosity, willingness to participate, and a desire for more hands-on learning. The contrast between their enthusiasm and the constraints of their educational environment underscores the importance of practical work not only as a teaching method but also as a means of fostering a deeper relationship between students and science itself.
Connecting Classroom Experience to the Literature
A substantial body of research has linked practical work to increased student engagement beyond texbooks (Liu, Tahri, and Qiang 2024; Urdanivia Alarcón et al. 2023). Studies have repeatedly shown that students participate more actively when learning involves experimentation, observation, and inquiry rather than the passive reception of information (Urdanivia Alarcón et al. 2023; Gericke, Högström, and Wallin 2023). Practical activities create opportunities for students to ask questions, test ideas, and engage directly with the subject matter, thereby fostering curiosity and motivation (Liu, Tahri, and Qiang 2024; Urdanivia Alarcón et al. 2023), which triggers a broader reflection on the nature of engagement itself. In addition, practical work changes the student’s role within the learning process. Rather than receiving information from a textbook or teacher, students become observers and participants. The resulting sense of ownership strengthens students’ connection to the subject and helps create a more inclusive learning environment in which different kinds of learners can find points of entry into scientific inquiry.
How Practical Experiences Support Conceptual Understanding
What took place in the biology classroom in the Montenegrin school at stake here reinforces a central theme in the literature: students’ conceptual understanding is often strengthened when abstract ideas are connected to concrete experience. Biology presents a particular challenge in this regard because many of the processes it seeks to explain exist beyond ordinary perception. Genetics, cellular processes, and microbiological activity can remain distant and difficult to visualize for students when encountered only through diagrams and definitions. The classroom experiences discussed here validate prior findings that practical work bridges the gap between theory and observation. Students frequently referred back to earlier experiments when discussing related concepts during subsequent lessons, and they often drew upon observations they had made themselves rather than relying exclusively on memorized information. What appears particularly significant is not simply that students remembered specific activities, but that they continued to use those experiences as reference points for interpreting new information. Practical experiences thus provided a framework through which later learning could be organized and understood. In this sense, laboratory and field-based activities functioned less as supplementary exercises and more as anchors for conceptual development. This conclusion supports the argument that meaningful learning occurs when knowledge becomes connected to experience. The value of practical work may therefore lie not only in demonstrating scientific principles but also in making those principles intellectually accessible and memorable.
The Challenge of Teaching Science Without a Laboratory
The experience of the Montenegrin biology classroom described here draws attention to a less frequently discussed aspect of science education: the realities of teaching biology when laboratory resources are limited. While the educational value of practical work is well established, far less attention has been paid to the everyday constraints that shape whether such activities can occur at all. Throughout the period of classroom observation (2024-2026), practical instruction was restricted by the absence of a fully equipped laboratory and by limited access to essential materials. The lack of modern microscopes constrained observational work. The absence of an autoclave restricted certain microbiological activities. Shortages of reagents and laboratory supplies limited the range of experiments that could be performed, while the absence of anatomical models reduced opportunities for visual and tactile learning. In practical terms, this meant that some activities could only be demonstrated in simplified form, while others could not be implemented at all. It can be inferred that when students did not demonstrate interest in practical science, it may have been induced by the limited access to the tools required to support it.
The consequence is not merely a reduction in the number of practical activities. Resource constraints also affect the broader educational culture of science learning. Inquiry-based education depends upon opportunities to investigate, test, observe, and revise understanding through evidence (Strat, Henriksen, and Jegstad 2024). When such opportunities become occasional rather than routine, students encounter science primarily as a body of knowledge rather than as a process of discovery. This reality creates a disconnect between contemporary approaches to science education, which emphasize inquiry and experimentation, and the everyday experience of students whose contact with laboratory work remains limited. In this respect, the biology classroom experience described here reflects a challenge that extends beyond that single classroom. It raises broader questions about the practical conditions under which science education is delivered in resource-constrained settings and highlights the tension between contemporary educational aspirations and the material realities faced by many schools. The challenge is not identifying the value of practical learning. The challenge is creating the conditions under which that value can be realized consistently.
A Plea for Increased Resources for Biology Education
This article does not suggest that sophisticated laboratories are a prerequisite for meaningful science learning. Rather, it advocates that even modest opportunities for experimentation, observation, and inquiry can transform students’ relationship to biology. In an environment where practical resources remain limited, students nevertheless demonstrated curiosity, enthusiasm, and a desire to engage directly with scientific phenomena. At the same time, the significant challenges that were highlighted—absence of a fully equipped laboratory, modern microscopes, anatomical models, and essential reagents—limited the frequency and scope of practical activities. These constraints affected not only what could be taught and how, but also how students experienced science more generally. Therefore, while the benefits of practical work have been proven, it is also important to dwell on the consequences of its absence. When opportunities for experimentation are limited, scientific inquiry risks becoming something students read about rather than something they actively practice, also influencing the broader relationship students’ develop between practical learning and scientific literacy. Science education is not solely concerned with the acquisition of knowledge. It also seeks to develop students’ habits of observation, critical thinking, evidence-based reasoning, and intellectual curiosity. Practical work provides an important pathway through which these capacities can develop.
Although this article focuses on secondary education, its implications extend beyond a single school or educational level. Across Europe, public policy increasingly emphasizes scientific literacy, innovation, environmental sustainability, and participation in knowledge-based societies. Achieving these goals depends not only on curriculum reform but also on students’ opportunities to encounter science as a process of investigation and evidence-based reasoning. Access to practical scientific learning is therefore not merely a pedagogical issue but also a question of educational opportunity. When laboratory experiences remain limited, students may have fewer opportunities to develop the habits of inquiry, confidence, and scientific engagement that contemporary societies increasingly require. Even modest investments in practical science education may therefore contribute to broader goals of educational inclusion, scientific literacy, and preparation for future study and participation in an increasingly science- and technology-oriented world.
Emsale Jahiu-Pali is a biology teacher at the Secondary School Vëllazërim-Bashkim in Ulcinj, Montenegro. Drawing on professional experience in both education and healthcare, she works at the intersection of science learning and student development. Her interests include practical science education, scientific literacy, and the role of inquiry-based learning in fostering meaningful engagement with biology. She is particularly interested in how educational opportunities shape students’ relationships with science and their capacity to engage with scientific knowledge in everyday life.
References
Arifin, Zainal, Sukarmin, Sulistyo Saputro, and Azlan Kamari. 2025. “The Effect of Inquiry-Based Learning on Students’ Critical Thinking Skills in Science Education: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.” Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education 21 (3): em2592.
Chengere, Ashebir Mekonnen, Beyene Dobo Bono, Samuel Assefa Zinabu, and Kedir Woliy Jillo. 2025. “Enhancing Biology Conceptual Understanding through Guided Inquiry Laboratory Activities.” Journal of Education and Learning (EduLearn) 19 (4): 2139-2148.
Gericke, Niklas, Per Högström, and Johan Wallin. 2023. “A Systematic Review of Research on Laboratory Work in Secondary School.” Studies in Science Education 59 (2): 245-285.
Kotsis, Konstantinos T. 2024. “The Significance of Experiments in Inquiry-Based Science Teaching.” European Journal of Education and Pedagogy 5 (2): 86-92.
Liu, Ji, Dahman Tahri, and Faying Qiang. 2024. “How Does Active Learning Pedagogy Shape Learner Curiosity? A Multi-Site Mediator Study of Learner Engagement among 45,972 Children.” Journal of Intelligence 12 (6): 59.
OECD. 2023. PISA 2025 Science Framework. Paris: OECD.
Oliveira, Hugo, and Jorge Bonito. 2023. “Practical Work in Science Education: A Systematic Literature Review.” Frontiers in Education 8: 1151641.
Schneegans, Susan, and Shamila Nair-Bedouelle. 2021. “Scientific Literacy: An Imperative for a Complex World.” In UNESCO Science Report: The Race Against Time for Smarter Development, 17-19. Paris: UNESCO.
Strat, Tonje Tomine Seland, Ellen Karoline Henriksen, and Kirsti Marie Jegstad. 2024. “Inquiry-Based Science Education in Science Teacher Education: A Systematic Review.” Studies in Science Education 60 (2): 191-249.
Urdanivia Alarcón, Diego Antonio, Fabiola Talavera-Mendoza, Fabián Hugo Rucano Páucar, Karina Sandra Cayani Cáceres, and Rina Machaca Viza. 2023. “Science and Inquiry-Based Teaching and Learning: A Systematic Review.” Frontiers in Education 8.
Image credit: zabanski / Shutterstock.com
