Original Research

The perceived impact of industry laboratory excursion exposure among medical laboratory science students

Phumzile Y. Sikosana

Received: 31 Oct. 2025; Accepted: 09 June 2026; Published: 28 July 2026

Copyright: © 2026. The Author. Licensee: AOSIS.
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Abstract

Undergraduate training in the Bachelor of Health Science (BHSc): Medical Laboratory Science (MLS) programme requires exposure to contemporary diagnostic technologies. However, infrastructure constraints within Universities of Technology (UoTs) may limit students’ access to modern laboratory systems. This study explored undergraduate MLS students’ perceptions of the impact of industry-based laboratory excursions on their learning experiences. A cross-sectional descriptive survey with a mixed-methods approach was employed among residential BHSc: MLS students at Levels 1–3 (N = 83) at Mangosuthu University of Technology (MUT). A census sampling approach was used, and data were collected using a semi-structured questionnaire comprising Likert-scale items and open-ended questions. Quantitative data were analysed descriptively, while qualitative responses underwent thematic content analysis. Quantitative findings indicated that most students perceived laboratory excursions to enhance exposure to modern diagnostic technologies (M = 4.2 ± 1.0) and support the integration of theoretical knowledge with industry practice (M = 4.0 ± 1.3). Students also expressed strong support for incorporating excursions into the curriculum (M = 4.4 ± 1.2), while perceptions of practical skill development beyond university laboratories were variable (M = 3.3 ± 1.4). Qualitative findings indicated exposure to automation, digital diagnostics, laboratory workflows and equipment not readily available in university laboratories, alongside predominantly observational experiences. Students also identified areas for improving excursion structure and greater integration of industry-based learning within the curriculum.

Contribution: This study contributes empirical insight into how industry-based laboratory excursions are perceived to support experiential learning and curriculum enhancement in MLS programmes at UoTs.

Keywords: laboratory excursion; field-based trips; medical laboratory science education; hands-on learning; industry exposure; technology integration; practical skill development; university industry collaboration.

Introduction

Field excursions and field-based learning are widely recognised as valuable pedagogical approaches in tertiary education, as they provide immersive learning experiences that complement and extend traditional classroom instruction (Fedesco, Cavin & Henares 2020; Jones & Washko 2022). Through engagement with real-world environments, these approaches enable students to observe, contextualise and apply theoretical knowledge, thereby supporting conceptual understanding and learner engagement. In addition, experiential learning environments foster collaborative interaction and contribute to the development of transferable skills such as communication, teamwork and adaptability, which are essential for professional practice (De Beer 2023; Peasland et al. 2019).

Despite the recognised pedagogical value of experiential learning approaches, Medical Laboratory Science (MLS) education at Universities of Technology (UoTs) faces a persistent challenge: limited student exposure to modern diagnostic technologies and contemporary laboratory practices during the academic phase of training (Abidemi, Foloranmi & Opeyemi 2024; Cadamuro 2023; Khatab & Yousef 2021). In many resource-constrained higher education contexts, academic laboratories are characterised by outdated equipment, limited automation and restricted access to advanced diagnostic platforms, which contributes to a misalignment between university-based training and the rapidly evolving technological demands of the diagnostic laboratory industry (Abidemi et al. 2024; Cadamuro 2023; Khatab & Yousef 2021). Consequently, although students acquire foundational theoretical knowledge, their opportunities to engage meaningfully with current industry technologies and professional workflows remain constrained.

This misalignment has become increasingly significant in the context of the Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR), which has accelerated the adoption of laboratory automation, artificial intelligence-driven analytics, laboratory information systems and integrated digital diagnostic platforms (Garcia-Loro et al. 2021; Kim & Min 2025; Merrill et al. 2023; Quan et al. 2020). Bridging the gap between academic instruction and real-world laboratory practice has therefore emerged as an urgent priority for MLS education (Cadamuro 2023; Merrill et al. 2023).

Educational research across disciplines suggests that experiential and field-based learning strategies can mitigate this gap (Fedesco et al 2020; Foo & Foo 2022). For example, Heričko, Beranič and Heričko (2025) reported that students perceive co-curricular educational excursions as valuable experiential learning opportunities that enhance exposure to industry practices, emerging technologies and professional expectations. Similarly, Foo and Foo (2022) demonstrated that learning experiences situated in authentic or simulated workplace environments are perceived as coherent, intellectually stimulating and of high educational quality. In environmental science education, field-based activities have been shown to develop both discipline-specific competencies and transferable skills such as problem solving, critical thinking and adaptability (Peasland et al. 2019).

Collectively, existing evidence highlights the value of structured field-based learning for applied learning; however, context-specific evidence remains limited regarding its influence within MLS programmes at UoTs, particularly in resource-constrained environments (Jones & Washko 2022; Peasland et al. 2019). Understanding students’ perceptions of industry-based laboratory excursions is therefore essential for informing curriculum development, experiential learning approaches and work-readiness initiatives. Accordingly, this study aimed to explore the perceived impact of industry-based laboratory excursion exposure on undergraduate MLS students enrolled in the Bachelor of Health Science in Medical Laboratory Science (BHSc: MLS) programme at Mangosuthu University of Technology (MUT). The curriculum follows Kolb’s experiential learning model, emphasising the integration of theoretical instruction with hands-on experience (Isabel 2015; Van Niekerk 2018).

The study was guided by the following research question:

What are undergraduate MLS students’ perceptions of the impact of industry-based laboratory excursion exposure on their learning experiences?

To address specific domains aligned with the study’s conceptual framework and data collection instrument, the following sub-questions were explored:

• How do students perceive the role of laboratory excursions in enhancing their recognition and understanding of modern diagnostic technologies?
• How do students perceive the contribution of laboratory excursion exposure to the development of practical and professional skills?
• How do laboratory excursions influence students’ perceived ability to integrate theoretical knowledge with real-world laboratory practice?
• How do students perceive the influence of laboratory excursions on their motivation and engagement with the MLS curriculum?

Theoretical framework

This study is grounded in Kolb’s experiential learning theory, which conceptualises learning as a cyclical process comprising concrete experience, reflective observation, abstract conceptualisation and active experimentation (Kolb 2014). Experiential learning theory emphasises that learning is strengthened when students engage in authentic experiences that enable them to reflect, integrate theory with practice and apply new understanding in professional contexts (Kolb 2014).

Similarly in MLS education, laboratory excursions complement structured experiential learning activities that expose students to real-world diagnostic environments beyond the university setting. These experiences allow students to observe contemporary laboratory technologies, workflows, quality control procedures and professional roles, thereby facilitating reflection on differences between academic instruction and industry practice. Through this process, theoretical knowledge is contextualised and meaningfully integrated, supporting perceived learning outcomes such as enhanced technological awareness, improved theory–practice integration, development of professional understanding and increased engagement with the curriculum in alignment with Kolb’s learning cycle (Easton 2025; Van Niekerk 2018).

The conceptual application of Kolb’s learning cycle to this study is illustrated in Figure 1, which demonstrates how industry-based laboratory excursions function as experiential learning opportunities within MLS education. The figure highlights student engagement in authentic experiences, reflect on observed laboratory practices, integrate theoretical knowledge with real-world applications and apply this understanding in academic and professional contexts.

FIGURE 1: Conceptual framework illustrating Kolb’s experiential learning cycle as applied to industry-based laboratory excursions in Medical Laboratory Science education.

Literature review

Experiential learning is particularly critical in MLS due to the profession’s central role in healthcare delivery and clinical decision making. Laboratory results significantly influence diagnosis, treatment decisions, disease monitoring and patient management (Adekoya, Okezue & Menon 2025; Pasic et al. 2023). The field is inherently technology driven, relying on sophisticated instrumentation and automated systems operated by trained professionals (Ahmed 2025; Wilson, Steele & Adeli 2022). Collectively, these demands place significant responsibility on UoTs in preparing graduates who are capable of functioning competently within complex and rapidly evolving diagnostic environments (Waheed 2018; Waheed et al. 2023).

Within the BHSc: MLS programme, experiential learning is primarily facilitated through laboratory-based teaching, work-integrated learning (WIL) during the latter part of the third year and a compulsory internship in the fourth year (Thembane 2022; Van Niekerk 2018). While the programme is guided by a nationally approved curriculum (Jansen van Vuuren 2005), the rapid pace of technological innovation within the diagnostic industry often results in a lag between academic preparation and current industry practice (Cadamuro 2023; Khatab & Yousef 2021). This gap is particularly evident in the transition from manual diagnostic techniques to highly automated and digitally integrated systems such as slide staining to fully automated systems (Munari et al. 2024), suggesting that traditional training approaches may not fully reflect current professional demands.

In response to these challenges, industry-based laboratory excursions have emerged as a supplementary experiential strategy that may help bridge this gap by exposing students to modern diagnostic platforms, laboratory information systems and automated workflows (Alum 2024; Merrill et al. 2023). These experiences can provide valuable contextual insight into professional practice; however, their implementation within MLS programmes is often inconsistent and dependent on individual modules or lecturer initiative. This variability raises important questions about the extent to which such excursions contribute meaningfully to student learning and professional preparedness.

Despite the presumed educational value of field-based excursions, there is limited empirical evidence examining their impact from the perspective of MLS students (Fedesco et al. 2020; Peasland et al. 2019), particularly within South African UoTs. While international literature documents the benefits of experiential and field-based learning, context-specific evidence evaluating the perceived impact of planned industry-based laboratory excursions on MLS students’ learning, technology recognition, skill development and theory to practice integration remains scarce. At the institutional level, systematic evaluation of excursions within the BHSc: MLS programme is lacking, and published data addressing this gap at national or regional levels are limited.

While a substantial body of literature highlights increased student engagement, satisfaction and motivation associated with experiential and field-based learning, evidence of measurable skill acquisition, competency development and work readiness outcomes remains variable and often discipline-specific (Ja’afar-Furo, Sulaiman & Dana’ilu 2017; Prashant et al. 2020). This suggests that although experiential approaches are effective in promoting engagement, their contribution to developing operational competencies may depend on the structure and level of student involvement.

Studies emphasise positive learning experiences and perceived relevance (Fedesco et al. 2020; Heričko et al. 2025), yet comparatively few empirically examine how experiential exposure translates into operational competencies required for professional practice. This distinction is particularly important within health professions education, where readiness for diagnostic practice extends beyond engagement to include technical proficiency, professional judgement and familiarity with real-world workflows. Although the literature broadly supports the pedagogical value of experiential learning, it tends to privilege perceptions of engagement over systematic evaluation of competency development and professional preparedness (Isabel 2015; Pearse & Scott 2023).

In MLS education where diagnostic accuracy, technological competence and adherence to quality standards are central, evaluating experiential learning solely in terms of enjoyment or satisfaction risks underestimating its educational implications (Prashant et al. 2020). This underscores the importance of examining how students perceive laboratory excursions as contributing to their readiness for contemporary diagnostic practice, not merely whether they value the experience.

Study context

This study was conducted at MUT, a public UoT in South Africa, focusing on students enrolled in the BHSc: MLS programme. The 4-year programme combines campus-based lectures and laboratory practicals during Levels 1–3 with work-integrated learning and a compulsory industry internship in the fourth year. Infused with online learning, teaching is predominantly delivered through face-to-face lectures and structured practical sessions across core laboratory disciplines, aimed at reinforcing theoretical content.

The programme enrols a predominantly female student population, with females constituting the majority across Levels 1–3, while male students are fewer. As most students enter the programme without prior exposure to laboratory environments, this highlights the importance of industry-based laboratory excursions in supporting contextual learning and professional socialisation.

Research methods and design

Study design

This study adopted a cross-sectional descriptive survey design to explore MLS students’ perceptions of industry-based laboratory excursion exposure on their learning experiences. A mixed-methods approach was employed, enabling the integration of quantitative descriptive (Likert-scale responses) trends with qualitative (open-ended responses) explanatory insights, providing a comprehensive understanding of students’ perceptions. Data were collected concurrently and analysed using a convergent mixed-methods approach. The study was cross-sectional in nature, as data were collected at a single point in time without follow-up or longitudinal comparison.

Study setting, population and sampling

The study was conducted among students enrolled in the BHSc: MLS programme at MUT. The target population comprised Level 1–3 MLS students, who are actively engaged in theory and laboratory practical learning and who had participated in at least one industry-based laboratory excursion as part of their training. Level 4 students were excluded, as they are engaged in full-time workplace internships and no longer participate in university-based lectures or practical sessions.

A census sampling approach was employed, whereby all the eligible students (approximately 120) were invited to participate. A total of 83 students voluntarily participated, yielding a 69% response rate, which is acceptable for survey-based educational research. The demographic profile of respondents comprised 72% females and 28% males, with most participants aged 18–24 years and a small proportion aged 25 years and above. While non-response bias cannot be entirely excluded, the response rate and demographic distribution were reflective of the typical BHSc: MLS student cohort, suggesting reasonable representativeness of the sample.

Data collection procedure and instrument

Data were collected using a self-administered, semi-structured online questionnaire developed by the researchers and administered through Google Forms. Data collection spanned 2.5 months (August 2025–October 2025). No existing validated instrument was identified that adequately captured undergraduate MLS students’ perceptions of laboratory excursion exposure within the South African UoT context; therefore, a researcher-developed questionnaire was utilised. The online format allowed participants to complete the questionnaire anonymously and at their convenience.

Questionnaire development was informed by: (1) A review of literature on experiential learning, field-based education and MLS training and (2) the study’s conceptual framework. The instrument consisted of two sections:

Section A

Quantitative component with closed-ended Likert-scale items ranging from 1 to 5 (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree), assessing perceptions across the following domains:

• exposure to modern diagnostic technologies;
• development of practical and professional skills;
• adequacy of university laboratory infrastructure;
• theory–practice integration;
• curriculum relevance and motivation.

Section B

Qualitative component with qualitative open-ended questions inviting participants to describe:

• technologies observed during excursions;
• infrastructural and technological gaps in university training;
• suggestions for improving excursions.

Measures to ensure data quality and content validity included alignment of questionnaire items with the study’s conceptual framework, internal expert review by academic staff teaching in the BHSc: MLS programme and review through the institutional ethics approval process. Expert feedback focused on item clarity, relevance and alignment with programme learning outcomes, resulting in minor wording and structural refinements prior to data collection. In addition, the questionnaire underwent pilot testing with a purposive group of ten former BHSc: MLS students and five academic staff members within the Biomedical Sciences department to assess comprehensibility, relevance and usability. Pilot feedback confirmed that the instrument was clear and appropriate for the target population, and no substantive revisions were required. Internal consistency analysis using Cronbach’s alpha was not conducted, as Likert-scale items were analysed descriptively as individual indicators rather than as composite scales. Given the exploratory nature of the study and its focus on self-reported perceptions, reliability was supported through content validation procedures and qualitative triangulation rather than scale-based metrics.

Data analysis

Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive statistics, including frequencies, percentages, means (M) and standard deviations (SD) in Microsoft Excel, with results presented using figures and summary tables. Inferential statistical analyses were not conducted, as the study was a cross-sectional, descriptive mixed-methods investigation focusing on students’ self-reported perceptions rather than hypothesis testing or causal inference. Descriptive statistics were interpreted using the following criteria: mean scores between 1.0–2.4 were considered low agreement, 2.5–3.4 as moderate or neutral agreement and 3.5–5.0 as high agreement. These categories were used to interpret the extent of students’ perceptions across measured domains.

Qualitative responses were analysed through inductive thematic content analysis involving repeated reading, open coding and theme development. To enhance analytical credibility and trustworthiness, data were coded independently by the primary researcher and an experienced academic staff member, followed by consensus discussions to refine themes. Moreover, an additional qualitative researcher reviewed the final coding framework and theme structure. Dependability was supported by an audit trail documenting all coding decisions, while reflexive practices were maintained to minimise researcher bias. Confirmability was strengthened through collaborative theme validation. Finally, quantitative and qualitative findings were integrated during the interpretation stage to examine convergence, complementarity and divergence, thereby strengthening mixed-methods rigour.

Ethical considerations

Ethical clearance was obtained from the Mangosuthu University of Technology Research Ethics Committee prior to data collection with reference number RDI/09/2025. To minimise coercion and power dynamics, a neutral recruiter or administrator, an alumnus, facilitated participant recruitment. After scheduled class lectures, students were provided a verbal briefing about the study and invited to participate voluntarily.

Subsequently, an information letter, informed consent form and invitation letter containing a link to the online survey were distributed electronically through class representatives. Prior to accessing the questionnaire, participants were directed to an electronic consent page within the survey link, after which consenting participants were able to proceed to the questionnaire. To enhance participation, weekly reminders were communicated after lectures through class representatives and lecturers within the Biomedical Sciences department. It was emphasised that participation was voluntary, anonymous and confidential, and students were informed of their right to withdraw without penalty.

Results

This study explored MLS students’ perceptions of industry-based laboratory excursions using a mixed-methods approach. Quantitative findings are presented alongside qualitative insights to demonstrate convergence, complementarity and divergence between data sources.

Quantitative analysis

Perceived impact on exposure to modern diagnostic technologies

A survey revealed that most students reported that laboratory excursions enhanced their exposure to modern diagnostic technologies. As shown in Figure 2, 49% (N = 41) of students strongly agreed and 33% (N = 27) agreed that excursions improved their exposure to modern laboratory technologies, while 12% (N = 10) remained neutral. Only a small proportion disagreed (2%, N = 2) or strongly disagreed (4%, N = 3). The mean score of 4.2 ± 1.0 was established, indicating a high level of agreement with relatively low variability.

FIGURE 2: Impact of laboratory excursion on technology exposure, N = 83.

These findings are supported by qualitative responses, where students described observing automated analysers, laboratory information systems and digital diagnostic workflows during excursions. These insights help explain the high levels of agreement, indicating that exposure occurred primarily through observation of modern laboratory environments.

Perceived impact on development of practical skills beyond university laboratories

The establishment of practical skills including pre-analytical, analytical and post-analytical during laboratory exposure was assessed by examining students’ self-reported experiences. The results (Figure 3) indicated that while 47% of students agreed (19%, N = 16) or strongly agreed (28%, N = 23) that excursions enhanced practical skills, 25% (N = 21) remained neutral and 28% generally disagreed (15%, N = 12 disagreed and 13%, N = 11 strongly disagreed). The established mean score was 3.3 ± 1.4, indicating a largely neutral response pattern with considerable variability.

FIGURE 3: Impact of laboratory excursion on practical skills, N = 83.

This variability is further explained by qualitative findings, which indicated that many excursions were predominantly observational, with limited opportunities for hands-on participation. These observations provide context for the neutral and divergent responses regarding practical skill development.

Perceived impact on bridging theory and industry practice

Regarding their perception of whether laboratory excursions bridge the gap between theoretical knowledge and industry practice, as shown in Figure 4, a majority strongly agreed (49%, N = 41), while 27% (N = 22) agreed that laboratory excursions bridge the gap between theory and practice. Only a minority of students expressed disagreement, with 6% (N = 5) disagreeing and 10% (N = 8) strongly disagreeing to the statement and 8% (N = 7) maintaining a neutral position. The recorded mean was 4.0 ± 1.3, indicating general agreement with moderate response variation.

FIGURE 4: Impact of laboratory excursion on bridging the gap between theory and practice, N = 83.

Qualitative responses reinforced this finding, with students describing how exposure to real laboratory workflows enabled them to better understand the application of theoretical concepts in practice. These findings demonstrate clear convergence between quantitative perceptions and experiential accounts.

Perceptions of curriculum integration of laboratory excursions

When students were assessed regarding the need for incorporation of laboratory excursions within the MLS curriculum, a clear preference for expansion was evident. As shown in Figure 5, 66% (N = 55) of students strongly agreed and 18% (N = 15) agreed that excursions should be formally integrated into the curriculum, while 5% (N = 4) remained neutral. Only a combined 11% of students disagreed (2%, N = 2) or strongly disagreed (8%, N = 7). The results established a mean score of 4.4 ± 1.2, reflecting high overall agreement. Qualitative findings further supported this perspective, as students recommended more frequent, structured and longer excursions, as well as exposure to diverse laboratory settings. These recommendations align with the strong quantitative agreement for curriculum integration.

FIGURE 5: Students’ perception on incorporating laboratory excursion into the curriculum, N = 83.

To facilitate comparison of central tendency and variability across survey items, Table 1 summarises mean scores and SD corresponding to the quantitative results presented in Figure 2, Figure 3, Figure 4 and Figure 5.

Qualitative analysis

The qualitative findings presented here provide a detailed explanation of the patterns observed in the quantitative results, offering deeper insight into students’ experiences of laboratory excursions, training gaps and recommendations for improvement.

Qualitative responses were analysed thematically, with respect to the following domains:

• Exposure to diagnostic technologies
• Observed gaps in university training
• Suggestions for improvement

Exposure to modern diagnostic technologies during laboratory excursions

Analysis of responses to the open-ended question ‘What modern diagnostic technologies were you exposed to during excursions?’ revealed four key themes reflecting students’ perceptions of technological exposure during industry-based laboratory visits.

Theme 1: Exposure to automation, autoanalysers and digital diagnostics: A dominant theme across responses was exposure to automated diagnostic systems and digital laboratory technologies. Students reported observing high-throughput analysers and integrated digital systems across multiple laboratory disciplines.

Illustrative responses included:

‘Clinical chemistry automation, Automated haematology analysers.’ (Participant 4, Level 1)

‘Gene Xpert, PCR.’ (Participant 23, Level 3)

Students also noted initial exposure to digital diagnostics, including automated result reporting, laboratory information systems, and in some cases, introductory references to artificial intelligence and machine-learning applications within diagnostic workflows.

Theme 2: Specific laboratory instruments and equipment: Participants described exposure to a wide range of laboratory instruments and diagnostic equipment during excursions, including analysers and general laboratory equipment.

Example excerpts included:

‘Laboratory equipment such as Autoclaves, Centrifuge machines and Autoanalyzers.’ (Participant 10, Level 1)

‘DX 700, ACCESS 2.’ (Participant 20, Level 3)

Theme 3: Exposure to advanced specimen processing, management and testing procedures: Students reported observing laboratory procedures across pre-analytical, analytical and post-analytical stages, providing insight into real-world diagnostic processes.

Participant responses included:

‘We were there to see how the specimen is processed from pre-analytical to post-analytical.’ (Participant 24, Level 3)

‘Specimen collection, labelling, sorting of specimens according to tests needed and different clinical departments.’ (Participant 62, Level 1)

Theme 4: Divergent perceptions or limited exposure: A minority of participants reported that excursions were primarily observational, with limited interaction or engagement with laboratory processes.

One participant noted:

‘The laboratory we visited, there wasn’t a lot we saw because it was basically a tour.’ (Participant 19, Level 3)

Despite this perception, the same response acknowledged the presence of automation in clinical laboratories:

‘But currently for example in chemistry, dilutions are not done manually, there’s a machine that does everything. In other disciplines there’s a machine that makes slides.’ (Participant 19, Level 3)

To summarise findings to main question, responses indicate that participants were exposed to modern diagnostic technologies predominantly through observation of automated analysers, specific instruments, integrated laboratory workflows and digital systems during educational excursions. However, some variability in perceived exposure was reported.

Observed technological and infrastructure gaps in university laboratory training

Analysis of participants’ responses to the open-ended question regarding technological and infrastructure gaps in university laboratory training yielded six themes, outlined below.

Theme 1: Limited access to, shortage or absence of resources: A dominant theme across responses was the limited availability or complete absence of essential laboratory equipment and resources. Participants frequently reported shortages of microscopes, analysers, reagents and other core laboratory instruments, often noting that available equipment was insufficient for large class sizes.

Responses included:

‘We have insufficient machines like biosafety cabinets and microscopes.’ (Participant 1, Level 1)

‘Our varsity lacks the proper equipment, reagents or machinery required to perform particular tests.’ (Participant 56, Level 2)

Participants also highlighted funding constraints and their impact on access to advanced technologies:

‘The lack of funds makes it hard to have advanced technology or structures.’ (Participant 18, Level 1)

Theme 2: Faulty, outdated or poorly maintained equipment: Many participants reported that available equipment was outdated, malfunctioning or inadequately maintained, limiting its effectiveness for training purposes. Several responses contrasted university equipment with newer systems observed during excursions.

Illustrative responses included:

‘Some of the equipment we used in university laboratories was outdated or not as advanced as what we saw during the excursions.’ (Participant 11, Level 1)

‘The microscopes are faulty; some don’t work well.’ (Participant 25, Level 2)

Theme 3: Emphasis on manual and theoretical training over automation: Participants highlighted a strong reliance on manual testing methods, with limited exposure to automated systems commonly used in industry. This created a perceived gap between training and professional practice.

Responses included:

‘As much as we learn how to conduct tests manually, the workplace does things mechanically.’ (Participant 7, Level 1)

‘The use of automation at a late stage.’ (Participant 28, Level 2)

Theme 4: Ergonomics and professional environment differences: Some participants identified physical infrastructure limitations, including inadequate working spaces, which affected practical training and safety.

Responses included:

‘The laboratory is overcrowded, and we bump into each other while doing practicals.’ (Participant 3, Level 1)

‘The university’s infrastructure is nothing compared to the hospital laboratory.’ (Participant 21, Level 1)

Theme 5: Mismatches in testing procedures and professional practices: Several participants noted differences between procedures taught at the university and those used in clinical laboratories, including specimen handling and quality assurance processes.

Replies included:

‘The laboratories now use peach top collection tubes for ESR and pink tops for neonatal samples as priority.’ (Participant 16, Level 1)

‘Quality control practices, method validation, and verification.’ (Participant 26, Level 2)

Theme 6: Divergent perceptions or no observed gaps: A minority of participants reported no perceived gaps, attributing this either to limited exposure or satisfaction with current training.

Illustrations included:

‘Nothing because everything is in a good way.’ (Participant 5, Level 1)

‘I haven’t observed any.’ (Participant 57, Level 2)

To summarise findings to the main question, participants identified technological and infrastructure gaps mainly related to resource shortages, outdated equipment, limited automation, physical constraints and procedural differences, although some reported no perceived gaps.

Suggestions in which educational excursions can be improved

Participants were asked to describe ways in which educational excursions could be improved to better prepare students for industry demands and professional readiness. Analysis of responses resulted in six descriptive themes, presented below.

Theme 1: Frequent and longer visit duration: Participants recommended more frequent and longer excursions to allow sustained engagement with industry environments.

Illustrations included:

‘More excursions should be done, and the people in the industry should explain in detail what they do, in simpler terms too.’ (Participant 72, Level 2)

‘There must be at least one excursion per semester for first year students and third year students.’ (Participant 27, Level 2)

Theme 2: Practical skill development and exposure to innovation: Participants consistently highlighted the need for hands-on engagement rather than observation-only experiences. Students expressed a desire to interact directly with modern diagnostic instruments, automation systems and laboratory workflows.

Responses included:

‘Hands-on participation: instead of passive observation, students should engage in supervised tasks.’ (Participant 42, Level 2)

‘Let us press a few buttons on less complicated machines or analysers.’ (Participant 80, Level 3)

Theme 3: Diverse exposure including public, private and referral laboratories: Participants highlighted the need to visit a wider range of laboratories, including public, private and specialised diagnostic facilities.

Suggestions included:

‘Not attending the same hospital now and then; we also wish to be exposed to private hospitals.’ (Participant 3, Level 1)

‘Show us different departments like histopathology and cytogenetics.’ (Participant 10, Level 1)

Theme 4: Enhancing practical curriculum, infrastructure and staff capacity: Participants emphasised the need for structured preparation, lecturer support and alignment between excursions and learning outcomes.

Illustrative responses included:

‘Lecturers should be there to assist students in asking more realistic and important questions.’ (Participant 13, Level 1)

‘Pre-excursion preparation- Provide students with preparatory materials to enhance their understanding and engagement during the excursion.’ (Participant 63, Level 1)

Some participants also referred to improving institutional capacity through infrastructure investment and staff training. For example:

‘Institutions can invest in modern equipment, enhance digital literacy among students and faculty, improve IT infrastructure, provide adequate technical support and implement robust cybersecurity measures.’ (Participant 63, Level 1)

Theme 5: Improved institutional planning, budgeting and logistics: Several participants emphasised logistical and financial considerations, including transport, food provision, time management and institutional budgeting for excursions.

Responses included:

‘The university should have a budget for excursions, not just transport.’ (Participant 40, Level 3)

‘Maybe if we would be provided with food, if not estimate the amount of time we will be there so we can prepare.’ (Participant 33, Level 2)

Theme 6: Divergent perceptions: A minority of participants indicated that excursions were already adequate and did not require further improvement while a few regarded practicals as sufficient.

Responses included:

‘According to my experience, the educational excursions are already improved.’ (Participant 49, Level 1)

‘As of far what we are being taught during the excursions does very much prepare us for the industry.’ (Participant 53, Level 2)

The findings regarding the primary research question indicate that participants conceptualise improvements to educational excursions through several key dimensions: increased frequency and duration, enhanced practical engagement, broader diversity of exposure, stronger institutional support and more robust logistical planning. Notably, a minority of participants expressed satisfaction with existing practices. Table 2 summarises qualitative findings.

Integrated quantitative and qualitative results

To present an integrated analysis of the quantitative and qualitative results, a joint display was used to summarise key findings across study constructs. As shown in Table 3, the table aligns mean scores and variability from the quantitative analysis with corresponding qualitative themes, highlighting areas of convergence, complementarity and divergence between data sources to provide a concise overview of patterns observed across both methods.

Discussion

The study explored the students’ perceptions of educational laboratory excursion among MLS students. Through the integration of quantitative survey data and thematic analysis of open-ended responses, the study offers comprehensive depiction of how structured field trips help close the gap between clinical laboratory expectations and university of technology training.

Exposure to modern diagnostic technologies

The findings reveal that students perceived laboratory excursions as very effective in enhancing their exposure to modern diagnostic technologies. This interpretation is supported by convergence between high levels of quantitative agreement and qualitative accounts describing exposure to automated analysers, digital diagnostics, laboratory information systems and integrated workflows. Together, these findings indicate that students view excursions as providing access to contemporary diagnostic environments that may not be readily available within university settings.

These outcomes are consistent with previous studies that have highlighted the value of early exposure to automated and digital laboratory systems in MLS education (Alum 2024; Merrill et al. 2023). However, rather than simply confirming prior work, the present study extends existing literature by demonstrating how such exposure occurs in practice primarily through observation of integrated workflows rather than direct interaction with technologies. Interpreted through Kolb’s experiential learning model (Kolb 2014), excursions strongly support concrete experience, enabling students to observe professional laboratory practice in authentic settings. Similarly, the growing emphasis on artificial intelligence, automation and data-driven diagnostics aligns with calls by Herman et al. (2021), Pennestrì and Banfi (2022) and Waheed et al. (2023) for early technological literacy in laboratory medicine training.

Nonetheless, the presence of minority perceptions describing excursions as brief overviews highlights variability in exposure quality. This suggests that while technology exposure is broadly achieved, inconsistency in excursion structure may limit the depth of learning for some students.

Development of practical skills, professional skills and motivation for curriculum inclusion

While students generally valued industry-based laboratory excursions, perceptions of practical skill development were more variable. Qualitative findings indicated that students perceived the excursions as largely observational, noting limited opportunities for hands-on participation. This shared perspective helps explain their neutral quantitative responses regarding skills acquisition and suggests that students view exposure to professional environments alone as insufficient for developing procedural competence without supervised practice.

These findings are consistent with experiential learning literature, which emphasises that active engagement is critical for skill development. Previous studies have shown that observation enhances conceptual understanding, but sustained hands-on involvement is required for the development of practical competence and professional confidence (Ja’afar-Furo et al. 2017; Prashant et al. 2020). Similarly, Hole (2018) noted that early field experiences may influence professional thinking and identity before measurable skill gains are evident, particularly among junior students. Neutral or negative perceptions may therefore reflect differences in excursion structure, duration or students’ stage of training rather than lack of educational value. In relation to Kolb’s model, this suggests that while excursions support early stages of experiential learning, opportunities for active experimentation remain constrained.

Despite variability in perceived skill development, students expressed strong support for incorporating laboratory excursions more formally into the curriculum. This aligns with studies reporting that students recognise the motivational and professional benefits of field-based learning even when opportunities for hands-on practice are limited (Foo & Foo 2022). Collectively, these findings suggest that while excursions contribute to professional awareness and motivation, their effectiveness in enhancing practical skills may be strengthened through structured design that includes supervised participation and alignment with learning outcomes, thereby supporting fuller engagement across the experiential learning cycle.

Gaps between academic and industry environments

The findings suggest that students perceive a misalignment between university laboratory environments and contemporary industry practice. While quantitative results demonstrated strong agreement regarding exposure to modern diagnostic technologies during excursions, qualitative insights revealed that students simultaneously perceived significant gaps within academic training environments. These included limited infrastructure, outdated equipment and a continued reliance on manual techniques, contrasted with the automation, integration and efficiency observed during excursions. This integration of findings suggests that laboratory excursions function as a critical point of contrast through which students become aware of discrepancies between academic preparation and professional practice. These perceptions align with existing literature highlighting infrastructural and technological constraints in resource-limited higher education contexts (Abidemi et al. 2024; Cadamuro 2023).

Rather than positioning excursions as a complete solution, the findings suggest that students experience these visits as a bridging mechanism, offering contextual exposure that highlights what professional practice entails. This interpretation is consistent with studies demonstrating that exposure to digital pathology, virtual microscopy and automated systems can enhance conceptual understanding even when hands-on access is limited (Donkin, Askew & Stevenson 2019; Lakhtakia 2021).

Within the context of Kolb’s experiential learning theory, these findings suggest that excursions effectively support concrete experience and reflective observation but may not fully facilitate active experimentation, which is essential for skill acquisition. This highlights the need for complementary educational strategies that incorporate structured practical engagement and updated laboratory infrastructure. Therefore, while excursions provide valuable contextual insight, reliance on them alone risks reinforcing surface-level familiarity with technologies unless accompanied by curriculum modernisation and institutional investment, as emphasised by Waheed (2018) and Akanji (2025).

Suggestions on ways to improve educational excursions

The findings provide important insight into how laboratory excursions can be strengthened to better support experiential learning in MLS education. Both quantitative and qualitative metrics reveal vigorous student advocacy for integrating these excursions into the curriculum. While quantitative data reflects a strong consensus regarding curriculum inclusion, qualitative insights provide actionable recommendations to enhance their structure, delivery and pedagogical impact.

Students consistently recommended more frequent and longer excursions, alongside the need for structured planning and academic guidance. In addition, qualitative responses highlighted a strong desire for hands-on engagement, suggesting that students perceive observational exposure as insufficient for developing practical competence. These findings directly align with the variability observed in quantitative perceptions of practical skill development, where neutral and divergent responses reflect limited opportunities for active participation.

These findings are consistent with existing literature emphasising the importance of structured experiential learning, guided engagement and reflective practice in maximising the value of field-based learning (Fedesco et al. 2020; Foo & Foo 2022). The present study adds to this body of work by grounding these recommendations in MLS-specific contexts and by highlighting the need for pedagogical alignment with learning outcomes rather than ad hoc exposure.

Furthermore, qualitative findings identified a perceived need for broader exposure to diverse laboratory settings, improved logistical planning and stronger collaboration between educational institutions and industry partners. These recommendations suggest that the effectiveness of excursions is closely tied to their design, organisation and alignment with curriculum objectives.

However, it is important to note that a minority of students expressed satisfaction with the current structure of laboratory excursions and practical training, indicating that they perceived existing experiential opportunities as adequate for industry preparation. These divergent perceptions suggest variability in students’ learning needs, expectations and prior exposure to laboratory environments. Recognising this variability is important, as it highlights that while there is strong overall support for improving excursions, enhancements should be flexible and responsive rather than uniform. Collectively, the findings support a balanced approach that retains effective aspects of current practice while strengthening structure, supervision and experiential depth to better support diverse student learning trajectories.

Implications for medical laboratory science education

The findings of this study offer important implications for MLS education within UoT. While laboratory excursions provide essential exposure to modern diagnostic technologies and facilitate theory–practice integration, their capacity to foster practical skills remains constrained by their predominantly observational nature. To enhance their pedagogical impact, excursions should be more systematically integrated into the curriculum, with clearly defined learning outcomes, structured guidance and opportunities for reflection. Incorporating supervised hands-on components and strengthening partnerships with industry may further support the development of practical competencies and professional readiness.

Recommendations

Based on these findings, it is recommended that laboratory excursions be formally integrated into the MLS curriculum, with increased frequency and alignment to module learning outcomes. Incorporating guided, supervised hands-on activities, alongside structured pre- and post-excursion reflection, may enhance practical skill development and professional readiness. Strengthening academic facilitation and collaboration with industry partners is also recommended to ensure more consistent and meaningful experiential learning. Future research should consider longitudinal and comparative designs, as well as the inclusion of objective competency measures to further evaluate the impact of structured excursion models on MLS students’ professional development.

Limitations

This study is not without limitations. Although a census sampling approach was employed, participation was limited to students who were available and willing to take part during the data collection period, which may have influenced sample representativeness. Furthermore, the study was conducted at a single institution, which limits the statistical generalisability of the findings beyond the specific study population.

Given the qualitative component of the study, the findings are not intended to be generalised in a statistical sense. Instead, the detailed contextual description of the study setting, participants and programme supports the transferability of findings to similar MLS programmes within comparable educational contexts.

The study relied on self-reported perceptions, which are subject to recall bias and potential social desirability bias. Participants reflected on prior laboratory excursion experiences rather than real-time engagement, which may affect the accuracy of responses. Additionally, the study examined perceived rather than objectively measured outcomes, and therefore conclusions cannot be drawn regarding actual competency or skill acquisition.

Finally, the cross-sectional design does not allow examination of changes in students’ learning over time or comparison between groups with differing levels of excursion exposure. While the mixed-methods approach strengthened explanatory depth, future studies incorporating longitudinal designs, objective competency assessments and comparative analyses would provide more robust evidence on the impact of structured laboratory excursions on professional readiness in MLS education.

Conclusion

This study examined MLS students’ perceptions of industry-based laboratory excursions within a South African UoT using a mixed-methods approach. The findings indicate that laboratory excursions contribute meaningfully to students’ exposure to modern diagnostic technologies and support theory–practice integration, particularly in resource-constrained academic contexts. Students consistently reported increased awareness of automation, digital diagnostics and professional laboratory workflows that are often limited within university training environments.

However, the study also revealed variability in perceptions of practical skill development. Qualitative findings suggest that this variability is largely attributable to the predominantly observational nature of many excursions, which limits opportunities for hands-on engagement and active experimentation. Interpreted through Kolb’s experiential learning model, the findings suggest that while excursions effectively support concrete experience, reflective observation and abstract conceptualisation, opportunities for active experimentation remain constrained. This highlights the importance of excursion design in determining their educational impact.

Acknowledgements

Support that contributed to the production of this publication came through the University Capacity Development Grant (UCDG) in the Teaching and Learning Development Centre (TLDC)’s Writing Retreat Project. The support is gratefully acknowledged.

The author gratefully acknowledges colleagues within the Biomedical Science department at MUT for their support throughout the study. Special thanks are extended to Kegomoditswe Mathobela for contributions to the development of study themes and discussion on the presentation of results, Ziningi Jaya for assistance in guiding and enhancing the quality and consistency of the manuscript, and Sanelisiwe Ndlovu for managing participant recruitment.

The author declares that they have no financial or personal relationships that may have inappropriately influenced them in writing this article.

Phumzile Y. Sikosana: Conceptualisation, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Software, Validation, Visualisation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. The author confirms that this work is entirely their own, has reviewed the article, approved the final version for submission and publication and takes full responsibility for the integrity of its findings.

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

The data that support the findings of this study are not openly available due to confidentiality, and the anonymised version of the dataset is available from the corresponding author, Phumzile Y. Sikosana, upon reasonable request.

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and are the product of professional research. They do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any affiliated institution, funder, agency or that of the publisher. The author is responsible for this article’s results, findings and content.

References