The document summarizes a study that compared the effects of four different modes of delivering biology lab content on students' academic achievement: 1) a physical lab with instructor presence, 2) a virtual lab with no instructor presence, 3) a virtual lab with instructor presence, and 4) a virtual lab with instructor presence and learner control. Quantitative results showed that while students' test scores improved significantly from pre-to-post-test, the delivery mode had no significant impact on scores. Qualitative focus groups explored students' experiences of instructor presence and learner control across the different delivery modes.

1. The Effects of Biology Lab Delivery Mode on Academic
Achievement in College Biology
Jaime Ann McQueen
College of Education and Human Development
Texas A&M University- Corpus Christi
February 24, 2017

2. Context
Physical Labs (PLs):
• Offer limited provision of learner control as they are constrained by very specific
instructions, time and scheduling concerns, and limited opportunities for repetition
(Brinson, 2015).
• Instructor presence, where learners are able to communicate, ask questions, and receive
guidance from instructors during a course or lab has been shown to enhance student
learning and understanding of course and laboratory content (De Jong, Linn, & Zacharia,
2013; Picciano, 2002; Stuckey-Mickell & Stuckey-Danner, 2007).
Virtual Labs (VLs):
• Students are actively in control of interaction with simulated lab equipment and
experiments, pacing, repetition, and their own learning (Pyatt & Sims, 2012).
• Communication between instructors and students is critical to students’ success in online
learning environments, immediacy may be lacking in distance based learning (Crippen et
al., 2013; De Jong et al., 2013; Dunlap, Verma, & Johnson, 2016; Jaggars, Edgecombe,
& Stacey, 2013; Picciano, 2002).

3. Theoretical Framework
Instructor Presence and Learner control
• Instructor presence: includes specific levels of guidance provided
by instructors which promote successful student learning in
Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM)
subjects (Ahmed & Hasegawa, 2014; Chen et al., 2016; Pedersen
& Irby, 2014; Smith, 2015; Zacharia et al., 2015).
• Learner control: learners take responsibility for the pace, repetition,
and sequence of content in learning environments (Dede, 2009;
Hanafin, 1984; Simsek, 2012).

4. Study Purpose
Quantitative
• The purpose of this study was to test the hypotheses that there would be statistically
significant differences in non-majors college biology students’ learning as measured by
scores on a post-test administered immediately following lab completion and after a one
week delay due to the comparative effects of four different modes of biology lab
treatments
Qualitative
• The purpose of this study was to qualitatively explore how non-majors college biology
students describe their experiences of instructor presence and learner control of pace
and repetition in each of four lab treatments.

5. Literature Review
The Impact of Physical and Virtual Labs on Students' Achievement
Achievement in physical labs is less than
virtual labs
• (Finkelstein et al., 2005; Gilman, 2006;
Stuckey-Mickell & Stuckey-Danner, 2007;
Swan & O’Donnell, 2009; Zacharia, 2007;
Zacharia et al., 2008)
Achievement in physical labs is greater than
virtual labs
• (Corter et al., 2011; Dalgarno et al., 2009)
Achievement in physical labs is equivalent to
virtual labs
• (Darrah et al., 2014; Tatli & Ayas, 2013;
Triona & Klahr, 2003; Zacharia &
Olympiou, 2011)
Gaps in current research • (Pedersen & Irby, 2014; Richardson et al.,
2015; Stuckey-Mickell & Stuckey-Danner,
2007; Zacharia, 2007; Zacharia et al.,
2008; Zacharia et al., 2015)

6. Literature Review
The Impact of Instructor Presence and Learner Control on Students' Achievement
The impact of instructor presence on students’
achievement in physical labs
• Positive (De Jong et al., 2013; Klahr & Nigam,
2004; Picciano, 2002; Stuckey-Mickell & Stuckey-
Danner, 2007)
The impact of instructor presence on students’
achievement in virtual labs
• Positive (Adams et al., 2009; Chamberlain et al.,
2014; Jonassen, 2000; Jonassen, 2001; Merrill,
1999; Podolefsky et al., 2013; Zacharia et al.,
2015)
• Negative (Chamberlain et al., 2014; Chang et al.,
2008)
The impact of learner control on students’
achievement in physical labs
• Positive (Hofstein et al., 2005; NRC, 2006;
Zacharia et al., 2015)
• Negative (Josephsen & Kristensen, 2006; NRC,
1997)
The impact of learner control on students’
achievement in virtual labs
• Positive (Bhargava et al., 2006; Honey & Hilton,
2011; Lee et al., 2010; Smetana & Bell, 2012)
• Negative ( Pedersen & Irby, 2014)
Gaps in current research • (Dede, 2009; Darrah et al., 2014; Flowers, 2011;
Picciano, 2002; Stuckey-Mickell & Stuckey-
Danner, 2007; Zacharia, 2007; Zacharia et al.,
2008; Zacharia et al., 2015)

7. Literature Review
Students’ Experiences of Instructor Presence and Learner Control in Physical and Virtual Labs
Students’ experiences of instructor presence in
physical labs
• Positive (Bhargava et al., 2006; Gilman, 2006; Stuckey-
Mickell & Stuckey-Danner, 2007)
Students’ experiences of instructor presence in
virtual labs
• Positive (Johnson, 2002; Lim et al., 2008)
• Negative (Gilman, 2006; Stuckey-Mickell & Stuckey-
Danner, 2007)
Students’ experiences of learner control in
physical labs
• Positive (Chen et al., 2014; Domin, 1999; Toth et al.,
2009)
• Negative (Chen et al., 2014; Corter et al., 2007; NRC,
1997)
Students’ experiences of learner control in virtual
labs
• Positive (Bhargava et al., 2006; Lee et al., 2010; Parker &
Loudon, 2012; Pyatt & Sims, 2012; Swan & O’Donnell,
2009; Thompson et al., 2010; Toth et al., 2009)
• Negative (Chen et al., 2014; Pedersen & Irby, 2014;
Stuckey-Mickell & Stuckey-Danner, 2007)
Gaps in current research • (NRC, 2006; Lee et al., 2010; Puttick, Drayton, & Cohen,
2015; Richardson et al., 2015)

8. Research Questions & Hypotheses
The quantitative and qualitative research questions that guided the study are as follows:
Quantitative
1. What are the comparative effects of four levels of biology lab delivery on non-majors college biology
students’ test scores immediately following completion of a lab, and after a one week delay? The four
levels compared are:
a. a physical based lab with instructor presence (PL),
b. a virtual lab with no instructor presence (VL),
c. a virtual lab with instructor presence (VLIP) , and
d. a virtual lab with instructor presence and direction for learner control of pace and repetition beyond
lab time (VLIPLC).
Qualitative
1. How do non-majors college biology students describe their experiences of instructor presence and
learner control of pace and repetition in each of the four treatments?
Three alternate hypotheses were tested:
1) main effect of four modes of biology lab delivery .
2) main effect time measured by pre-test, post-test, one-week delayed post-test.
3) mode of lab delivery by time interaction effect.

9. PL Group VL Group VLIP Group VLIPLC Group
Instructor Presence Instructor is
available in
person to answer
questions and to
help with lab
No IP
Instructor is virtually
available as needed
and encourages
student contact for
help with lab
Instructor is virtually
available as needed and
encourages student
contact for help with lab
Learner Control Student follows
lab manual for 50
mins.
Student
follows lab
manual at
their own
pace
Student follows lab
manual at their own
pace
Student follows lab
manual at their own pace
and is encouraged to
repeat the processes
Directed
LC
Operational Definitions Table
Table 1. Operational Definitions Table

10. Method
Quantitative Study Participants
Non-probability sampling was used to select student participants enrolled in four sections of
a college level undergraduate introductory biology course (BIOL 1308) at a south Texas
University during the fall 2016 semester. Each of the four sections was randomly assigned
to a lab delivery mode treatment.
• PL- (n=21)
• VL- (n=25)
• VLIP- (n=22)
• VLIPLC-(n=24)
• The majority of the participants were 18-24 years old (92.40%), were female (55.40%),
and were sophomores (54.20%). With respect to ethnicity, (44.60%) were white,
(33.70%) Hispanic, and (13.00%) African American.

11. Method
Qualitative Study Participants
All focus group and interview participants were students enrolled in four sections of a college
level undergraduate introductory biology course (BIOL 1308) at a south Texas University
during the fall 2016 semester. Participants were selected from the pool of students who
consented to being audio-recorded, all qualitative participants completed the quantitative
portion of the study.
Focus Groups
PL-(n=5)
VL-(n=4)
VLIPLC-(n=5)
Interview
VLIP-(n=1)
• The majority of the participants were 18-24 years old (93.33%), were female (73.33%),
and were sophomores (66.67%). With respect to ethnicity, (46.67%) were white,
(40.00%) Hispanic, (6.67%) African American, and (6.67%) other ethnicity.

12. Research Design
• Sequential explanatory mixed methods (Creswell, 2014; Creswell & Plano
Clark, 2006; Creswell et al., 2003)
• Quasi-experimental study, lacks the random sampling of a true experiment
(Shadish, Cook, & Campbell, 2002).
Figure 1. Sequential Explanatory Design

13. Research Design
Pre-Test Treatment Immediate Recall
Post-Test
Delayed Recall
Post-Test
PL Group y X1 y y
VL Group y X2 y y
VLIP Group y X3 y y
VLIPLC Group y X4 y y
Quantitative
• 4 X 3 repeated measures split plot design
• Independent variable: Four different modes of biology lab delivery
• Dependent variable: Performance on post-tests (immediate, delayed)
Table 2. Research Design

14. Research Design
Qualitative
• Focus groups and Interview
–Semi-structured
–30 minutes in duration each
• Three focus groups, one for each of the PL, VL, VLIPLC lab delivery modes
• One interview for VLIPLC lab delivery mode
• Given after quantitative data collection
• Enhanced quantitative findings by exploring students’ experiences learning
using instructor presence and learner control in physical and virtual labs.

15. Materials
Quantitative
• Prior to lab activities all students received a 90 min course lecture on mitosis and
meiosis, delivered by the researcher.
PL Group
• Pre-Lab Tutorial: Pre-lab guidance and directions given by TA.
• Lab Activity (50 mins): Exercises 6.1 The Cell Cycle & 6.2 Meiosis (Pendarvis & Crawley,
2016)
• Instructor contact and affordances sheet: Detailed the affordance of instructor presence
through having an instructor physically available to answer questions, provided contact
information for the researcher, course instructor, and TA.
VL Groups
• Pre-Lab Tutorial: Computer based introductory tutorial provided by Sapling Learning that
acquainted students with the virtual lab interface.
• Lab Activity (50 mins): Mitosis & Meiosis (Sapling Learning, General Biology, 2016).
• Instructor contact and affordances sheets: Gave description of affordances of each VL
delivery mode, provided contact information for the researcher, course instructor, and TA.

16. Mitosis and Meiosis Interactive
Figure 2. Screen shot of
Mitosis and Meiosis
Interactive question (a) the
hint provided (b) and question
feedback (c). Copyright 2017
Sapling Learning.

17. Materials
Qualitative
Researcher developed focus group and interview protocols (Jonassen, Tessmer, &
Hannum, 1999)
• Served to explain the results from the initial quantitative study (Creswell, 2014;
Creswell & Plano Clark, 2006; Creswell et al., 2003)
• One for each lab delivery mode
• Nine lead questions each
• Sample questions:
“How did the lab help you to learn biology content?”
“How many times did you repeat the lab and how?”
“Did you seek or receive help from your instructor while completing
the virtual lab, if so, how?”

18. Instrumentation
Quantitative
• The researcher designed three equivalent, matched, test forms on the topic of meiosis
and mitosis to measure students’ academic achievement.
– 30 item multiple-choice pre-test administered prior to lab delivery.
– 30 item multiple-choice immediate recall post-test given immediately following delivery of
labs.
– 30 item multiple-choice delayed recall post-test given one week following lab completion.
Questions were selected from previously published test banks from Openstax Biology
and Concepts of Biology, published by Rice University.
• Reliability (Cronbach’s α):
– Summer II Pilot: Pre-Test (.71), Immediate Post-Test (.81), One-week Delayed Post-Test (.84)
– Study: Pre-Test (.62), Immediate Post-Test (.76), One-week Delayed Post-Test (.81)
• Matching and equivalence of each test item across the pre-test and post-tests was
ensured through correlation of unique question ID numbers and difficulty scales provided
as part of the test banks.

19. PL
Group
VL Group VLIP Group VLIPLC Group
10/10-10/17, 2016
Obtained study consent y y y y
10/17-10/18, 2016
Participated in the pretest y y y y
Received content lecture
(90 mins)
y y y y
10/19-10/20, 2016
1.Received lab tutorial y y y y
2.Completed lab treatment PL VL VLIP VLIPLC
3.Immediate Post-Test y y y y
10/26-10/27, 2016
Delayed Post-Test y y y y
10/31-11/01, 2016
Focus Group y y y y
Data Collection & Procedure
Table 3. Data Collection and Procedure

20. Quantitative Data Analysis
Quantitative
• Pre-experimental equivalence was assumed, a 4x3 repeated
measures ANOVA was conducted (Huck, 2000; Urdan, 2010).
• IBM (SPSS) v. 23.
• The mean difference effect sizes were computed to examine
practical significance of the findings.

21. Qualitative Data Analysis
Qualitative
• Focus group data was audio recorded using the voice memo feature of an
iPhone 6.
• Audio data was transcribed verbatim into Microsoft word and sorted into
codes, categories, and themes using MAXQDA 11.
• Researcher took analytic memos, as suggested by Saldana (2009).
• First cycle coding: structural coding, Second cycle coding: magnitude coding
(Saldana, 2009).
• Qualitative findings were integrated with the quantitative results of the study
to describe students experiences of the affordances of IP and LC in biology
labs
Methodological Framework
• Interpretivism (Crotty, 1998)

22. Quantitative Results
Table 4.
Means and Standard Deviations for Mitosis and Meiosis Content Knowledge

23. Quantitative Results
• The time effect was statistically significant, F(2,176) =148.65, p < 0.01.
• The mode of the delivery effect was not statistically significant, F(3,88) = 0.38, p = 0.76.
• The interaction effect of the mode of delivery and time was not statistically significant,
F(6,176) = 1.51, p = 0.18.
Table 5.
Mode of Delivery by Time ANOVA Summary Table

24. Quantitative Results
• Mean difference effect sizes were computed to examine practical significance of the
findings.
– Pre-Test to Immediate post-test effect size range: 0.99-2.00
– Immediate post test to One-week delayed post-test effect size range: -0.25-0.44
– Pre-Test to One-week delayed post-test effect size range: 1.23-1.71
*Note: 0.20 = small effect, 0.50 = medium effect, and > 0.80 = large effect (Cohen, 1988)
Table 6.
Mean Difference Effect Sizes

25. Quantitative Results
Quantitative
• All groups learned significantly from the pre-test to the immediate post-test, and from the
pre-test to the one-week delayed recall post-test. Scores remained constant between the
immediate post-test and one-week delayed post-test.
• The mode of delivery effect was not significant, all students performed equivalently well,
regardless of lab delivery mode.
• Small sample sizes (low power) was acknowledged as mode of delivery effect and mode
of delivery x time effect were not statistically significant. Output analysis revealed sample
sizes of (n=30) per group would have yielded a statistically significant interaction effect

26. Qualitative Results
Table 7.
Themes and Categories for Students’ Experiences
Theme 1: Instructor Presence
•Instructor-Student Communication
•Instructor Guidance
Theme 2: Learner Control
•Repetition
•Pacing
•Time Spent Learning
•Access To Guidance as Needed
Theme 3: Unique Laboratory Experiences
•Students’ Insight into Learning
•Students’ Suggestions to Improve Labs
• An analysis of the data from the interview and the three focus groups resulted in
three themes and eight categories. A summary is provided in Table 7 below.

27. Qualitative Results
Table 8.
Select Focus Group and Interview Student Responses
Instructor Presence Learner Control Unique Lab Experiences
PL Group “She was walking around, and if she
saw you looked like you needed
help, then she would help you”
“There is no point [to review]
when we move on to
something else next week”
“It felt kind of rushed”
“There’s not enough microscopes”
“I am not really ‘getting it’”
“I’d want a longer amount of time”
“It’d be cool if you could actually
‘see’ the cells”
VL Group “Yeah, the lecture and the virtual lab,
that was perfect”
“I liked how it was individually
paced”
“It gave me information
instead of ‘just pictures’”
“I liked how it showed [cellular]
movement”
“I think I got what I needed from
the virtual lab personally”
VLIP Group “Some learners are better guided by
a presence”
“I just kind of ‘one-shotted’ it
for the most part”
“I personally think that it's very
helpful, just needs polishing is all”
VLIPLC Group “I liked having an instructor there too,
just in case I had questions”
“ I referred to the animations
quite often”
“I could do it how I want to do
it”
“I was fine with the virtual lab and
seeing it the animation way“
“I like it better than the regular lab”

28. Discussion
Quantitative
• Time effect: The improvement in scores from the pre-test to immediate post-test and
from the pre-test to one-week delayed post-test indicates students in all groups learned
significantly. The lack of statistically significant change in scores between the immediate
post-test and one-week delayed post-test indicates students retained knowledge.
• Mode of delivery effect: The equivalent performance among students in all lab delivery
modes indicates that virtual labs can produce learning outcomes equivalent to physical
labs (Darrah et al., 2014; Tatli & Ayas, 2013; Triona & Klahr, 2003; Zacharia & Olympiou,
2011).
• Meaningful effect sizes: Indicate that lack of a statistically significant interaction effect is
due to the small sample sizes of the groups (low power).
• Had students used the affordances of instructor presence and learner control they may
have seen greater learning and achievement between the immediate post-test and one-
week delayed post-test.

29. Discussion
Qualitative
PL Group
• Appreciated having a physically available instructor
• Felt constrained by lack of microscopes and lab equipment
• Wanted more time to review lab content
VL Groups
• Enjoyed being able to go at their own pace, repeat the lab, and look at cell animations.
• Appreciated when an instructor was present, but didn’t feel it was necessary to learn.
• Enjoyed not having to “mess with complicated lab equipment”
• Expressed some confusion related to the hints and feedback provided by the virtual lab.
• Students in all lab delivery modes felt their lab was beneficial to their learning!
• Despite the ‘glitches’ of physical and virtual labs, students can be positive of their
laboratory learning experiences, thanks to helpful instructors and well designed VLs with
embedded guidance.

30. Discussion
Instructor Presence and Learner Control
Quantitative
• Students in PL, VLIP, and VLIPLC group made use of instructor presence during lab
time, but not in the week following.
• Students in VL, VLIP, and VLIPLC groups made use of learner control during lab time,
but not in the week following.
Qualitative
• Students expressed they did not use instructor presence after the lab due to the rapid
pacing of the semester “we’re moving on to something different next week”
• Students expressed they did not use learner control and repeat the virtual lab, because
they “had a course biology test for a grade” that week.
• As instructional designers, researchers, and curriculum publishers, we should continue to
support our students during their labs. Additionally, we should continue to research best
practices in laboratory teaching and find new ways to deliver supportive labs to our
students.
Students need to be actively encouraged to use instructor presence and learner
control

31. Significance of the Study
Findings from this study will inform science educators regarding the effects of
instructor presence which is afforded in physical labs and learner control which
is afforded in virtual labs.
Virtual Labs can:
• Expand science education options for college students.
• help online learners, non-science majors students, students with disabilities.
This research will help inform the fields of higher education, curriculum and
instruction, and instructional design.
• Virtual lab research is timely and relevant (Darrah et al., 2014; Johnson,
2002; Miller, 2008).
I intend to share my study and findings with institutions of higher learning,
curriculum publishers, and all other parties interested in the utility of virtual
laboratories.

32. Limitations and Delimitations
Limitations
• The study was limited by small sample sizes: (n=92) out of (N=98) completed the
quantitative study. (n=15) out of (N=63) participated in qualitative study focus groups.
• Treatments had to follow scope and sequencing of course syllabus
Delimitations
• Due to time and scheduling constraints, the delayed learning outcomes were measured
after one week
• Each lab treatment only lasted for a duration of 50 minutes
• Only one lab treatment was used for the PL and VLs
• The researcher selected the questions for each of the three tests. The tests were difficult,
the highest student score overall was an 87%

33. Implications for Further Research
• Need for further study of PLs and VLs in college biology (Flowers, 2011; Ma & Nickerson,
2006)
• Further study of impact of instructor presence on students’ learning and achievement in
PLs and VLs (Dixson, 2010; Richardson et al., 2015; Stuckey-Mickell & Stuckey-Danner,
2007; Watson et al., 2016)
• Further study exploring students’ learning experiences using instructor presence in PLs
and VLs (Humphries, 2007; Richardson et al., 2015; Robinson, 2012; Stang & Roll,
2014).
• Further study on impact of learner control on student achievement in PLs and VLs
(Brown et al., 2016; Chamberlain et al., 2014; Chang et al., 2008; Zacharia et al., 2008)
• Further study exploring students’ learning experiences using learner control in PLs and
VLs (Lee et al., 2010; NRC, 2006; Puttick et al., 2015)

34. Implications for Further Research
• Need for future studies which explore how to encourage students to use affordances
provided by physical and virtual laboratories to assist in their learning (Dede, 2009; De
Jong et al., 2013).
• Future studies are needed to measure students’ achievement and experiences in PLs
and VLs over an entire course.
• Need for future studies which compare students achievement and lab experiences
between majors and non-majors courses (Hallyburton & Lunsford, 2013).
• Need for studies that measure students’ achievement and experiences, where use of the
affordances of instructor presence and learner control is more actively encouraged. This
may be accomplished by:
• Integrating affordance use as a graded component of the course
• Instructors giving frequent reminders to use the affordances
• Instructors promoting learning benefits and relevance of affordances to students’ learning
• Integrating VLs as a study tool for the course

35. Implications for Theory
Implications for Instructional Design
Instructor Presence
• The study contributed to the theory of design and implementation of PLs and VLs (Ahmed &
Hasegawa, 2014) .
• Students can learn without an instructor being physically present, due to VLs provision of
guidance.
• Guidance embedded in VLs must be clear, easy to use, and well designed.
• Instructional designers and educators should rethink their conception and definition of instructor
presence, VLs can deliver presence (De Jong et al., 2013; Merrill, 1999; Podolefsky, Moore, &
Perkins, 2013)
Learner Control
• Instructional designers, curriculum developers, and educators should explore new ways to
encourage students' use of the learner control offered by VLs, especially since learner control is
linked to increased student achievement (Finkelstein et al., 2005; Swan & O' Donnell, 2009;
Zacharia, 2007).
• Finally, to inform the design and development of PLs and VLs, further studies exploring and
encouraging students' use of learner control in these environments are necessary (Yaman et al.,
2008; Zacharia et al., 2015).

36. Implications for Theory
Implications for STEM Education
Instructor Presence
• Students in PL did not initiate instructor student communication, they waited for the TA’s
guidance
• Educators in PL environments should: actively monitor students during laboratory
investigations, check for understanding, and initiate communication as needed (NRC,
1996).
Learner Control
• Students in the PL group had the ability to control their learning through accessing
available guidance from the instructor as necessary, however they only did so when the
TA asked them questions and provided guidance to check for their understanding.
• Educators should actively support and encourage students' questioning in PL
environments as they may be hesitant to seek guidance own their own (NRC, 1996;
NRC, 1997).

37. Implications for Practice
"How can instructors further encourage students to take advantage of the
affordances of instructor presence and learner control?“
• Need for further study in online virtual lab environments (Campen, 2013; Flowers, 2011;
Reese, 2013; Stuckey-Mickell & Stuckey-Danner, 2007)
• Such studies would:
– Establish effectiveness of VLs as a learning tool
– Inform potential adopters, instructional designers, and curriculum or academic
researchers
• There is a need for further practice to actively ensure that students are taking advantage
of the benefits of instructor presence and learner control.

38. References
Ahmed, M. E., & Hasegawa, S. (2014). An instructional design model and criteria for designing and developing online virtual labs. International Journal of Digital Information and Wireless
Communications (IJDIWC), 4(3), 355-371.
Bhargava, P. Antonakakis, J., Cunningham, C. & Zehnder, A.T. (2006). Web-based virtual torsion laboratory. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 14(1), 1-8.
Brinson, J. R. (2015). Learning outcome achievement in non-traditional (virtual and remote) versus traditional (hands-on) laboratories: A review of the empirical research. Computers & Education, 38(3),
218-237. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2015.07.003
Chen, J. A., Tutwiler, M. S., Metcalf, S. J., Kamarainen, A., Grotzer, T., & Dede, C. (2016). A multi-user virtual environment to support students' self-efficacy and interest in science: A latent growth
model analysis. Learning and Instruction, 41, 11-22.
Chen, S., Chang, W. H., Lai, C. H., & Tsai, C. Y. (2014). A comparison of students’ approaches to inquiry, conceptual learning, and attitudes in simulation‐based and microcomputer‐based
laboratories. Science Education, 98(5), 905-935.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates
Corter, J. E., Esche, S. K., Chassapis, C., Ma, J., & Nickerson, J. V. (2011). Process and learning outcomes from remotely-operated, simulated, and hands-on student laboratories. Computers &
Education, 57(3), 2054-2067.
Corter, J. E., Nickerson, J. V., Esche, S. K., Chassapis, C., Im, S., & Ma, J. (2007). Constructing reality: A study of remote, hands-on, and simulated laboratories. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human
Interaction (TOCHI), 14(2), 1-27.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2006). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Creswell, J. W., Plano Clark, V. L., Gutmann, M. L., & Hanson, W. E. (2003). Advanced mixed methods research designs. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and
behavioral research (pp. 209–240). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Crippen, K. J., Archambault, L. M., & Kern, C. L. (2013). The nature of laboratory learning experiences in secondary science online. Research in Science Education, 43(3), 1029-1050.
Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the research process. London, UK: Sage.
Dalgarno, B., Bishop, A. G., Adlong, W., & Bedgood, D. R. (2009). Effectiveness of a virtual laboratory as a preparatory resource for distance education chemistry students. Computers &
Education, 53(3), 853-865.
Dede, C. (2009). Immersive interfaces for engagement and learning. Science, 323, 66-69.
De Jong, T., Linn, M. C., & Zacharia, Z. C. (2013). Physical and virtual laboratories in science and engineering education. Science, 340(6130), 305-308.
Finkelstein, N. D., Adams, W. K., Keller, C. J., Kohl, P. B., Perkins, K. K., Podolefsky, N. S., & ... LeMaster, R. (2005). When learning about the real world is better done virtually: A study of substituting
computer simulations for laboratory equipment. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research, 1(1), 010103-1--010103-8.

39. References Continued…
Hannafin, M. J. (1984). Guidelines for Using Locus of Instructional Control in the Design of Computer-Assisted Instruction. Journal of Instructional Development, 7(3), 6-10.
Huck, S. W. (2000). Reading statistics and research (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Addison Wesley Longman.
Johnson, M. (2002). Introductory biology online. Journal of College Science Teaching, 31(5), 312-317.
Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Revisiting activity theory as a framework for designing student-centered learning environments. In D. H. Jonassen & S. M. Land (Eds.), Theoretical Foundations of Learning
Environments (pp.89-122). Mahwah, N.J.: L. Erlbaum Associates.
Jonassen, D. H. (2001). How can we learn best from multiple representations? The American Journal of Psychology, 114(2), 321-327.
Jonassen, D. H., Tessmer, M., & Hannum, W. H. (1999). Task analysis methods for instructional design. Mahwah, N.J.: L. Erlbaum Associates.
Ma, J., & Nickerson, J. V. (2006). Hands-on, simulated, and remote laboratories: a comparative literature review. ACM Computing Surveys, 3(1), 1-24.
Merrill, M. D. (1999). Instructional transaction theory (ITT): Instructional design based on knowledge objects. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-Design Theories and Models: A New Paradigm of
Instructional Theory (pp.397-424). Mahwah, N.J.: L. Erlbaum Associates.
Pendarvis, M.P., & Crawley, J.L. (2016). Exploring Biology in the Laboratory: Core Concepts. Englewood, CO: Morton Publishing.
(NRC) National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC, USA: National Academy Press.
(NRC) National Research Council. (1997). Science teaching reconsidered: A handbook. Washington, DC, USA: National Academy Press.
(NRC) National Research Council. (2006). America's lab report: Investigations in high school science. Washington, DC, USA: National Academy Press.
Saldana, J. (2009). The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. London, UK: SAGE Publications.
Sapling Learning Higher Education (2015). General & Introductory Biology. Retrieved from http://www2.saplinglearning.com/introductory-biology.
Stuckey-Mickell, T. A., & Stuckey-Danner, B.D. (2007). Virtual labs in the online biology course: Student perceptions of effectiveness and usability. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching,
3(2), 105-111.
Swan, A. E., & O’Donnell, A. M. (2009). The contribution of a virtual biology laboratory to college students’ learning. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 46(4), 405-419.
Urdan, T. C. (2010). Statistics in plain English (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Zacharia, Z. C. (2007). Comparing and combining real and virtual experimentation: an effort to enhance students' conceptual understanding of electric circuits. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning,
23(2), 120-132.
Zacharia, Z. C., Manoli, C., Xenofontos, N., de Jong, T., Pedaste, M., van Riesen, S. A., & ... Tsourlidaki, E. (2015). Identifying potential types of guidance for supporting student inquiry when using
virtual and remote labs in science: A literature review. Educational Technology Research and Development, 63(2), 257-302.
Zacharia, Z. C., & Olympiou, G. (2011). Physical versus virtual manipulative experimentation in physics learning. Learning and Instruction, 21(3), 317-331.
Zacharia, Z. C., Olympiou, G., & Papaevripidou, M. (2008). Effects of experimenting with physical and virtual manipulatives on students' conceptual understanding in heat and temperature. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 45(9), 1021-1035.

40. Questions ???
I appreciate your feedback and questions.

41. Special Thanks
I just wanted to give a huge special “Thank You” to the following people for
helping me on my PhD Journey:
•Dr. Lauren Cifuentes
•Dr. Tonya Jeffery
•Dr. Kamiar Kouzekanani
•Dr. Stephen Rodriguez
•Dr. Sara Baldwin
My amazing husband William McQueen <3
And my friends and family
I couldn’t have done this without all of your encouragement and support!

42. Thank you
Contact me via e-mail
jmcqueen@islander.tamucc.edu