This is a presentation of my research on Virtual Biology Labs presented at the SERA 2017 Conference

1. The Effects of Biology Lab Delivery on Academic
Achievement in Biology in a Sample of Non-Majors College
Undergraduate Students
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Southwest Educational Research
Association, San Antonio, TX February, 16, 2017
Jaime Ann McQueen (Doctoral Candidate)
Dr. Lauren Cifuentes- Dissertation Chair
Dr. Tonya Jeffery- Committee Member

2. Statement of the Problem
Physical Lab issues:
• Content often difficult for students to visualize
• Non-majors students struggle
• Require extensive time and space commitments
Virtual labs may help to:
• Provide an additional level of support to students
• Ease demand for STEM physical lab sections

3. Statement of the problem
Virtual labs:
• Viable economic alternatives to costly laboratory equipment and
chemicals
• Conserve laboratory resources
• Save valuable laboratory space
Virtual lab issues:
• Do not adequately represent dissection of physical specimens
• May not give students the necessary foundation of laboratory
skills
• Lack effectiveness of modeling physical laboratories

4. Context
Physical Labs:
• 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:
• 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).

5. Theoretical Framework
Instructor Presence and Learner control
• Instructor presence: includes specific levels of guidance provided
by instructors which promote successful student learning in 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).

6. Literature Review
• Studies on physical vs. virtual labs in STEM (Akpan, 2001; Zacharia
et al., 2015).
• Virtual labs provide guidance to students (Parker & Loudon, 2012;
Swan & O’Donnell, 2009)
• Effectiveness of virtual labs (Carnevale, 2003; Flowers, 2011).
• Recent studies on virtual labs (Brinson, 2015; Hallyburton & Lunsford,
2013 Ma & Nickerson, 2006; Zacharia et al., 2015)

7. Literature Review
Previous Research • Instructor presence (Ahmed & Hasegawa,
2014; Chen et al., 2016; Pedersen & Irby,
2014; Smith, 2015; Zacharia et al., 2015)
Gaps in Current Research
Effects and impacts of instructor presence
learner control in virtual lab environments
• Learner control (Hasler, Kersten, &
Sweller, 2007; Zacharia et al., 2015)
• Instructor presence (Ahmed & Hasegawa,
2014; Chen et al., 2016; Pedersen & Irby,
2014; Smith, 2015; Zacharia et al., 2015).
Purpose of study
Measure comparative effects of four levels of
biology lab delivery and qualitatively explore
how students describe their experiences of
instructor presence and learner control of
pace
Compare effects and impacts of instructor
presence and learner control in physical and
virtual labs

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 will be tested:
1) main effect intervention.
2) main effect time.
3) intervention by time interaction effect.

9. Operational Definitions
Mode of biology lab delivery
• Instructor presence in physical based labs (PL)-the instructor being physically present and available to answer questions
in the lab environment for a duration of 50 minutes. The instructor is available via phone, e-mail, and Black Board before
and after class as well.
• VL virtual lab with no instructor presence- a lab completed solely in an online environment (Brinson, 2015; Ma &
Nickerson, 2006).
• Instructor presence in virtual based labs (VLIP)-the instructor being virtually present and available to answer questions
through phone, e-mail, and Black Board.
• Learner control in physical based labs-the ability for students to control the pacing, repetition, time spent learning, and
access to available guidance when they need it.
• Learner control in virtual based labs (VLIPLC)-the ability for students to control the pacing, repetition, and access
available guidance online when they need it.
30 item Test- one of three content knowledge tests consisting of 30 multiple choice items selected from biology test banks
published by Openstax .
Academic achievement –student scores measured by two 30 item multiple choice biology content knowledge post-tests
(immediate, one-week delayed).
Students’ experience of instructor presence and learner control –how students describe the availability of the instructor and
their control of pacing, repetition, time spent, and access to available guidance in the PL, VL, VLIP, and VLIPLC levels of
biology lab delivery.

10. 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 Definition Table

11. Method
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)
Quantitative Variables
Independent
Mode of Biology Lab Delivery
• PL
• VL
• VLIP
• VLIPLC
Dependent
• Performance on two Post Tests (immediate, one-week delayed)

12. Method
Qualitative Approach
Focus group and Interview
• Three (30min) focus groups, one each for: PL (n=5), VL (n=4), and
VLIPLC (n=5)
• One (30min) interview, for VLIP (n=1)
• 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?”

13. 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).

14. 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
• 4 X 3 repeated measures split plot design

15. Materials
Quantitative
All four groups completed the same pre-test, lab objectives, and post-tests.
• All training and guidance will be delivered prior to beginning labs
VL groups: Computer based introductory tutorial provided by Sapling Learning that
acquainted students with the virtual lab interface.
PL Group: Students received guidance and directions from the course instructor as part
of normal course pre-lab activity.
• The same lab content will be delivered to the PL and VLs groups
– VL Groups: Meiosis & Mitosis (Sapling Learning, General Biology, 2016).
– PL Group: Exercises 6.1 The Cell Cycle & 6.2 Meiosis (Pendarvis & Crawley, 2016)
• Content validity of the Sapling virtual lab and the physical based lab has been
established by previous research studies. These materials are previously
published and widely distributed.
• Subject matter expert reviewed both labs to further ensure content validity.

16. Quantitative 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.

17. PL
Group
VL Group VLIP Group VLIPLC Group
Weeks 1-4 of semester
Consent of the study y y y y
Week 5 of the semester
Participate in the pretest y y y y
Week 6 of the semester
1.Receive lab tutorial y y y y
2.Complete lab treatment PL VL VLIP VLIPLC
3.Immediate Post-Test y y y y
Week 7 of the semester
Delayed Post-Test y y y y
Week 8 of the semester
Focus Group y y y y
Data Collection & Procedure

18. 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.

19. 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)

20. Quantitative Results
Quantitative
• The time effect was statistically significant F(2,176) =148.65, p < 0.01, all groups learned
significantly from the pre-test to the immediate post-test, scores remained constant
between the immediate post-test and one-week delayed post-test.
• The mode of delivery effect was not statistically significant F(3,88) = 0.38, p = 0.76, all
students performed equivalently well, regardless of lab delivery mode.
• 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)
• Small sample sizes (low power) was acknowledged as interaction effect and
interaction 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

21. Qualitative Results
Qualitative
• An analysis of the data from the interview and the three focus groups
resulted in three themes: instructor presence, learner control, and unique
laboratory experiences
• eight categories : instructor-student communication; instructor-guidance; repetition;
pacing; time spent learning; access to available guidance as needed; students' insight
into learning; and students' suggestions to improve labs.

22. Discussion
Quantitative
• Time effect: The improvement in scores from the pre-test to immediate 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.
• Interaction effect: The equivalent performance among students in all lab delivery modes
indicates that virtual labs can produce learning outcomes equivalent to physical labs
(cite).
• Meaningful effect sizes: Indicate that lack of a statistically significant interaction effect
is due to the small sample sizes of the groups (low power).
Instructor presence and learner control
• 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.

23. 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.
Instructor presence and learner control
• 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.

24. Discussion
The Best Finding of All…
• Students in all lab delivery modes felt their lab was beneficial to their learning!
• Despite the ‘glitches’ of physical and virtual labs, ultimately, students can be
positive of their laboratory learning experiences, thanks to helpful instructors.
• 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.

25. 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 educational technology.
• 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.

26. References
Akpan, J. P. (2001). Issues associated with inserting computer simulations into biology instruction: A review of the literature. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 5(3).
Bell, J. (1999). The biology labs on-line project: Producing educational simulations that promote active learning. Interactive multimedia electronic journal of computer-
enhanced learning, 1(2).
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.
Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the research process. London, UK: Sage.
Flowers, L. O. (2011). Investigating the effectiveness of virtual laboratories in an undergraduate biology course. The Journal of Human Resource and Adult Learning, 7(2),
110-116.
Ma, J., & Nickerson, J. V. (2006). Hands-on, simulated, and remote laboratories: a comparative literature review. ACM Computing Surveys, 3(1), 1-24.
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.
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.

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

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