This is a presentation of my dissertation proposal

1. The Effects and Impacts of Learner Control and Instructor Presence on
Academic Achievement in Virtual Biology Labs
Jaime McQueen
Dissertation Pre-Proposal Meeting
July 13, 2016

2. 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).

3. Theoretical Framework
Previous knowledge builds new : Constructivism (Perry, 1968; Piaget,
1977).
• Learner control in constructivism: learners take responsibility for
the pace, repetition, and sequence of content in learning
environments (Dede, 2009; Hanafin, 1984; Simsek, 2012).
• Instructor presence in constructivism: 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).

4. 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

5. Research Questions & Hypotheses
The quantitative and qualitative research questions that will guide my 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 null hypotheses will be tested:
1) main effect intervention.
2) main effect time.
3) intervention by time interaction effect.

6. 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.
20 item Test- one of three content knowledge tests consisting of 20 multiple choice items selected from biology test banks
published by Openstax .
Academic achievement –student scores measured by two 20 item multiple choice biology content knowledge post-tests
(immediate, 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.

7. 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

8. Method
Participants: Participants will be 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 (n≈100). Participants will be recruited: in-person, via e-mail, and
course BlackBoard.
Quantitative Variables
Independent
Mode of Biology Lab Delivery
• PL
• VL
• VLIP
• VLIPLC
Dependent
• Performance on Post Test (immediate, delayed)

9. Method
Qualitative Approach
Focus group: Purposively selected
• Four focus groups, one for each lab delivery mode
• 8 participants in each group
• Ex 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?”

10. 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).

11. 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

12. Materials
Quantitative
All four groups will have 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 will
acquaint students with the virtual lab interface.
PL Group: Students will receive 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: Exercise 10 Mitosis (Bres & Weisshar, 2015).
• 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.
• Prior to data collection, a subject matter expert will review both labs to further
ensure content validity.

13. Quantitative Instrumentation
Quantitative
• In this study, three equivalent, matched, and previously published test forms on
the topic of meiosis and mitosis will measure student academic achievement
– 20 item multiple-choice pre-test administered prior to lab delivery.
– 20 item multiple-choice immediate recall post-test given immediately following delivery of labs.
– 20 item multiple-choice delayed recall post-test given one week following lab completion.
• The three equivalent test forms containing 20 multiple choice items that constitute the
content pre-test and post-tests are from previously published test banks from OpenStax
Biology and Concepts of Biology, universal open-ended textbooks designed and
published by Rice University.
• 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.

14. Quantitative Instrumentation
• The pre-test and post-tests will be reviewed by a biology content expert to ensure
alignment with course learning objectives.
• Items for the three equivalent forms will be randomly selected from the
Openstax Biology test bank.
• Psychometric properties of the pre-test and post-tests, including reliability and
validity, as evidenced by a pilot of the three assessment forms be reported;
additionally the administration specific reliability and validity of the testing
instrument will be included in the final dissertation.

15. 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

16. Quantitative Data Analysis
Quantitative
• If statistically significant differences in pre-test scores are found, a 4x2 repeated
measures ANCOVA will be run to determine differences in immediate and delayed post-
test scores. If pre-experimental equivalence can be assumed, a 4x3 repeated measures
ANOVA will be run (Huck, 2000; Urdan, 2010).
• If main effects are statistically significant, modified Tukey procedure will be post hoc
analysis. If the interaction effect is statistically significant, analysis of simple effects will
be post hoc analysis (Huck, 2000; Urdan, 2010). If no pre-test differences exist, pre-
experimental equivalence between the four groups may be assumed.
• IBM (SPSS) v. 23.
• The mean difference effect sizes will be computed to examine practical significance of
the findings.
• Small sample sizes (low power) will be acknowledged and discussed if the results are not
statistically significant but effect sizes are meaningful.

17. Qualitative Data Analysis
Qualitative
• Focus group data will be audio recorded using the voice memo feature of an iPhone 6.
• Audio data will be transcribed verbatim into Microsoft word and sorted into codes,
categories, and themes using MAXQDA 11.
• Analytic memos, as suggested by Saldana (2009).
• First cycle coding: structural coding, Second cycle coding: magnitude coding(Saldana,
2009).
• Qualitative findings will be 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)

18. 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.
I believe my 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.

19. 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.

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

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