The document summarizes a proposed study on the effect of virtual laboratory investigations on student achievement in biology. The study would use a mixed methods concurrent triangulation design with quantitative and qualitative components. Quantitatively, it would compare test scores of students using virtual labs in face-to-face, blended, and online course formats. Qualitatively, it would examine how student technology attitudes affect perceptions of virtual lab efficacy via surveys and focus groups. The goal is to explore how college students learn and construct knowledge using virtual biology labs to inform higher education practices. The work is still in progress and the methodology may be modified based on committee feedback.

1. The Effect of Virtual Laboratory Investigations on
Student Achievement in Biology
Jaime McQueen (Doctoral Candidate)
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Southwest Educational
Research Association, New Orleans, February, 11, 2016

2. Introduction
• Current college students are largely represented by
Millennials
• Increasing numbers of students are taking courses in non
face to face learning environments
• Learning institutions are expanding their offering of online
courses
• Students’ educational technology use is increasing

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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)

6. Theoretical Framework
Constructivist theory is the framework of this study
I will explore the ways that college students learn, practice science
inquiry, and construct new knowledge using virtual biology labs
• Previous knowledge builds new knowledge (Perry, 1968; Piaget,
1977).
• Communication important in science classes (Tobin, McRobbie,
and Anderson,1997)
• Further study needed on constructivism in virtual labs(Brinson,
2015).

7. Research Questions & Hypotheses
Research Questions
1. To what extent does use of virtual biology laboratories affect student
achievement in face-to-face, blended, and fully online learning environments?
2. Do supplemental instructions from course instructors impact student success in
virtual laboratory use?
3. How do student perceptions toward technology use affect the efficacy of virtual
labs in a college-level course?
Research Hypotheses
– H0= Use of Virtual Laboratory investigations will have no effect on student
scores on biology content tests.
– H1= Use of Virtual Laboratory investigations will increase student scores on
biology content tests.

8. Methodology
Quantitative Variables
Independent
• Virtual biology labs
• Levels of guidance (face to face, blended, and strictly online environments).
Dependent
• Post Test Scores
• Scores related to (face to face, blended, and strictly online environments).
Qualitative Variables
Independent
•Students’ attitude toward technology
Dependent
•Virtual lab efficacy as a function of student attitude toward internet use

9. Data Collection, Instruments, and Analysis
Quantitative
•Instrument-Sapling Learning’s -General Biology virtual labs (Sapling Learning Higher
Education General & Introductory Biology website, 2015) (face to face, blended
learning, online).
•Incomplete factorial design, regression model analysis (Trochim, 2006).
•Pre-test / Post-test, Test score means
•IBM SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) version 22.
Qualitative
•Survey Internet Attitudes Scale (IAS) (Dr. Yixin Zhang, http://www.pearweb.org/atis).
•Forty four-point Likert scale (1-strongly disagree, 2-disagree, 3-agree, 4-strongly
agree). Survey descriptive statistic analysis
•Magnitude coding, describing frequency (Saldana, 2009).

10. Target Population and Sample
Participants will be non-majors students enrolled four sections of a
college level undergraduate introductory biology course (BIOL 1308)
at a south Texas University during the fall 2016 semester.
•Two Online sections
•Two face-to-face sections
Sample size for based on historic course enrollment numbers
(n≈117).

11. Research Design
• Mixed methods concurrent triangulation (Creswell et al. , 2003),
quasi-experimental design.
• I will purposively select study participants, I will lack the random
sampling of a true experiment (Campbell & Stanley, 1963, p.34).
• Explore the effects of virtual biology labs from both a quantitative
and qualitative perspective
• There are other designs which could be used for this study:
Phenomenology (Saldana, 2011), Case Study (Saldana, 2011).

12. Significance of the Study
Virtual Labs can:
• Expand science education options for college students.
• help online learners, non-science majors students, students with disabilities.
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.

13. Work in Progress
• Quantitative methodology has changed to omit
blended learning group
• Qualitative methodology has changed to replace
attitudinal survey (IAS) with focus group
interview
• This proposal is a work in progress, and will be
modified based on further study, and the
recommendation of my dissertation committee.

14. 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.
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.

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

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