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

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).

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).

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.

Literature ReviewThe 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)

Literature ReviewThe 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)

Literature ReviewStudents’ 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)

Research Questions & HypothesesThe quantitative and qualitative research questions that guided the study are as follows:

Quantitative1. 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).Qualitative2. 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.

 

PL Group VL Group VLIP Group VLIPLC Group

Instructor Presence Instructor is available in person to answer questions and to help with lab

No IPInstructor 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

DirectedLC

Operational Definitions Table

Table 1. Operational Definitions Table

MethodQuantitative 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.

MethodQualitative Study ParticipantsAll 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 GroupsPL-(n=5)VL-(n=4)VLIPLC-(n=5)InterviewVLIP-(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.

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

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

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.

MaterialsQuantitative

• 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.

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.

Materials

QualitativeResearcher 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?”

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.

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, 2016Focus Group y y y y

Data Collection & ProcedureTable 3. Data Collection and Procedure

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.

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)

Quantitative Results

Table 4.

Means and Standard Deviations for Mitosis and Meiosis Content Knowledge

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

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

Quantitative ResultsQuantitative• 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

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.

Qualitative ResultsTable 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”

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.

DiscussionQualitativePL 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.

DiscussionInstructor Presence and Learner ControlQuantitative

• 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

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.

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%

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)

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

Implications for TheoryImplications for Instructional DesignInstructor 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).

Implications for Theory

Implications for STEM EducationInstructor 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).

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.

ReferencesAhmed, 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.

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.

Questions ???

I appreciate your feedback and questions.

Special ThanksI 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 <3And my friends and family

I couldn’t have done this without all of your encouragement and support!

Thank you

Contact me via e-mailjmcqueen@islander.tamucc.edu