Virtual Labs for Postsecondary General Education and Applied Science Courses: Faculty Perceptions

Elena Chudaeva; Latifa Soliman

doi:10.21432/cjlt28177

Authors

Elena Chudaeva George Brown College
Latifa Soliman Durham College https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3384-8844

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.21432/cjlt28177

Keywords:

polytechnic institutions, science virtual labs, faculty professional development, general education, education technology

Abstract

General education science courses at a Canadian postsecondary institution implemented Beyond Labz virtual science labs. Faculty members teaching vocational science-related courses tested this resource. This qualitative study explores faculty member and learner perceptions of the efficacy of these virtual labs in terms of ease of use, designing hands-on activities, student engagement, and accessibility. Data are collected via a focus group, surveys, meetings, and interview notes. The study found that learners and faculty members may have different perceptions of the importance of virtual labs for the development of various skills. From the data, five themes emerge related to addressing the needs of diverse learners and utilizing multiple affordances of virtual labs. Although science virtual labs are perceived as a useful tool for teaching and learning science, faculty members identify barriers such as the need to develop digital literacy skills and initial training and institutional support when introducing new tools. Recommendations for effective science virtual labs curriculum integration are included.

Author Biographies

Elena Chudaeva, George Brown College

Elena Chudaeva is Professor of physics and mathematics in the School of Liberal Arts and Sciences at George Brown College in Ontario, Canada. Research interests include educational technology for active learning in STEM courses, online learning, open pedagogy, and universal design for learning.

Latifa Soliman, Durham College

Latifa Soliman, M.Ed., B.Sc., is an educator and passionate researcher interested in conducting mixed methods research focusing on adult students’ perspectives in effective learning methods.

References

Abdulwahed, M., & Nagy, Z. K. (2009). Applying Kolb’s experiential learning cycle for laboratory education. Journal of Engineering Education, 98(3), 283–294. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2009.tb01025.x

Accessibility Conformance Report. (2020). Beyond Labz. https://www.calstatela.edu/sites/default/files/groups/Accessible%20Technology%20Initiative/VPAT/bl_vpat_wcag_-_feb_2020.pdf

Afgan, E., Sloggett, C., Goonasekera N., Makunin, I., Benson, D., Crowe, M., Gladman, S., Kowsar, Y., Pheasant, M., Horts, R., & Lonie, A. (2015). Genomics virtual laboratory: A practical bioinformatic workbench for the cloud. PLoS ONE 10(10). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0140829

Aljuhani, K., Sonbul, M., Althabiti, M., & Meccawy, M. (2018). Creating a Virtual Science Lab (VSL): The Adoption of Virtual Labs in Saudi Schools. Smart Learning Environments, 5(16). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-018-0067-9

Alves, G. R., Fidalgo, A., Marques, A., Viegas, C., Felgueiras, M. C., Costa, R., Lima, N., Castro, M., Diaz-Orueta, G., San Cristobal Ruiz, E., Garcia-Loro, F., Garcia-Zubia, J., Hernandez-Jayo, U., Kulesza, W., Gustavsson, I., Pester, A., Zutin, D., Schlichting, L., Ferreira, G., … Dobboletta, E. (2016). Spreading remote lab usage a system — A community — A Federation. 2016 2nd International Conference of the Portuguese Society for Engineering Education (CISPEE), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1109/CISPEE.2016.7777722

Ambusaidi, A., Musawi, A. A., Al-Balushi, S., & Al-Balushi, K. (2018). The impact of virtual lab learning experiences on 9th grade students’ achievement and their attitudes towards science and learning by virtual lab. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 15(2), 13–29.

American Council on Education. (2019). Race and Ethnicity in Higher Education Report. https://www.equityinhighered.org/resources/report-downloads/

Anisimova, E. (2020). Digital Literacy of future preschool teachers. Journal of Social Studies Education Research, 11(1), 230–253. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1251924.pdf

AODA. (2005). Ontario. https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/05a11

Bates, A. W. (2022). Teaching in a digital age [eBook] (3rd ed.). BCcampus. https://pressbooks.bccampus.ca/teachinginadigitalagev3/

Bates, T. (2010). E-learning quality assurance standards, organizations and research. Online Learning and Distance Education Resources. https://www.tonybates.ca/2010/08/15/e-learning-quality-assurance-standards-organizations-and-research/

Borthwick, A. C., & Hansen, R. (2017). Digital literacy in teacher education: Are teacher education competent? Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 33(2), 46–48. https://doi.org/10.1080/21532974.2017.1291249

Branan, D. M., Bennett, P., & Braithwaite, N. (2016). Remote Access Laboratory Equipment for Undergraduate Science Education. In D. Kennepohl (Ed.). Teaching Science Online: Practical guidance for effective instruction and lab work. Routledge.

Bretz, S. L., Fay, M., Bruck, L. B., & Towns, M. H. (2013). What faculty interviews reveal about meaningful learning in the undergraduate chemistry laboratory. Journal of Chemical Education, 90(3), 281–288. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed300384r

Brinson, J. R. (2017). A further characterization of empirical research related to learning outcome achievement in remote and virtual science labs. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 26(5), 546–560. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-017-9699-8

Bruck, L. B., Towns, M., & Bretz, S. L. (2010). Faculty perspectives of undergraduate chemistry laboratory: Goals and obstacles to success. Journal of Chemical Education, 87(12), 1416–1424. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed900002d

Bull, P. H., & Keengwe, J. (2019). Handbook of research on innovative digital practices to engage learners. IGI Global. https://www.igi-global.com/pdf.aspx?tid=232117&ptid=221167&ctid=15&t=Preface&isxn=9781522594383

Carnevale, D. (2003, January 31). The Virtual Lab Experiment. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 49(21). https://www.chronicle.com/article/the-virtual-lab-experiment/

CDLRA. (2020). 2020 National Report. http://www.cdlra-acrfl.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/2020_national_en.pdf

Christensen Hughes, J., & Mighty, J. (Eds.). (2010). Taking Stock: Research on Teaching and Learning in Higher Education. McGill-Queen’s University Press. https://www.mqup.ca/taking-stock-products-9781553392712.php?page_id=46

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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.04.009

Darrah, M., Humbert, R., Finstein, J., Simon, M., & Hopkins, J. (2014). Are virtual labs as effective as hands-on labs for undergraduate physics? A comparative study at two major universities. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 23(6), 803–814. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-014-9513-9

Davies, J., & Merchant, G. (2014). Digital literacy and teacher education. In P. Benson & A. Chik (Eds.), Popular Culture, Pedagogy and Teacher Education: International Perspectives (pp. 180–193). Routledge.

de Jong, T., Linn, M. C., & Zacharia, Z. C. (2013). Physical and virtual laboratories in science and engineering education. Science, 340(6130), 305–308. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1230579

de las Heras, S. C., Kensington-Miller, B., Young, B., Gonzales, V., Krühne, U., Mansouri, S. S., & Baroutian, S. (2021). Benefits and challenges of a virtual laboratory in chemical and biochemical engineering: Students’ experiences in fermentation. Journal of Chemical Education, 98(3), 866–875. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c01227

Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (2011). The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research. Sage.

European Commission. (2022). Impacts of COVID-19 on school education. Publications Office of the European Union. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2766/201112

Falloon, G. (2020). From Digital Literacy to Digital Competence: The Teacher Digital Competency (TDC) Framework. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68, 2449–2472. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09767-4

Faour, M. A., & Ayoubi, Z. (2018). The effect of using virtual laboratory on grade 10 students’ conceptual understanding and their attitudes towards physics. Journal of Education in Science Environment and Health, 4(1), 54–68.

Gamage, K. A. A., Wijesuriya, D. I., Ekanayake, S. Y., Rennie, A. E. W., Lambert, C. G., & Gunawardhana, N. (2020). Online delivery of teaching and laboratory practices: Continuity of university programmes during COVID-19 pandemic. Education Sciences, 10(10), 291. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci10100291

Gruszczynska, A., Merchant, G., & Pountney, R. (2013). Digital futures in teacher education: Exploring open approaches towards digital literacy. Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 11(3), 193–206. https://academic-publishing.org/index.php/ejel/article/view/1669

Guri-Rozenblit, S. (2018). E-Teaching in higher education: An essential prerequisite for e-learning. Journal of New Approaches in Educational Research, 7(2), 93–97. https://doi.org/10.7821/naer.2018.7.298

Hakím, A., Liliasari, Kadarohman, A., & Syah, Y. M. (2016). Effects of the Natural Product Mini Project Laboratory on the Students' Conceptual Understanding. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 13(2), 27–36. https://www.tused.org/index.php/tused/article/view/640

Hassan, M. M., & Mirza, T. (2021). The Digital Literacy in Teachers of the Schools of Rajouri (J&K)-India: Teachers Perspective. International Journal of Education and Management Engineering, 11(1), 28–40. https://doi.org/10.5815/IJEME.2021.01.04

Hazelkorn, E., Ryan, C., Beernaert, Y., Constantinou, C. P., Deca, L., Grangeat, M., Karikorpi, M., Lazoudis, A., Casulleras, R. P., & Welzel-Breuer, M. (2015). Science Education for Responsible Citizenship. Report to the European Commission of the Expert Group on Science Education, Directorate-General for Research and Innovation, Science with and for Society. Publications Office of the European Union. https://www.academia.edu/14816833/Science_Education_for_Responsible_Citizenship

Heckman, J. J., & Kautz, T. (2012). Hard evidence on soft skills. Labour Economics,19(4), 451–464. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.labeco.2012.05.014

Heckman, J. J., Stixrud, J., & Urzua, S. (2006). The effects of cognitive and noncognitive abilities on labor market outcomes and social behavior. Journal of Labor Economics, 24(3). https://doi.org/10.1086/504455

Ismail, I., Permanasari A., & Setiawan, W. (2016). Stem Virtual Lab: An alternative practical media to enhance student’s scientific literacy. Jurnal Pendidikan IPA Indonesia, 5(2), 239–246. https://doaj.org/article/71caf862c64b4e648411e6b98f12c468

Johnstone, A. H., & Al-Shuaili, A. (2001). Learning in the laboratory; Some thoughts from the literature. University Chemistry Education, 5(2), 42–51.

Klentien, U., & Wannasawade, W. (2016). Development of blended learning model with virtual science laboratory for secondary students. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Science, 217, 706–711. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.02.126

Lima, N., Viegas, C., & García-Peñalvo. F. J. (2019). Different Didactical Approaches Using a Remote Lab: Identification of Impact Factors. IEEE Revista Iberoamericana de Tecnologias del Aprendizaje 14(3), pp 76–86. https://doi.org/10.1109/RITA.2019.2942256

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1986). But is it rigorous? Trustworthiness and authenticity in naturalistic evaluation [Abstract]. New Directions for Program Evaluation, 30, 73–84. https://doi.org/10.1002/ev.1427

Ma, J., & Nickerson, J. V. (2006). Hands-on, simulated, and remote laboratories: A comparative literature review. ACM Computing Surveys 38(3), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1145/1132960.1132961

Makhmudov, K., Shorakhmetov, S., & Murodkosimov, A. (2020). Computer literacy is a tool to the system of innovative cluster of pedagogical education. European Journal of Research and Reflection in Educational Sciences, 8(5).

Makransky, G., Thisgaard, M. W., & Gadegaard, H. (2016). Virtual simulations as preparation for lab exercises: Assessing learning of key laboratory skills in microbiology and improvement of essential non-cognitive skills. PLoS ONE, 11(6). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0155895

MERLOT. (2019). Virtual Labs for the MERLOT Community. https://virtuallabs.merlot.org/

Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in Education. Jossey-Bass.

Nickerson, J. V., Corter, J. E., Esche, S. K., & Chassapis, C. (2007). A model for evaluating the effectiveness of remote engineering laboratories and simulations in education. Computers & Education, 49(3), 708 -725. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2005.11.019

OCUFA. (2020, November). Study: COVID-19 and the Impact on University Life and Education. https://ocufa.on.ca/assets/OCUFA-2020-Faculty-Student-Survey-opt.pdf

Papaconstantinou, M., Kilkenny, D., Garside, C., Ju, W., Najafi, H., & Harrison, L. (2020). Virtual lab integration in undergraduate courses: Insights from course design and implementation. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 46(3). https://doi.org/10.21432/cjlt27853

Pavlou, Y., & Zacharia, Z. C. (2024). Using Physical and Virtual Labs for Experimentation in STEM+ Education: From Theory and Research to Practice. In K. Korfiatis, M. Grace, M. Hammann, (Eds.) Shaping the Future of Biological Education Research. (pp. 3–19). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-44792-1_1

Perkins, K. K., Loeblein, P. J., & Dessau, K. L. (2010). Sims for Science: Powerful tools to support inquiry-based teaching. The Science Teacher, 77(7), 46–51.

Potkonjak, V., Gardner, M., Callaghan, V., Mattila, P., Guetl, C., Petrović, V. M., & Jovanović, K. (2016). Virtual laboratories for education in science, technology, and engineering: A review. Computers & Education, 95, 309–327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.02.002

Rajendran, L., Veilumuthu, R., & Divya, J. (2010). A study on the effectiveness of virtual lab in e-learning. International Journal on Computer Science and Engineering, 2(6), 2173–2175.

Ray, S., & Srivastava, S. (2020). Virtualization of science education: A lesson from the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Proteins and Proteomics, 11, 77–80. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42485-020-00038-7

Rueda-Gómez, K. L., Rodríguez-Muñiz, L. J., & Muñiz-Rodríguez, L. (2023). Factors that mediate the success of the use of online platforms to support learning: The view of university teachers. Education and Information Technologies, 29, 2459–2482. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11916-0

Stöter, J., Bullen, M., Zawacki-Richter, O., & von Prümmer, C. (2014). From back door into the mainstream: The characteristics of lifelong learners. In O. Zawacki-Richter and T. Anderson (Eds.). Online Distance Education: Towards a Research Agenda (pp. 421–457). AU Press. https://www.aupress.ca/books/120233-online-distance-education/

Tomczyk, Ł. (2020). Skills in the area of digital safety as a key component of digital literacy among teachers. Education and Information Technologies. 25, 471–486. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019-09980-6

Trúchly, P., Medvecký, M., Podhradský, P., & Mawas, N. E. (2019). STEM education supported by virtual laboratory incorporated in a self-directed learning process. Journal of Electrical Engineering, 70(4). https://doi.org/10.2478/jee-2019-0065

Tsichouridis, C., Vavougios, D., Batsila, M., & Ioannidis, G. (2019). The optimum equilibrium when using experiments in teaching – Where virtual and real labs stand in science and engineering teaching practice. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 14(23), 67–84. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v14i23.10890

UNESCO. (2018). ICT Competency Framework for Teachers. https://en.unesco.org/themes/ict-education/competency-framework-teachers

Viegas, C., Pavani, A., Lima, N., Marques, A., Pozzo, I., Dobboletta, E., Atencia, V., Barreto, D., Calliari, F., Fidalgo, A., Lima, D., Temporão, G., & Alves, G. (2018). Impact of a remote lab on teaching practices and student learning. Computers & Education, 126, 201–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.07.012

W3C Web Accessibility Initiative. (2021). https://www.w3.org/WAI/

Waldrop, M. M. (2013). The virtual lab: confronted with the explosive popularity of online learning, researchers are seeking new ways to teach the practical skills of science. Nature, 499(7458), 268+. https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A337370661/HRCA?u=anon~a43d1215&sid=googleScholar&xid=79ae2d86

Yin, R. K. (2003). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. (3rd ed.). Sage.

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. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2006.00215.x

Zacharia Z. C., Manoli, C., Xenofontos, N., de Jong, T., Pedaste, M., van Riesen, D. A. N., Kamp, E. T., Mäeots, M., Siiman, L., & Tsourlidaki, E. (2015). Identifying potential types of guidance for supporting student inquiry when using virtual and remote labs in science: a literature review. Education Technology Research and Development, 63, 257–302. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-015-9370-0

Zhan, Z., Shen, W., Xu, Z., Niu, S., & You, G. (2022). A bibliometric analysis of the global landscape on STEM education (2004–2021): Towards global distribution, subject integration, and research trends. Asia Pacific Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 16(2), 171–203. https://doi.org/10.1108/APJIE-08-2022-0090