Abstracts
Abstract
The effectiveness of traditional face to face labs versus non-traditional online, remote, or distance labs is difficult to assess due to the lack of continuity in the literature between terminology, standard evaluation metrics, and the use of a wide variety non-traditional laboratory experience for online courses. This narrative review presents a representative view of the existing literature in order to identify the strengths and weaknesses of non-traditional laboratories and to highlight the areas of opportunity for research.Non-traditional labs are increasingly utilized in higher education. The research indicates that these non-traditional approaches to a science laboratory experience are as effective at achieving the learning outcomes as traditional labs. While this is an important parameter, this review outlines further important considerations such as operating and maintenance cost, growth potential, and safety. This comparison identifies several weaknesses in the existing literature. While it is clear that traditional labs aid in the development of practical and procedural skills, there is a lack of research exploring if non-traditional laboratory experiments hinder student success in subsequent traditional labs. Additionally, remote lab kits blur the lines between modality by bringing experiences that are more tactile to students outside of the traditional laboratory environment. Though novel work on non-traditional labs continues to be published, investigations are still needed regarding cost differences, acquisition of procedural skills, preparation for advanced work, and instructor contact time between traditional and non-traditional laboratories.
Keywords:
- laboratory,
- non-traditional laboratory,
- online,
- virtual,
- distance learning,
- lab format
Appendices
Bibliography
- Abdel-Salam, T. M., Kauffmann, P. J., & Crossman, G. R. (2007). Are distance laboratories effective tools for technology education? American Journal of Distance Education, 21(2), 77-97. doi: 10.1080/08923640701299041
- Adlong, W., Bedgood, J., D.R., Bishop, A. G., Dillon, K., Haig, T., & Helliwell, S. (2003). On the path to improving our teaching - reflection on best practices in teaching chemistry. In P. Bright (Ed.), Learning for an unknown future: 2003 Annual international conference of the 26th HERDSA (pp. 1-11). Milperra, Australia: HERDSA.
- Allen, M., Mabry, E., Mattrey, M., Bourhis, J., Titsworth, S., & Burrell, N. (2004). Evaluating the effectiveness of distance learning: A comparison using meta-analysis. Journal of Communication, 54, 402-420. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2004.tb02636.x
- Annetta, L., Klesath, M., & Meyer, J. (2009). Taking science online: Evaluating presence and immersion through a laboratory experience in a virtual learning environment for entomology students. Journal of College Science Teaching, 37(1), 27-33. Retrieved from http://static.nsta.org/files/jcst0909_27.pdf
- Barbeau, M. L., Johnson, M., Gibson, C., & Rogers, K. A. (2013). The development and assessment of an online microscopic anatomy laboratory course. Anatomical Sciences Education, 6, 246-256. doi: 10.1002/ase.1347
- Biel, R., & Brame, C. (2016). Traditional versus online biology courses: Connecting course design and student learning in an online setting. Journal of Microbiology and Biology Education, 17(3), 417-422. doi: 10.1128/jmbe.v17i3.1157
- Boschmann, E. (2003). Teaching chemistry via distance education. Journal of Chemical Education, 80(6), 704-708. Retrieved from http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/ed080p704
- Boyer, R. (2003). Concepts and skills in the biochemistry/molecular biology lab. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 31(2), 102-105. doi: 10.1002/bmb.2003.494031020192
- Brinson, J. (2015). Learning outcome achievement in non-traditional (virtual and remote) versus traditional (hands-on) laboratories: A review of the empirical research. Computers & Education, 87, 218-237. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2015.07.003
- Casanova, R. S., & Civelli, J. L. (2006). Distance learning: A viable alternative to the conventional lecture-lab format in general chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 83(3), 501. doi: 10.1021/ed083p501
- Colorado Department of Higher Education. (2012). Online versus traditional learning: A comparison study of Colorado community college science classes. Colorado Department of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://wcet.wiche.edu/sites/default/files/1622CCCSOnlinevsTraditionalScienceStudyReportJune2012update.pdf
- 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. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2011.04.009
- Dalgarno, B., Bishop, A. G., Adlong, W., & Bedgood, J., D.R. (2009). Effectiveness of a virtual laboratory as a preparatory resource for distance education chemistry students. Computers & Education, 53(3), 853-865. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2009.05.005
- de Jong, T., & Lazonder, A. W. (2014). The guided discovery principle in multimedia learning. In E. Mayer (Ed.), The cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd ed., pp. 371-390). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Domingues, L., Rocha, I., Dourado, F., Alves, M., & Ferreira, E. C. (2010). Virtual laboratories in (bio)chemical engineering education. Education for Chemical Engineers, 5(2), e22-e27. doi: 10.1016/j.ece.2010.02.001
- Environmental Protection Agency. (2011). Hazardous waste rules. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 40 CFR 260.
- eScience Labs. (2014). Retrieved from http://esciencelabs.com/
- Esquembre, F. (2015). Facilitating the creation of virtual and remote laboratories for science and engineering education. IFAC-PapersOnLine, 48(29), 49-58. doi: 10.1016/j.ifacol.2015.11.212
- Feig, A. D. (2010). An online introductory physical geology laboratory: From concept to outcome. Geosphere, 6(6), 942-951. doi: 10.1130/GES00511.1
- Frt'ala, T., & Zakova, K. (2014). Virtualization - an answer to secure development of online experiments. IFAC Proceedings Volumes, 47(3), 9738-9743. doi: 10.3182/20140824-6-ZA-1003.02454
- Garman, D. E. (2012). Student success in face-to-face and online sections of biology courses at a community college in east Tennessee (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://dc.etsu.edu/etd/1408/
- Gould, J. (2014). Online education: The rise of virtual labs. Retrieved from http://blogs.nature.com/naturejobs/2014/09/22/online-education-the-rise-of-virtual-labs/
- Hauser, L. K. (2013). An examination of the predictive relationship between mode of instruction and student success in introductory biology (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from https://commons.vccs.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1070&context=inquiry
- Hawkins, I., & Phelps, A. (2013). Virtual laboratory vs. traditional laboratory: Which is more effective for teaching electrochemistry. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 14(4), 516-523. doi: 10.1039/C3RP00070B
- He, Z., Shen, Z., & Zhu, S. (2014). Design and implementation of an internet-based electrical engineering laboratory. ISA Transactions, 53(5), 1377-1382. doi: 10.1016/j.isatra.2013.12.035
- Herrera, R. S., Marquez, M. A., Mejias, A., Tirado, R., & Andujar, J. M. (2015). Exploring the usability of a remote laboratory for photovoltaic systems. IFAC-PapersOnLine, 48(29), 7-12. doi: 10.1016/j.ifacol.2015.11.205
- Jackson, M. D. (1998). A distance-education chemistry course for nonmajors. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 7(2), 163-170. doi: 10.1023/A:1022516624477
- Jaggars, S. S., Edgecombe, N., & Stacey, G. W. (2013). Creating an effective online instructor presence. Columbia University: Community College Research Center. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED542146
- Johnson, M. (2002). Introductory biology online: Assessing outcomes of two student populations. Journal of College Science Teaching, 31(5), 312-317. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/42992241
- Kennepohl, D., Baran, J., & Currie, R. (2004). Remote instrumentation for the teaching laboratory. Journal of Chemical Education, 81(12), 1814. doi: 10.1021/ed081p1814
- Ko, C. C., Chen, B. M., Chen, S. H., Ramakrishnan, V., Chen, R., Hu, S. Y., & Zhuang, Y. (2000). A large-scale web-based virtual oscilloscope laboratory experiment. Engineering Science and Education Journal, 9(2), 69-76. doi: 10.1049/esej:20000204
- Kuyatt, B. L., & Baker, J. D. (2014). Human anatomy software use in traditional and online anatomy laboratory classes: Student-perceived learning benefits. Journal of College Science Teaching, 43(5), 14-19. Retrieved from http://static.nsta.org/files/jcst1405_14.pdf
- Late Nite Labs. (2014). Retrieved from http://latenitelabs.com/
- Lowe, D., Berry, C., Murray, S., & Euan, L. (2009). Adapting a remote laboratory architecture to support collaboration and supervision. International Journal of Online Engineering, 5(S1), 51-56. doi: 10.3991/ijoe.v5s1.932
- Ma, J., & Nickerson, J. V. (2006). Hands-on, simulated, and remote laboratories: A comparative literature review. ACM Computing Surveys, 38, 1-24. Retrieved from https://web.stevens.edu/jnickerson/ACMComputingSurveys2006MaNickerson.pdf
- Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., Bakia, M., & Jones, K. (2009). Evaluation of evidence-based practices in online learning: A meta-analysis and review of online learning studies. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED505824
- Meir, E., Perry, J., Stal, D., Maruca, S., & Klopfer, E. (2005). How effective are simulated molecular-level experiments for teaching diffusion and osmosis? Cell Biology Education, 4(3), 235-248. doi: 10.1187/cbe.04-09-0049
- Mickle, J. E., & Aune, P. M. (2008). Development of a laboratory course in nonmajors general biology for distance education. Journal of College Science Teaching, 37(5), 35-39. Retrieved from http://static.nsta.org/files/jcst0805_35.pdf
- Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (2013). Lessons from the virtual classroom: The realities of online teaching (2nd ed.) San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.
- Patterson, M. J. (2000). Developing and internet-based chemistry class. Journal of Chemical Education, 77(5), 554. doi: 10.1021/ed077p554
- Puzziferro, M. (2008). Online technologies self-efficacy and self-regulated learning as predictors of final grade and satisfaction in college-level online courses. American Journal of Distance Education, 22(2), 72-89. doi: 10.1080/08923640802039024
- Reeves, J., & Kimbrough, D. (2004). Solving the laboratory dilemma in distance learning general chemistry. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 8(3), 47-51. Retrieved from file:///C:/Users/Owner/Downloads/v8n3_reeves_1.pdf
- Reuter, R. (2009). Online versus in the classroom: Student success in a hands-on lab class. American Journal of Distance Education, 23, 151-162. doi: 10.1080/08923640903080620
- Riggins, M. E. (2014). Online versus face-to-face biology: A comparison of student transactional distance, approach to learning, and knowledge outcomes (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from https://aquila.usm.edu/dissertations/19/
- Rivera, C. (2014, November 15). For some students, virtual labs replace hands-on science experiments. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from http://www.latimes.com/local/education/la-me-college-labs-20141115-story.html
- Rosenzweig, A. H. (2012). Comparing biology grades based on instructional delivery and instructor at a community college: Face-to-face course versus online course (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://scholarworks.uno.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2564&context=td
- Schoenfeld-Tacher, R., McConnell, S., & Graham, M. (2001). Do no harm: A comparison of the effects of on-line vs. traditional delivery media on a science course. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 10, 257-265. doi: 10.1023/A:1016690600795
- Selmer, A., & Kraft, M. (2007). Weblabs in chemical engineering education. Education for Chemical Engineers, 2(1), 38-45. doi: 10.1205/ece06018
- Shachar, M., & Neumann, Y. (2003). Differences between traditional and distance education academic performances: A meta-analytic approach. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 4(2) Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/%20article/viewArticle/153/234
- Turner, J., & Parisi, A. (2008). A take-home physics experiment kit for on-campus and off-campus students. Journal of Teaching Science, 54(2), 1-2. Retrieved from https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/11037754.pdf
- Tuttas, J., & Wagner, B. (2001). Distributed online laboratories. Paper presented at the International Conference on Engineering Education, Oslo, Norway. Retrieved from ftp://labattmot.ele.ita.br/ele/lfilipe/Lab_Real_Remoto/Artigos/Lab_Remoto/Tuttas_J_Distribuited_Online_Labs.pdf
- Waldrop, M. M. (2013). Education online: The virtual lab. Nature, 499(7458), 268. Retrieved from http://www.nature.com/news/education-online-the-virtual-lab-1.13383
- Winer, L. R., Chomienne, M., & Vazquez-Abad, J. (2000). A distributed collaborative science learning laboratory on the internet. American Journal of Distance Education, 14(1), 47-62. doi: 10.1080/08923640009527044
- Woods, D. R., Felder, R. M., Rugarcia, A., & Stice, J. (2000). The future of engineering education III. developing critical skills. Chemical Engineering Education, 34(2), 108-117. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Richard_Felder/publication/2625823_The_future_of_engineering_education_III_Developing_critical_skills/links/54b7e5c00cf28faced60c57a/The-future-of-engineering-education-III-Developing-critical-skills.pdf
- Yaron, D., Karabinos, M., Lange, D., Greeno, J. G., & Leinhardt, G. (2010). The ChemCollective - virtual labs for introductory chemistry courses. Science, 328(5978), 584-585. doi: 10.1126/science.1182435
- Zacharia, Z. (2015). Examining whether touch sensory feedback is necessary for science learning through experimentation: A literature review of two different lines of research across K-16. Educational Research Review, 16, 116-137. doi: 10.1016/j.edurev.2015.10.001
- Zacharia, Z., Manoli, C., Xenofontos, N., de Jong, T., Pedaste, M., van Riesen, A. A. N.... 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. doi: 10.1007/s11423-015-9370-0
- Zacharia, Z., & Olympiou, G. (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. doi: 10.1002/tea.20260
- Zacharia, Z., & Olympiou, G. (2011). Physical versus virtual manipulative experimentation in physics learning. Learning and Instruction, 21(3), 317-331. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2010.03.001