Development, Implementation, and Assessment of General Chemistry

Article pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc

Development, Implementation, and Assessment of General Chemistry Lab Experiments Performed in the Virtual World of Second Life Kurt Winkelmann,*,† Wendy Keeney-Kennicutt,‡ Debra Fowler,§ and Maria Macik§ †

Department of Chemistry, Florida Institute of Technology, Melbourne, Florida 32901, United States Department of Chemistry, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas 77843-3255, United States § Center for Teaching Excellence, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas 77843-4246, United States ‡

S Supporting Information *

ABSTRACT: Virtual worlds are a potential medium for teaching college-level chemistry laboratory courses. To determine the feasibility of conducting chemistry experiments in such an environment, undergraduate students performed two experiments in the immersive virtual world of Second Life (SL) as part of their regular General Chemistry 2 laboratory course. The experiments’ development and implementation are presented with feedback from students and graduate teaching assistants. Students successfully completed the experiments and showed learning gains similar to students performing real world experiments, as shown by pre/postlab quizzes and a laboratory practicum. Student participants held positive views of their experience in the SL chemistry laboratory. Teaching assistants provided an important perspective about using the virtual world for laboratory instruction. Overall, results of this pilot study suggest that virtual worlds can be effective for teaching chemistry experiments. This is the first account of student learning and attitudes after performing college-level chemistry experiments in the immersive virtual world of SL. KEYWORDS: First-Year Undergraduate/General, Laboratory Instruction, Computer-Based Learning, Internet/Web-Based Learning, Laboratory Computing/Interfacing

■

INTRODUCTION Chemistry faculty wishing to offer online chemistry classes1 are challenged to design a laboratory component.2−4 Many options are available. Students can purchase laboratory kits for experiments to be performed in the home,4,5 attend a hybrid course with distance learning lectures and on-campus lab sessions,6 or they can perform computer-based lab simulations.7,8 Virtual worldsvisually rich, three-dimensional, highly interactive online environmentsoffer another potential means for students to learn chemistry laboratory skills.9 Virtual worlds have several positive features. They provide a realistic laboratory environment for students to conduct experiments on and off campus. An instructor can join students in the virtual world laboratory, or students can conduct experiments independently and repeatedly at any time. Virtual world experiments could involve expensive instrumentation, exceptionally dangerous chemicals, or unusual working conditions without the added risk or cost, which can make the experiment potentially more educational and interesting to students. Second Life (SL), created and operated by Linden Lab, is a popular virtual world used for education and the most commonly studied virtual world in education research.10 With a free account, a user can create an avatar which serves as the user’s virtual representation or the character that the user plays © XXXX American Chemical Society and Division of Chemical Education, Inc.

in SL. A user begins by selecting a basic human avatar then customizes the appearance as desired, including clothing and hairstyle. The user sees and hears what the avatar would be expected to see and hear by viewing from either a first-person or nearby third-person perspective. Avatars and all virtual objects obey the physical laws that have been programmed for the virtual environment. By default, these are generally in agreement with those in the real world, but the physical laws can be modified to allow extraordinary behavior such as flying and teleportation. Users interact with each other in real time using a microphone headset, mouse, and keyboard. Educators use SL for teaching many subjects. Developers have created authentic replicas of historical sites in which students learn about the past and present through their own exploration and role playing.11 Students are learning healthcare,12 computer science,13,14 cybersecurity,15,16 physics,17 veterinary medicine,18 and engineering19 in SL. Few SL science laboratory experiments are available: students can perform a polymerase chain reaction (PCR) experiment,20 and students at Received: October 20, 2016 Revised: April 25, 2017

A

DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.6b00733 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX

Journal of Chemical Education

Article

Figure 1. Screenshot of benchtop 1 used for the SL AgCl titration experiment.

Figure 2. Two avatars work with oversized lab equipment to determine the molar mass of butane. An onscreen menu shows possible actions for the students to perform.

research methods in 127 studies of virtual worlds found that most researchers evaluated users’ performance in controlled experimental settings, not in authentic classroom conditions.10 Therefore, additional studies conducted in a real classroom environment are needed. Educational benefits of virtual worlds justify an investigation of their use in the chemistry teaching laboratory. The authors developed two laboratory experiments for SL that mimic experiments taught in a General Chemistry 2 course at Texas A&M University.29 Effects of the laboratory environment (real and virtual) on student learning and attitudes about their lab experience were assessed over a two-year period and will be reported in future publications. Here, the authors describe experiment development, implementation, and initial feedback from students and teaching assistants (TAs) during the pilot testing of this project.

Prince William Sound College can perform biology experiments in SL.21 Students also learn chemistry in SL. Viewing 3D models of atomic orbital and molecular shapes in SL improved students’ satisfaction, self-efficacy, and academic performance.22−24 Lang and Bradley25 describe the visualization of complex biomolecules and reaction mechanisms in SL. Second Life provides a collaborative environment for students to view and share data. However, chemistry experiments are rare in SL,26 perhaps due to the extensive programming required to realistically depict chemical phenomena. Several studies indicate that students learn as much17,20,27 in virtual worlds compared to an analogous real world activity. A meta-analysis of 69 studies of computer-based simulations, games, and virtual worlds found that virtual worlds are effective at improving K-12 and college students’ knowledge-, ability-, and skill-based learning outcomes.28 However, a 2014 review of B



Article

Figure 3. A view of the solution volume within a buret as seen by a student.

■

VIRTUAL LABORATORY DESIGN Both experiments selected for development in SL were verification experiments currently taught in the lab course, and each could be completed in one 3 h session with students working in pairs. Although the authors recognize the shortcomings of verification experiments, they are the easiest to design and implement in SL. Most other experiments in the school’s general chemistry laboratory curriculum were verification style as well. In the first selected experiment, students perform three trials collecting volumes of butane gas released from a lighter over water to determine its molar mass. This experiment was selected for the project because it involves the assembly and handling of several pieces of equipment. The second experiment involved a series of argentometric titrations to determine the salinity of a solution. A silver nitrate solution of known concentration is added to an analyte solution containing an unknown amount of sodium chloride and indicator. This titration experiment is more challenging than the typical acid− base titration both conceptually and experimentally. In the authors’ experience, a titration is a common procedure in general chemistry, so it is important to determine if students can perform it in SL. The student’s view of the SL titration experiment benchtop is shown in Figure 1. Handouts for both experiments are included in Supporting Information. Professional programmers with experience working on educational projects were hired to translate the experiments into SL and help conduct student training. The KW research group practiced the experiments and then recorded video and images while performing the two experiments in a real world laboratory. The programmers used these videos and images to design realistic looking chemicals, chemical and physical phenomena, and labware. Programmers then coded experimental outcomes such as the color change of the titration indicator, which depended on students’ actions. Content was created using the Linden Scripting Language.

An initial design challenge was to provide a means for viewing small details such as markings on graduated glassware. The zoom feature within SL is inadequate for this task. The programmers overcame this limitation by enlarging objects in the laboratory environment so that the student’s avatar was standing on the virtual lab bench surrounded by enormous versions of the lab equipment. Because users perform tasks using onscreen menus or clicking with a mouse cursor, avatars do not actually handle the comically large virtual laboratory items. Figure 2 shows an example of two avatars determining the molar mass of butane and the use of an onscreen menu. In fact, when users view the virtual world from a first-person perspective, the lab equipment looks normal, as demonstrated in Figure 1. The oversized lab equipment enabled students to easily view markings on measurement glassware, as illustrated in Figure 3. Several features of the SL experiments ensure that students have a realistic laboratory experience: (1) Experimental results depend on the students’ actions, so skipping a procedural step will change the experiment’s outcome for the worse. For instance, forgetting to close the door of the analytical balance when measuring the mass of the butane lighter would result in an inaccurate mass value. This affects students’ calculation of the molar mass of butane. The SL experiment does not stop or fail, but the students’ results are less accurate. (2) Although the experimental data is determined algorithmically, the computer code intentionally adds a small random error. This gives more realistic-looking data. (3) Avatars within the vicinity of the lab bench can participate in the experiment, so students work together in SL just as they do in the real lab room. (4) Students in the SL group must make observations, record data in lab handouts, perform calculations, and analyze results in the same manner as students in the real world lab. The computer program does not perform any calculations for the student. Additional design features of the virtual environment were added to improve students’ learning experience. A reset button C



Article

Figure 4. A student views the prelab briefing by the TA in SL along with other avatars.

Figure 5. Real world and SL laboratory facilities.

briefing rooms and laboratory bench space for each lab group. They also created areas for students to explore, such as a large lab building with natural and landscaped areas around it. Although these features were unnecessary for the students’ assignments, they added to the sense of immersion that users feel when they are controlling their avatars within SL.30 This feeling of presence is an important component to a successful and enjoyable virtual learning environment.30,31 Several aspects of the SL experiments were not realistic due to technical or practical limitations. Use of SL is free, but Linden Lab charges users who wish to create a permanent location. Because this fee is based on the area of virtual land used, the authors chose to create floating, oversized lab benchtops positioned above the laboratory building. Lab groups teleported there from the meeting room. The back wall of the lab bench is transparent in one direction so that instructors can monitor students from behind the wall without being noticed.

at every lab station allows students to restart an experiment if they make a mistake. All equipment is automatically cleaned, solution dispensers are refilled, and equipment is returned to its original position. Avatars at a lab station or in a room can only see and communicate with other avatars also located at that same location. They can talk to each other using an in-world text chat feature or through a microphone headset. Figure 4 shows a student wearing a headset while viewing the prelab presentation by the TA with other avatars sitting in front of his avatar. A chat dialogue box appears in the lower right corner of the screen. This isolation eliminates many distractions. Students can click on a call button located on the virtual lab bench to ask the TA for help. Programmers designed the virtual laboratory to duplicate the real world setting so that it would be familiar to students. Images recorded in the real and virtual lab rooms are shown in Figure 5. Programmers designed common laboratory and D



Article

Figure 6. An instructor’s avatar in the foreground views two avatars performing an experiment from behind the one-way transparent back wall of the lab bench. The lab bench is the same as the one pictured in Figure 2.

This is illustrated in Figure 6. The oversized lab bench limited the avatars’ field of view so that they could not see other lab benches. Incorporating the limitless choices students could make during an experiment into the computer programming was impossible. Students accomplished some tasks, such as dispensing reagents, using onscreen menus. One such menu appears in Figure 2. Readers are invited to join SL and request access from author K.W. or W.K.K. to view or use the laboratory experiments themselves.32 Costs to build and maintain the SL laboratory spaces and activities were about $25,000. Although this is a high cost for just two experiments for four lab sections, the cost does not necessarily scale proportionally if more experiments are added because some expenses were due to developing the lab building and its aesthetics. There would be no additional development costs associated with more lab classes conducting these two experiments at other times in SL. While developing new SL lab experiments is more expensive than creating new real world experiments, the virtual world provides an entire environment for conducting those experiments, including rooms within the lab building and its surroundings. Ongoing costs for the SL experiments are about $1800 each year for renting server space with Linden Lab. It is anticipated that costs of computer hardware will decline with time. Developing and testing the complete virtual laboratory spanned about nine months, although this duration could have been shortened if necessary. Training for new users of SL is essential.33 Students in lab sections which performed the virtual world experiments viewed an introductory video about the project and tutorials which showed them how to create a SL account and an avatar. Each student in the SL group created an avatar before leaving the first lab session. Students learned the keyboard and mouse commands for moving within SL and completed a mandatory SL training session within SL prior to the first SL lab experiment (collecting butane gas over water). This training session was conducted synchronously, but students could perform it at their own computers. Attendance was recorded.

During the training session, students attired their avatars with goggles and a lab coat, viewed the meniscus in a buret and graduated cylinder, and located the SL laboratory and briefing rooms. Students were not allowed to perform the experiment until they completed the training, so an additional training session was provided after the briefing for the first experiment for any students who missed the earlier training sessions.

■

IMPLEMENTATION Two technical issues arose during the SL laboratory experiments. First, some computers in the campus computer lab often failed to recognize the headsets that were provided to students. This meant that lab partners could not communicate online with each other or with the TA. To resolve this problem, lab partners sat next to each other in the computer lab when necessary while their avatars interacted in SL. The TA walked around the computer classroom to speak with students who had questions. While this diminished the “virtual” aspect of the laboratory experiment, the authors did not consider the particular method of audio communication used to be important for this pilot study. The SL viewer software requires periodic updates and will not allow a user to log in until a computer administrator performs the update. In instances when this would delay class, author W.K.K. gave each student a flash drive with the updated SL viewer program on it. The school’s IT office updated the software on the computers later. Students in four laboratory sections (∼24 students each) performed the two SL experiments and eight other experiments in the real world laboratory, while the control group, consisting of four lab sections with similar enrollment taught by the same TAs, performed all ten experiments in the real world lab. The SL group met in a reserved computer lab at their regularly scheduled lab time for these two weeks of SL experiments, while the control group performed the same experiments in the chemistry lab. Graduate student TAs led all lab sessions, and author W.K.K. was also present for the two SL lab sessions. All E



Article

students who completed all assessments were included in the statistical analysis. All students could access computers, and some students even had experience with virtual worlds, possibly due to other SL education activities conducted by Texas A&M faculty.12,18,24

other aspects of the lab curriculum and lab policies for the two groups were the same. All students performed the butane gas and silver nitrate titration experiments during weeks three and four of the semester, respectively. Each laboratory session began with a five-question multiple choice quiz that evaluated students’ understanding and familiarity with the experimental procedure. All students completed the quizzes on paper. Following the quiz, the TA showed a brief slideshow presentation that summarizes the procedure, safety issues, and calculations. For the laboratory sessions conducted in SL, the slideshow was displayed within SL. The content of the slideshow was the same as the one given to students in the real world laboratory. The avatar of the TA was in SL with all of the students’ avatars. At the end of the lab session, students answered the same five-question multiple choice quizzes on paper. Each student turned in a lab report one week after completing each experiment. Lab sections involved in this study were chosen randomly. Students were required to complete the two experiments in their assigned virtual or real world lab environment. Students could, if they requested, switch from the SL group to the control group. The authors are aware of two students who dropped the lab class belonging to the SL group during the first week of the semester and then enrolled in another lab section. During the week five lab session, two weeks after they performed the butane gas experiment, students in sections taught by the four participating TAs (four sections of the control group and the four sections of the SL group) completed a laboratory practicum in which they were presented with real tubing, a lighter, a tub of water, and a graduated cylinder. Students were instructed to assemble the apparatus to collect gas over water and accurately measure the volume of water in the graduated cylinder. Students completed the practicum individually and received no extra credit for this assignment. All members of the SL group completed surveys to measure their attitudes with respect to the real and virtual laboratory experiments in week eight. This was a semantic differential survey based on the format used in the Inquiry Laboratory Attitude Survey.34 A copy of the survey is included in the Supporting Information. After analyzing the results of the survey and lab grades, the authors asked students in the SL group follow-up questions based on the project results. Students received a small amount of extra credit for providing these responses (students in the control group were given a different, unrelated assignment of equal value). Following the completion of the two SL experiments, the four TAs instructing SL and control group lab sections participated in a focus group discussion. Focus groups provided an opportunity for TAs to share their perceptions of the two lab environments. This occurred during each of the four semesters of the SL experiment implementation. The focus group was led by author M.M. with none of the other authors present.

Student Learning

Students in the SL and control groups showed similar achievements in the pre- and postexperiment quizzes, as shown in Table 1. The chi-square test for homogeneity was Table 1. Comparison of Pre- and Post-Experiment Quiz Scores (Mean ± SD) for SL and Control Groups Assessment Item Scored

SL Group (n = 55)

Control Group (n = 67)

Butane experiment prequiz Butane experiment postquiz Gain in butane quiz score Titration experiment prequiz Titration experiment postquiz Gain in titration quiz score

3.0 ± 1.3

3.4 ± 1.2

X (5) = 5.098, p = 0.404

3.7 ± 1.1

3.8 ± 0.8

X2 (4) = 8.418, p = 0.077

0.7 ± 1.3

0.4 ± 1.1

X2 (7) = 14.103, p = 0.049

2.0 ± 1.0

2.2 ± 0.9

X2 (5) = 6.639, p = 0.249

3.3 ± 1.0

2.8 ± 0.9

X2 (4) = 8.568, p = 0.073

1.3 ± 1.1

0.7 ± 0.9

X2 (5) = 15.747, p = 0.008

Likelihood Ratio 2

used to test for differences. Likelihood ratios were reported because, in all cases, more than 20% of the cells had expected values less than 5. Both the control group and SL group showed significant improvements in their quiz scores after completing each experiment with the SL group showing small but statistically significantly greater gains for both experiments. Similar quiz score gains among the SL and control groups are consistent with previous findings showing that students learn as much in a virtual environment as they do in a real world setting. For instance, students attending the virtual lectures of an aerospace design class scored as well on the course exam as students in the physical classroom.27 High school students also learn equally well through interactive chemistry lab simulations7 and SL experiments.26 Learning gains made by physics students investigating the properties of light in SL matched those of students performing the same lesson in a real classroom.17 Students in the SL group and the control group performed a practicum to determine how well they can manipulate the lab equipment needed to collect butane gas. This occurred two weeks after students performed the butane gas experiment. This activity was chosen as the practicum because it was new to the students; they had performed a titration in the previous semester. One at a time, students assembled the lighter, tubing, tub of water, and graduated cylinder. Each student collected gas in the cylinder then reported the volume of gas. Author W.K.K. evaluated students’ correct assembly and accuracy of the gas volume measurement. The SL group and control group performed equally well: average practicum scores of the two respective groups were 4.2 ± 1.0 and 4.1 ± 0.7 on a 5-point scale with t(98.455) = 0.072, p = 0.943. Some students in the control group noted that they learned to assemble the apparatus only by watching their lab partner, demonstrating

■

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Because this pilot study was conducted in the fall semester, the General Chemistry 2 Lab course was off-sequence. Participating students represented many majors and academic years. A demographic survey of participating students revealed no statistically significant differences (p > 0.05) between the control and SL groups with regard to academic college, age, year in school, and gender. The ethnic diversity of the two groups was statistically different. Survey results and the statistical analysis appear in the Supporting Information. Only F



Article

Table 2. Result Distribution of Survey Responses for the SL Group Comparing the Real World and SL Experiments Left Statement I like using computers instead of actually handling chemicals to perform lab experiments. Lab experiments in “Second Life” take less time to complete compared to experiments in the “real world.” I get better grades on “Second Life” lab experiments. I would choose to do “Second Life” experiments instead of ″real world″ lab experiments. I learn more by performing “Second Life” lab experiments.

Agreement with Left Statement n, %

Neutral n, %

Agreement with Right Statement n, %

18 32.7% 39 70.9%

13 23.6% 9 16.4%

24 43.7% 7 12.7%

25 45.4% 20 36.4% 9 16.4%

24 43.6% 15 27.3% 25 45.5%

6 10.9% 20 36.4% 21 38.1%

Right Statement I actually like handling chemicals instead of using computers to perform lab experiments. Lab experiments in “Second Life” take more time to complete compared to experiments in the “real world.” I get better grades on “real world” lab experiments. I would choose to do “real world” experiments instead of “Second Life” lab experiments. I learn more by performing “real world” lab experiments.

experiments. The perception that some students felt that they learned less in the virtual world is troubling, but without more information about the group’s grades, it is difficult to draw any conclusions. These issues are being examined in more detail now using data gathered during subsequent implementations of the SL experiments. Written feedback provided by 15 students in the SL group cited the SL experiments as being less stressful and better organized (all necessary materials were readily available on the lab bench) than their real world lab experiments. Most students felt that the virtual environment was novel, fun, and “user friendly.” A representative response from a student was “The second life labs were also exciting because they were new and used technology which is more stimulating.” When asked about their equal preference for the virtual and real world lab environments, students most frequently responded that they enjoyed taking a break from their normal real world experiments so that they can do something different. Several noted that the virtual lab experiments helped them appreciate their real world lab sessions. As one student wrote, “In the end, after having done several Second Life labs, it was nice to be able to return to a real lab and be able to see the minor color changes as a titration goes through, or be able to feel especially “Sciencey” as one goes through a lab.” While this was not a view expressed by many students, it is an unexpected and interesting outcome, suggesting that real and virtual laboratory experiments can complement each other rather than compete for inclusion in a laboratory curriculum. Like the students participating in this study, undergraduate students performing a virtual PCR experiment in SL viewed their virtual world experience positively, saying that it was easy to perform and educational. In that study, the SL experiment helped them prepare for a similar real world lab experiment.20 In that study, students performed either an SL-based activity or viewed a live demonstration of the PCR procedure as a prelab exercise. Author K.W. observed similar results when high school students performed an SL kinetics experiment.26 In the present study, equal numbers of students liked the SL and real world experiments. Most believed that the SL experiment required less time to complete, even if that was not necessarily the case. In a study of using chemistry lab simulations as replacements for two real world experiments, high school students felt that the virtual lab experiments were easier to perform than their real world versions.7 Those students had no strong preference for either lab environment, showing equally favorable attitudes about real experiments and the computerbased simulations. Overall, these results suggest that student

that not all students take advantage of the available opportunity to gain hands-on experience using real laboratory equipment. Students can learn kinesthetic skills in a virtual world if the real and virtual environments settings are similar.35 Using a mouse and keyboard does not truly replicate manipulating lab equipment. Therefore, it is somewhat surprising that students learned the techniques of assembling pieces of laboratory equipment and measuring a volume of gas in the virtual SL environment so well. The immersive, virtual world may be an effective means for learning kinesthetic skills, but it is possible that these techniques are so simple that seeing them occur on a computer screen or in person is sufficient for learning. Given that many educators feel that learning hands-on laboratory skills is an important aspect of a student’s chemistry education,36−38 these preliminary results of kinesthetic skills development should be investigated in more detail. Student Attitudes

Students in the SL group completed a semantic differential survey to compare the two types of lab environments (Table 2). Results are reported as frequencies of students agreeing with the statement on the left (response values = 1 or 2), remaining neutral (response value = 3), or agreeing with the statement on the right (response values = 4 or 5). A chi-square goodness-offit test was conducted to determine whether an equal number of participants (n = 18) agreed with the statement on the left, middle, or right. Three of the five statements showed statistically significant differences between frequencies of students’ choices and the expected responses. They overwhelmingly reported that the SL experiments took less time to complete (X2 (2) = 35.055; p = 2.4 × 10−8). Their judgment of the SL experiment duration is in disagreement with the views of the TAs instructing the lab sessions, who noted that the real world and SL experiments took about the same amount of time for students to complete. A large portion of the SL group felt that they received higher grades when completing the SL experiments (X2 (2) = 12.473; p = 0.002). Despite their opinion that they received higher grades for the SL experiment assignments, students felt that they learned more from the real world experiments (X2 (2) = 7.564; p = 0.023). Students were statistically evenly split in their opinion of choosing to perform experiments in the virtual world (X2 (2) = 0.909; p = 0.635) or whether they preferred doing computer laboratories or handling chemicals (X2 (2) = 3.309; p = 0.191). The authors did not have access to this group’s grades for any of the lab experiments except for quiz scores of the two SL experiments. It is possible that they did receive lower grades for their other real world experiments than they did for the SL G



Article

attitudes may not be a barrier for introducing virtual world experiments into the curriculum.

The TAs believed that they were more effective at monitoring student progress in the real world laboratory because they could easily see how all students were doing and assess the students’ nonverbal cues. In the virtual world lab, TAs could not see which menu options the students selected and, therefore, could not easily notice students’ mistakes. The TAs felt that they could communicate and teach more effectively in the real world lab. The TAs explained that when a student in the control group asked a question, they were able to provide the answer to the entire class. This was not possible in the SL laboratory when students communicated with headsets so the TAs communicated to each student. The TAs suggested that they initially felt isolated in the computer lab. To alleviate this feeling, the TAs altered their behavior by walking around the computer lab to monitor students and answer questions. The TAs provided suggestions for making the virtual learning environment more realistic such as providing more opportunities for students to make mistakes, providing a better means for TAs to communicate with the entire class in the virtual world, and creating a database of the actions taken by each student’s avatars. TAs could review the list of actions to find the step which students performed incorrectly. They also suggested that they conclude each SL session with a group discussion on how the experiment would have operated differently in a real world lab, emphasizing possible sources of error. All of these suggestions are technically feasible and will be considered when the virtual world experiments are updated. It is important for faculty to seek out the TAs’ views of laboratory innovations. As the primary instructor in the laboratory, TAs offer feedback about student behavior and general attitudes which faculty can use to improve the quality of the curriculum. Teaching assistants have a vested interest in the laboratory sessions running smoothly, and many care about their students’ education. The authors observed this based on the number of comments and thoughtfulness of TA feedback. Soliciting their views minimized their anxiety and negative attitudes about the virtual world experiments. Program coordinators wishing to introduce SL-type experiments into the curriculum should be aware that TAs’ expectations of their role as instructors are based on their prior experiences.40 New lab environments can cause frustration because TAs are not performing the role they anticipated. Training also influences their self-image as educators, and therefore it is important to highlight the potential differences in the TAs’ role in the real world and virtual world environments.39,40

Observations by TAs

In a focus group occurring near the end of the semester, TAs related that students performing SL experiments appeared comfortable and relaxed, perhaps because they are more familiar with a computer lab than a chemistry lab and due to the lack of lab safety concerns and clothing restrictions. Other reasons include a lesser pressure for accurate results, which was felt more in the real world lab, as well as the lack of familiarity with using real lab equipment. The virtual world was a less challenging learning atmosphere for students, which may contribute to the more relaxed environment. Rather than students making decisions with many possible outcomes in the real world lab, the act of choosing from a list of options with a SL menu, “limited their ability to make mistakes,” according to one TA. The TAs stated that real world experiments had problems as well, including limited equipment and space. Specifically for the butane gas experiment, students in the real lab were required to share a hood, which resulted in a crowded environment. Furthermore, limited equipment in the real world lab resulted in more wait time for the students. Some TAs felt that waiting gave students time to conduct their calculations and correct mistakes. Other TAs suggested that because the students had their own computers in the virtual lab, there was no wait time, which the students appreciated. According to most of the TAs, the virtual environment is helpful when real world space and equipment are limited. When discussing students’ learning, the TAs emphasized the importance of accuracy. TAs were present when students were collecting their data and they could give feedback about the quality of students’ results. They also graded the lab reports, with grades based in part on accuracy of results. With the zoom capability in SL, students were able to obtain a closer view of the glassware. In the real world lab, students struggled with getting their lighters wet, working in crowded spaces, and handling the glassware, all of which limited the accuracy of their results. Overall, the TAs felt that students collected more accurate results by performing the experiment in the virtual world as compared to the real world. The TAs thought that the virtual environment limited students’ ability to identify sources of error. Often, students attributed sources of error to the technology being used rather than to laboratory sources. Students tended to make mistakes as they perform these procedures in the real world lab, which provides more opportunities to practice and refine these skills. Overall, to the TAs, the virtual world lab appeared more orderly with fewer students talking than in the real world lab. Students mainly spoke with their lab partners in the virtual lab, as opposed to more broadly communicating to other peers in the real world lab. Students asked more questions and there was a higher level of interaction in the real world lab. A virtual world allows for the creation of the lab environment from scratch, without the common limitations of space and resources in the real world. While providing individual sets of equipment and materials makes the students’ work easier to perform, it diminishes the interactions that the student has with his or her peers as they manage the shared resources of the laboratory. These trade-offs should be considered when designing the virtual world laboratory.

■

CONCLUSIONS This pilot study demonstrates that experiments conducted in a virtual world have the potential to be a valid substitution for real world experiments in general chemistry. An analysis of available, albeit minimal grade and survey data collected during the first semester of this project shows that students performing experiments in a virtual world make reasonable learning gains. Of particular note is that students in the control group and SL group performed equally well on a laboratory practicum. Students performing the virtual world experiments held positive attitudes about virtual experiments. Future implementations of these experiments will include the collection and analysis of more data, including more feedback from students to understand which aspects of the virtual world experiments were challenging and beneficial. Additional studies are needed to support and expand upon these results. The ability of students to learn kinesthetic skills H



Article

(5) Phipps, L. R. Creating and teaching a web-based, university-level introductory chemistry course that incorporates laboratory exercises and active learning pedagogies. J. Chem. Educ. 2013, 90, 568−573. (6) Dalgarno, B.; Bishop, A. G.; Adlong, W.; Bedgood, D. R., Jr. Effectiveness of a virtual laboratory as a preparatory resource for distance education chemistry students. Comput. Educ. 2009, 53, 853− 865. (7) Pyatt, K.; Sims, R. Virtual and physical experimentation in inquiry-based science labs: attitudes, performance and access. J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 2012, 21, 133−147. (8) Tatli, Z.; Ayas, A. Effect of a virtual chemistry laboratory on students’ achievement. J. Educ. Technol. Soc. 2013, 16, 159−170. (9) Winkelmann, K. Virtual Worlds and Their Uses in Chemical Education. In Pedagogic Roles of Animations and Simulations in Chemistry Courses, ACS Symposium Series 1142; Suits, J., Sanger, M., Eds.; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2013; pp 161−179. (10) Beck, D.; Perkins, R. A. Review of educational research methods in desktop virtual world environments: Framing the past to provide future direction. J. Virtual Worlds Res. [Online] 2014, 7. https:// journals.tdl.org/jvwr/index.php/jvwr/article/view/7077 (accessed April 14, 2017) (11) Linden Lab Historical role playing communities in Second Life. http://secondlife.com/destinations/roleplay/historical (accessed April 14, 2017). (12) Holland, B.; Landry, K.; Mountain, A.; Middlebrooks, M. A.; Heim, D.; Missildine, K. Weaving the tapestry of learning simulation, standardized patients, and virtual communities. Nurse Education 2013, 38, 269−272. (13) Esteves, M.; Fonseca, B.; Morgado, L.; Martins, P. Improving teaching and learning of computer programming through the use of the Second Life virtual world. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 2011, 42, 624−637. (14) Wang, Y.; Braman, J. Extending the classroom through Second Life. J. Info. Sys. Educ. 2009, 20, 235−247. (15) Nestler, V.; Moore, E. L.; Huang, K.-Y. C.; Bose, D. In the use of Second Life® to teach physical security across different teaching modes. In Information Assurance and Security Education and Training; Dodge, Jr., R. C., Futcher, L., Eds.; Springer: Berlin, 2013; pp 188− 195. (16) Ryoo, J.; Techatassanasoontorn, A. A.; Lee, D. Security education using Second Life. IEEE Security Privacy 2009, 7, 71−74. (17) Vrellis, I.; Avouris, N.; Mikropoulos, T. A. Learning outcome, presence and satisfaction from a science activity in Second Life. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology 2016, 32 (1), 59−77. (18) Texas A&M University College of Veterinary Medicine and Biological Sciences. TAMU Veterinary Medicine Class in Second Life. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5VXf5Ky5ms (accessed April 14, 2017). (19) August, S. E.; Hammers, M. L.; Murphy, D. B.; Neyer, A.; Gueye, P.; Thames, R. Q. Virtual engineering sciences learning lab: giving stem education a Second Life. IEEE Trans. Learn. Technol. [Online] 2016, 9, 18−30. (20) Cobb, S.; Heaney, R.; Corcoran, O.; Henderson-Begg, S. The learning gains and student perceptions of a Second Life virtual lab. Biosci. Educ. 2009, 13, 1−9. (21) Prince William Sound College. Strategic Goals 2015−2016. http://pwsc.alaska.edu/download/StrategicGoalsPWSC2015-2016_ SinglePageView.pdf (accessed April 14, 2017). (22) Keeney-Kennicutt, W. L.; Merchant, Z. H. Using Virtual Worlds in the General Chemistry Classroom. In Pedagogic Roles of Animations and Simulations in Chemistry Courses, ACS Symposium Series 1142; Suits, J., Sanger, M., Eds.; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2013; pp 181−204. (23) Merchant, Z.; Goetz, E.; Keeney-Kennicutt, W.; Kwok, O.; Cifuentes, L.; Davis, T. J. The learner characteristics, features of desktop 3-D virtual reality environments, and college chemistry instruction: A structural equation modeling analysis. Comput. Educ. 2012, 59, 551−568.

via virtual experiments would make the SL learning environment particularly beneficial for laboratory courses. The optimum number of virtual experiments in a general chemistry curriculum is unknown but worth determining. Of concern is that students in this pilot study felt that they learn less in the virtual world. Finally, students participating in this study attended a large, public state university and performed their virtual world experiments on campus under the supervision of a lab instructor. Students conducting these experiments in an asynchronous online course or at a different type of school may experience different outcomes with regard to their learning and attitudes, so this is also worth investigating. As technology related to immersive virtual worlds improves, educators and programmers can design more realistic and complex laboratory activities, which education researchers can use to build upon the results presented here. Readers interested in touring the SL laboratory or using the experiments in their classes are welcome to contact author K.W. or W.K.K.

■

ASSOCIATED CONTENT

S Supporting Information *

Handouts for both SL experiments, lab quizzes, the demographic survey and its analysis, and the laboratory attitudes survey are included in Supporting Information. The Supporting Information is available on the ACS Publications website at DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.6b00733. Introduction handout for gas law experiment (PDF) Introduction handout for precipitation titration experiment (PDF) Lab quizzes (PDF; DOCX) Laboratory preference survey (PDF; DOC) Demographic survey and analysis (PDF; DOCX)

■

AUTHOR INFORMATION

Corresponding Author

*E-mail: kwinkel@fit.edu. ORCID

Kurt Winkelmann: 0000-0002-2016-602X Notes

The authors declare no competing financial interest.

■

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors acknowledge Xandi Mars and Random Cole for their work in designing the SL experiments and laboratory environment. The National Science Foundation TUES program (Award #1140841) provided funding for this research.

■

REFERENCES

(1) Leontyev, A.; Baranov, D. Massive open online courses in chemistry: A comparative overview of platforms and features. J. Chem. Educ. 2013, 90, 1533−1539. (2) Patterson, M. J. Developing an internet-based chemistry class. J. Chem. Educ. 2000, 77, 554−555. (3) Boschmann, E. Teaching chemistry via distance education. J. Chem. Educ. 2003, 80, 704−708. (4) Casanova, R. S.; Civelli, J. L.; Kimbrough, D. R.; Heath, B. P.; Reeves, J. H. Distance learning: a viable alternative to the conventional lecture-lab format in general chemistry. J. Chem. Educ. 2006, 83, 501− 507. I



Article

(24) Merchant, Z.; Goetz, E.; Keeney-Kennicutt, W.; Kwok, O.; Cifuentes, L.; Davis, T. J. Exploring 3-D virtual reality technology for spatial ability and chemistry achievement. J. Comput. Assist. Learning 2013, 29, 579−590. (25) Lang, A. S.; Bradley, J.-C. Chemistry in Second Life. Chem. Cent. J. 2009, 3, 14. http://ccj.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/1752153X-3-14 (accessed April 14, 2017). (26) Winkelmann, K.; Scott, M.; Wong, D. A study of high school students’ performance of virtual chemistry laboratory in Second Life. J. Chem. Educ. 2014, 91, 1432−1438. (27) Okutsu, M.; DeLaurentis, D.; Brophy, S.; Lambert, J. Teaching an aerospace engineering design course via virtual worlds: A comparative assessment of learning outcomes. Comput. Educ. 2013, 60, 288−298. (28) Merchant, Z.; Goetz, E. T.; Cifuentes, L.; Keeney-Kennicutt, W.; Davis, T. J. Effectiveness of virtual reality-based instruction on students’ learning outcomes in K-12 and higher education: A metaanalysis. Comput. Educ. 2014, 70, 29−40. (29) CHEM 111/112 Laboratory Manual, General Chemistry of the Texas Environment, 6th ed.; Hayden McNeil Publishing: Plymouth, MI, 2016. (30) Salmon, G. The future for (second) life and learning. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 2009, 40, 526−538. (31) Edirisingha, P.; Nie, M.; Pluciennik, M.; Young, R. Socialization of learning at a distance in a 3-D multi-user virtual environment. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 2009, 40, 458−479. (32) Winkelmann, K.; Keeney-Kennicutt, W. Chemistry World. http://maps.secondlife.com/secondlife/Chemistry%20World/183/ 48/26 (accessed April 14, 2017). (33) Oh, K.; Nussli, N. Teacher training in the use of a threedimensional immersive virtual world: building understanding through first-hand experiences. J. Teach. Learn. Technol. 2014, 3, 33−58. (34) Chatterjee, S.; Williamson, V. M.; McCann, K.; Peck, L. M. Surveying students, attitudes and perceptions toward guided-inquiry and open-inquiry laboratories. J. Chem. Educ. 2009, 86, 1427−1432. (35) Miles, H. C.; Serban, R. P.; Watt, S. J.; Lawrence, G. P.; John, N. W. A review of virtual environments for training in ball sports. Comput. Graph. 2012, 36, 714−726. (36) Abraham, M. R.; Craolice, M. S.; Graves, A. P.; Aldhamash, A. H.; Kihega, J. G.; Gal, J. G. P.; Varghese, V. The nature and state of general chemistry laboratory courses offered by colleges and universities in the United States. J. Chem. Educ. 1997, 74, 591−594. (37) American Chemical Society. Importance of Hands-on Laboratory Science. https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/policy/ publicpolicies/education/computersimulations.html (accessed April 10, 2017). (38) American Chemical Society Committee on Professional Training. ACS Guidelines for Bachelor’s Degree Programs; Office of Professional Training: Washington, DC, 2015. (39) Sandi-Urena, S.; Gatlin, T. Factors contributing to the development of graduate student assistant self-image. J. Chem. Educ. 2013, 90, 1303−1309. (40) Gormally, C. Developing a teacher identity: TAs’ perspectives about learning to teach inquiry-based biology labs. Int. J. Teach. Learn. Higher Educ. 2016, 28, 176−192.

J


Development, Implementation, and Assessment of General Chemistry

Recommend Documents