Running head: VIRTUAL LABORATORIES AND STUDENT SUCCESS 1

The Effect of Virtual Laboratories on Student Achievement and Success in Chemistry

Mary Sikkes

University of British Columbia

ETEC 533-65A (Technology in the Mathematics and Science Classroom)

Master of Educational Technology, University of British Columbia

Contact: tsikkes@sd54.bc.ca
VIRTUAL LABORATORIES AND STUDENT SUCCESS 2

The education landscape is changing rapidly, as is the world around us. New
developments in technology are emerging daily and it appears that our education systems are
struggling to keep up. Kalantzis and Cope (2010) highlight a need for a new approach to
learning to align current education systems and curriculums with the world around us, due to
factors such as changes in society and the economy; the potential for new forms of
communication made possible by emerging technologies; and rising expectations amongst
learners that education will maximize their potential for personal fulfillment, civic participation
and access to work (p. 200). In an interview I conducted with an intermediate elementary
educator, Teacher A referred to the fact that we are teaching kids nowadays for a future that
doesnt technically exist yet (ETEC 533 Interview, January 2017). This point reinforces the
importance of integrating digital technology across current curriculums, thereby enabling
students to learn multi-literacies, including those afforded by digital technologies, instead of
being literate only in a traditional sense of having the ability to read and write independently. I
have tended to question how educationally sound the integration of various digital technology
initiatives are, and how effectively digital technologies support students, especially within
science classrooms where hands-on experiences have played an important role in learning. In a
personal interview conducted with Teacher T, a secondary science teacher, it became clear that
many anxieties are held by students in senior science courses today. Teacher Ts integration of
technology to record and post lessons online allowed students to replay lessons, providing
adequate time to review and reflect on concepts taught, as well as offering additional practice
through online questions as needed (ETEC 533 Interview, January 2017). Benefits like these
support the integration of digital technologies as providing an important extension to current
learning (Robinson, p. 7).

Conventional science laboratories provide students with important learning opportunities,

and significant time and effort goes into the transfer of knowledge both in preparatory work
completed by the students and the teacher, as well as during the hands-on environment of the
laboratory process itself. Through these observations and experiences, students are able to learn
the important role chemistry and other aspects of science play in their daily lives, as well as the
more complicated concepts that they may not have been exposed to otherwise. It can be difficult
to imagine that a simulated experience would provide learning of the same quality as that
provided by a hands-on conventional laboratory. However, while Tatli and Ayas (2013)
acknowledged conventional laboratory work as an indispensable element of understanding
chemistry courses, they reference several studies that conclude it cannot be properly embedded
into traditional chemistry courses for various reasons, such as safety concerns, a lack of self-
confidence, and an excessive amount of time and effort required to conduct accurate experiments
(Elton, 1983; Bryant & Edmunt, 1987; Hofstein & Lunetta, 2004; Durmus & Bayraktar, 2010)
(p. 159). A virtual laboratory would appear to lend itself to effective integration of technology
and engaging experiences for its users; however, questions emerge regarding how the learning
experience in a simulation compares to the hands-on experience afforded in a conventional
laboratory setting. I continue to struggle with my belief that hands-on laboratory experiences
provide more informative and interactive learning experiences than simulated experiences
created through a virtual laboratory, leading me to question, do virtual laboratories positively
contribute to student achievement and success in chemistry?
VIRTUAL LABORATORIES AND STUDENT SUCCESS 3

In an attempt to address this question, the CiteULike database was examined first to
ensure that articles connected to virtual laboratories and student learning in science classrooms
were available within the library database. After an initial review of resource folders and their
contents, the search was narrowed to folders focused on learning with media or technology, or
the effectiveness of educational technology in the classroom. One article (Robinson, n.d.) was
chosen through keyword tags virtual, lab, online, and interactive. The second
(Martnez-Jimnez, et al., 2003) was chosen from Resource Folder 1: Learning with Media.
Once two articles were selected from the CiteULike database, the search broadened to Google
Scholar where resources were searched using science technology education interactive labs
student performance within a custom date range of ten years (2006 to present) which yielded
approximately 17,600 results. The date range was narrowed from 2010 to present and science
was replaced by chemistry; however, approximately 16, 800 results were still found. At this
point, I began reviewing the top twenty articles for possible resources or key terms to narrow my
search, and found my third article (Tysz, 2010). My search narrowed again to include
secondary student achievement and performance k-12 with a custom date range between 2013
and present. This yielded approximately 2,190 results and in a review of the top twenty results, I
found my fourth article (Tatli & Ayas, 2013). Due to the large number of results, the focus
narrowed to exclude articles based in various aspects of science, as I decided to concentrate on
chemistry. In addition to this, the search within Google Scholar was narrowed to include only
students in high school chemistry courses, and then only ninth grade students, excluding students
in other grades or courses. Articles focusing on assessment were excluded, as my focus
narrowed more specifically to achievement and success.
Robinson, J. (n.d.). Virtual laboratories as a teaching environment: A tangible solution or a
passing novelty? Southampton University. Retrieved January 25, 2017, from:
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download;jsessionid=528C202CA72A6A6252236F5
8981824B1?doi=10.1.1.11.6522&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Virtual laboratories can be integrated to support a variety of teaching and research
environments. Robinson examines two categories of virtual laboratory in his paper. The
first, Fact based virtual laboratories, uses webpages and screen-shot applications to
simulate the use of specific scientific equipment; in Robinsons example, a spectrometer.
The second, Derivation based virtual laboratories, uses a virtual reality system (p. 1)
to create a research environment. Technologies discussed in more depth included The
GC-MS Virtual Instrument, The Oxford Virtual Chemistry Laboratory, The Virtual
Material Laboratory, and The Physics Modeling Environment.
Robinson identifies many benefits of virtual laboratories throughout his paper that
correspond to benefits identified by Tysz (2010) and Tatli and Ayas (2013). For
example, virtual laboratories provide an opportunity to conduct experiments that would
otherwise not be economically feasible; provide students with a safe environment to
conduct potentially dangerous experiments; allow students to perform a task or
experiment without fear of damaging equipment (i.e., spectrometer); and provide students
with an opportunity to repeat an experiment or task multiple times, increasing confidence
VIRTUAL LABORATORIES AND STUDENT SUCCESS 4

and understanding. These provide students with learning opportunities above what could
be offered in a conventional classroom, and provide support to calm anxieties held in
regard to difficult concepts, allowing students the opportunity to grow as learners.

Martnez-Jimnez, P., Pontes-Pedrajas, A., Polo, J. and Climent-Bellido, M.S. (2003). Learning
in chemistry with virtual laboratories. Journal of Chemical Education, 80(3), 346-352.

Martnez-Jimnez, Pontes-Pedrajas, Polo, and Climent-Bellido examine the effectiveness

of a virtual chemistry laboratory (VCL), which incorporates basic step-by-step
laboratory procedures and simulated real laboratory activities (p. 347) to support
students in becoming active participants in their learning. The system includes multiple
modules including a tutorial module, which provides theory for students to learn various
concepts and principles of chemistry; a VCL module, which provides students with an
opportunity to perform virtual experiments; an evaluation module, which provides
students with multiple-choice tests to evaluate knowledge and understanding; and a
testing module, which allows the instructor to create and manage assessments. General
advantages include the opportunity for students to repeat simulations as necessary and
use evaluation modules to identify learning gaps in their knowledge.

The study was conducted with students enrolled at the University of Crdoba, Spain, with
attention drawn to the fact that introductory level courses were consistently overcrowded
with a student to teacher ratio of 150:1. The study consisted of two control groups, using
only conventional methods, and two experimental groups, using a combination of
conventional methods and the virtual chemistry laboratory. When performance of
students in each of the four groups was evaluated, researchers found that the two
experimental groups present a better overall performance than the control groups (p.
351). The various modules in this study appeared to provide thorough and varied
learning experiences for students, as well as evaluations to identify areas of strength and
weakness for the learner, to ensure comprehension of each concept. By allowing students
to move through the four modules and repeat tutorials, experiments and tests as required,
a solid foundation for learning is created making this simulated environment supportive
as an extension to conventional classroom learning.

Tatli, Z. and Ayas, A. (2013). Effect of a virtual chemistry laboratory on students

achievement. Educational Technology & Society, 16(1), 159-170.
In Turkey, chemistry is introduced as an individual subject in ninth grade and more than
70% of these students took the course for the first and last time (Ministry of National
Education, 2007) (p. 159). Given this knowledge, Tatli and Ayas conducted a six-week,
quasi-experimental study with 90 ninth-grade students from three separate classrooms
within one high school who were randomly assigned to one of three groups: experimental
group, control-I group, control-II group. The study took place over the course of a
chemical changes unit, identified as a particularly difficult unit for students, and a
recognizing laboratory materials and equipment unit, to determine whether the
introduction of a virtual laboratory in chemistry would affect student achievement.
During the chemical changes unit, students in the experimental group conducted all
VIRTUAL LABORATORIES AND STUDENT SUCCESS 5

experiments using the virtual laboratory, while students in the two control groups were
taught using a real laboratory or conventional methods with control-I teacher
encouraged to teach as usual, and control-II teacher encouraged to complete all real
laboratory experiments included in the unit. Data was collected using the following
means: the Chemical Changes Unit Achievement Test (CCUA), the laboratory
equipment test (LET), semi-structured interviews, and unstructured observations (p.
163). Results of the study implied that the integration of a virtual chemistry laboratory
supported instruction at least as effectively as the real chemistry laboratory (p. 164),
was at least as effective as the real chemistry lab when assessed in terms of student
achievement in the chemical-changes unit (p. 165), and activities performed by CG-II
and EG students positively affected students ability to recognize laboratory equipment
(p. 165).
Tatli and Ayas, along with Tysz (2010) in the next article, note that there is a lack of
laboratory work in chemistry classes in Turkey for a number of reasons including safety
concerns, a lack of self-confidence, a lack of necessary equipment, a lack of available
time, and weaknesses of confirmation method (p. 160). With the introduction of virtual
chemistry laboratories, students were provided with a safe environment to conduct
experiments, the ability to repeat experiments, the availability of all necessary equipment
without fear of damage or loss, the opportunity to conduct experiments without additional
time for lab preparation or clean-up, and the ability to interact freely within a virtual
environment, increasing curiosity and engagement. While some may argue in favour of a
conventional, hands-on approach for learners, it is difficult to argue that a virtual
experience is significantly better than limited to no experience at all.

Tysz, C. (2010). The effect of the virtual laboratory on students achievement and attitude in
chemistry. International Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 2(1), 37-53

Tysz conducted an eight-week quasi-experimental research study involving 341 ninth-

grade students from a high school in Turkey, to examine the effects of integrating a
virtual laboratory into the Separation of Matter unit on students achievement and
attitudes in chemistry. Students were randomly assigned to either control groups (167
students) or experimental groups (174 students). Control groups were taught using a
chalk and talk method due to the fact the school had neither a science laboratory nor
any equipment (p. 43), whereas experimental groups participated in sixteen virtual
experiments and were taught using a constructivist based approach which was enriched
by computer animations at the computer laboratory (p.43). A Knowledge Scale (KS)
was used to identify readiness prior to and achievement following the different methods
of instruction, and a Chemistry Attitude Scale (CAS) was used to measure interest and
attitudes prior to and following the different methods of instruction (p. 41). While no
significant differences were identified in KS or CAS pre-tests, a significant increase was
noted in post-tests for both the KS and CAS experimental groups, leading researchers to
determine that students who used the virtual laboratory method were more successful and
VIRTUAL LABORATORIES AND STUDENT SUCCESS 6

had more positive attitudes toward chemistry than those in the control groups who were
taught using conventional methods.
Throughout his study, Tysz focuses on constructivist methods, highlighting the fact
that science concepts are often abstract and require a student-centered approach to
learning, allowing students to learn through observation and experience. Tysz
addresses numerous difficulties related to conventional laboratory work, which align with
many of the difficulties discussed by Robinson (n.d.), Martnez-Jimnez, et al. (2003),
and Tatli and Ayas (2013), including expense, time constraints, lack of laboratory spaces
or equipment, and over-crowded classrooms which limit teachers abilities to monitor
student performance. Tyszs research, as well as other studies referenced, highlight
advantages of integrating virtual laboratories into conventional chemistry classrooms to
combat difficulties associated with conventional settings.
These articles highlight several key points to consider when examining the effectiveness
of integrating a virtual laboratory environment into a science course, such as chemistry.
Advantages related to student motivation and engagement, increased confidence, increased
ability to perform potentially dangerous experiments, increased opportunity to participate in
laboratories when space and/or equipment was unavailable, increased ease of evaluation, and
decreased time spent on preparation and clean-up were common threads throughout articles
reviewed. It is difficult to argue, given similarities between findings of multiple studies, both
those included in this paper and those referenced within the four articles, that students do not
benefit from participating in virtual laboratory environments. Ultimately, while limited in their
scope and timeframes, the articles provided convincing results to support the positive effects of
integrating virtual laboratories into science, specifically chemistry, classes including increased
motivation, increased ability of students to grasp difficult concepts, increased learning speed, and
an opportunity for students to develop personal hypotheses and problem solving methods. While
virtual laboratories appear to add engagement and motivation for students, conventional methods
should not be discounted, and Tysz (2010) offers virtual laboratories as a viable alternative
to conventional methods when we are forced not to perform real lab activities, due to reasons
such as danger of chemical reactions, time concerns, lack of laboratory or equipment, or
insufficient lab conditions (p. 48). This lends itself to question, as technology plays a
significantly greater role in modern classrooms, whether virtual laboratories and simulations
should be integrated to some degree into all chemistry curriculums. Robinson points out that
while virtual laboratories do provide a [sic] important extension to current learningthey
should not be expected to replace the learning experience of real-life laboratory work (p. 7). Do
conventional laboratory methods still play an integral part of current chemistry curriculums, or
are virtual laboratories the way of the future?
VIRTUAL LABORATORIES AND STUDENT SUCCESS 7

References:
Kalantzis, Mary and Cope, Bill. (2010). The teacher as designer: Pedagogy in the new
media age. E-Learning and Digital Media, 7(3), 200-222.
Martnez-Jimnez, P., Pontes-Pedrajas, A., Polo, J. and Climent-Bellido, M.S. (2003). Learning
in chemistry with virtual laboratories. Journal of Chemical Education, 80(3), 346-352.

Robinson, J. (n.d.). Virtual laboratories as a teaching environment: A tangible solution or a

passing novelty? Southampton University. Retrieved January 25, 2017, from:
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download;jsessionid=528C202CA72A6A6252236F5
8981824B1?doi=10.1.1.11.6522&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Tatli, Z. and Ayas, A. (2013). Effect of a virtual chemistry laboratory on students
achievement. Educational Technology & Society, 16(1), 159-170.

Teacher A. (January, 2017). Interview by M. Sikkes. ETEC 533. Available through STEM:
ETEC 533 Technology in the Mathematics and Science Classroom at:
https://blogs.ubc.ca/stem2017/2017/01/21/interviews-elementary-grade-56-and
secondary-senior-sciences/

Teacher T. (January, 2017). Interview by M. Sikkes. Available through STEM: ETEC 533
Technology in the Mathematics and Science Classroom at:
https://blogs.ubc.ca/stem2017/2017/01/21/interviews-elementary-grade-56-and-
secondary-senior-sciences/

Tysz, C. (2010). The effect of the virtual laboratory on students achievement and attitude in
chemistry. International Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 2(1), 37-53.