jaime mcqueen dissertation proposal presentation

The Effects and Impacts of Learner Control and Instructor Presence on

Academic Achievement in Virtual Biology Labs

Jaime McQueen Dissertation Pre-Proposal Meeting

July 13, 2016

Context

Physical Labs:• Offer limited provision of learner control as they are constrained by very specific

instructions, time and scheduling concerns, and limited opportunities for repetition (Brinson, 2015).

• Instructor presence, where learners are able to communicate, ask questions, and receive guidance from instructors during a course or lab has been shown to enhance student learning and understanding of course and laboratory content (De Jong, Linn, & Zacharia, 2013; Picciano, 2002; Stuckey-Mickell & Stuckey-Danner, 2007).

Virtual Labs:• Students are actively in control of interaction with simulated lab equipment and

experiments, pacing, repetition, and their own learning (Pyatt & Sims, 2012).• Communication between instructors and students is critical to students’ success in online

learning environments, immediacy may be lacking in distance based learning (Crippen et al., 2013; De Jong et al., 2013; Dunlap, Verma, & Johnson, 2016; Jaggars, Edgecombe, & Stacey, 2013; Picciano, 2002).

Theoretical Framework

Previous knowledge builds new : Constructivism (Perry, 1968; Piaget, 1977).

• Learner control in constructivism: learners take responsibility for the pace, repetition, and sequence of content in learning environments (Dede, 2009; Hanafin, 1984; Simsek, 2012).

• Instructor presence in constructivism: includes specific levels of guidance provided by instructors which promote successful student learning in STEM subjects (Ahmed & Hasegawa, 2014; Chen et al., 2016; Pedersen & Irby, 2014; Smith, 2015; Zacharia et al., 2015).

Literature Review

Previous Research • Instructor presence (Ahmed & Hasegawa, 2014; Chen et al., 2016; Pedersen & Irby, 2014; Smith, 2015; Zacharia et al., 2015)

Gaps in Current Research

Effects and impacts of instructor presence learner control in virtual lab environments

• Learner control (Hasler, Kersten, & Sweller, 2007; Zacharia et al., 2015)

• Instructor presence (Ahmed & Hasegawa, 2014; Chen et al., 2016; Pedersen & Irby, 2014; Smith, 2015; Zacharia et al., 2015).

Purpose of study

Measure comparative effects of four levels of biology lab delivery and qualitatively explore how students describe their experiences of instructor presence and learner control of pace

Compare effects and impacts of instructor presence and learner control in physical and virtual labs

Research Questions & HypothesesThe quantitative and qualitative research questions that will guide my study are as follows:

Quantitative1. What are the comparative effects of four levels of biology lab delivery on non-majors college biology

students’ test scores immediately following completion of a lab, and after a one week delay? The four levels compared are-

a. a physical based lab with instructor presence (PL), b. a virtual lab with no instructor presence (VL), c. a virtual lab with instructor presence (VLIP) , and d. a virtual lab with instructor presence and direction for learner control of pace and repetition beyond

lab time (VLIPLC).Qualitative2. How do non-majors college biology students describe their experiences of instructor presence and

learner control of pace and repetition in each of the four treatments?

Three null hypotheses will be tested: 1) main effect intervention. 2) main effect time. 3) intervention by time interaction effect.

Operational DefinitionsMode of biology lab delivery• Instructor presence in physical based labs (PL)-the instructor being physically present and available to answer questions

in the lab environment for a duration of 50 minutes. The instructor is available via phone, e-mail, and Black Board before

and after class as well.

• VL virtual lab with no instructor presence- a lab completed solely in an online environment (Brinson, 2015; Ma &

Nickerson, 2006).

• Instructor presence in virtual based labs (VLIP)-the instructor being virtually present and available to answer questions

through phone, e-mail, and Black Board.

• Learner control in physical based labs-the ability for students to control the pacing, repetition, time spent learning, and

access to available guidance when they need it.

• Learner control in virtual based labs (VLIPLC)-the ability for students to control the pacing, repetition, and access

available guidance online when they need it.

20 item Test- one of three content knowledge tests consisting of 20 multiple choice items selected from biology test banks

published by Openstax .

Academic achievement –student scores measured by two 20 item multiple choice biology content knowledge post-tests

(immediate, delayed).

Students’ experience of instructor presence and learner control –how students describe the availability of the instructor and

their control of pacing, repetition, time spent, and access to available guidance in the PL, VL, VLIP, and VLIPLC levels of

biology lab delivery.

PL Group VL Group VLIP Group VLIPLC Group

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

No IPInstructor is virtually available as needed and encourages student contact for help with lab

Instructor is virtually available as needed and encourages student contact for help with lab

Learner Control Student follows lab manual for 50 mins.

Student follows lab manual at their own pace

Student follows lab manual at their own pace

Student follows lab manual at their own pace and is encouraged to repeat the processes

DirectedLC

Operational Definition Table

Method

Participants: Participants will be students enrolled in four sections of a college level undergraduate introductory biology course (BIOL 1308) at a south Texas University during the fall 2016 semester (n≈100). Participants will be recruited: in-person, via e-mail, and course BlackBoard.

Quantitative VariablesIndependentMode of Biology Lab Delivery• PL• VL• VLIP• VLIPLC

Dependent• Performance on Post Test (immediate, delayed)

Method

Qualitative Approach

Focus group: Purposively selected• Four focus groups, one for each lab delivery mode• 8 participants in each group• Ex questions:

“How did the lab help you to learn biology content?” “How many times did you repeat the lab and how?” “Did you seek or receive help from your instructor while completing the virtual lab, if so, how?”

Research Design

• Sequential explanatory mixed methods (Creswell, 2014; Creswell & Plano Clark, 2006; Creswell et al., 2003)

• Quasi-experimental study, lacks the random sampling of a true experiment (Shadish, Cook, & Campbell, 2002).

Research Design

Pre-Test Treatment Immediate Recall Post-Test

Delayed Recall Post-Test

PL Group y X1 y y

VL Group y X2 y y

VLIP Group y X3 y y

VLIPLC Group y X4 y y

• 4 X 3 repeated measures split plot design

Materials

QuantitativeAll four groups will have the same pre-test, lab objectives, and post-tests.• All training and guidance will be delivered prior to beginning labs

VL groups: Computer based introductory tutorial provided by Sapling Learning that will acquaint students with the virtual lab interface.PL Group: Students will receive guidance and directions from the course instructor as part of normal course pre-lab activity.

• The same lab content will be delivered to the PL and VLs groups– VL Groups: Meiosis & Mitosis (Sapling Learning, General Biology, 2016). – PL Group: Exercise 10 Mitosis (Bres & Weisshar, 2015).

• Content validity of the Sapling virtual lab and the Physical based lab has been established by previous research studies. These materials are previously published and widely distributed.

• Prior to data collection, a subject matter expert will review both labs to further ensure content validity.

Quantitative Instrumentation

Quantitative• In this study, three equivalent, matched, and previously published test forms on

the topic of meiosis and mitosis will measure student academic achievement – 20 item multiple-choice pre-test administered prior to lab delivery. – 20 item multiple-choice immediate recall post-test given immediately following delivery of labs.– 20 item multiple-choice delayed recall post-test given one week following lab completion.

• The three equivalent test forms containing 20 multiple choice items that constitute the content pre-test and post-tests are from previously published test banks from OpenStax Biology and Concepts of Biology, universal open-ended textbooks designed and published by Rice University.

• Matching and equivalence of each test item across the pre-test and post-tests was ensured through correlation of unique question ID numbers and difficulty scales provided as part of the test banks.

Quantitative Instrumentation

• The pre-test and post-tests will be reviewed by a biology content expert to ensure alignment with course learning objectives.

• Items for the three equivalent forms will be randomly selected from the Openstax Biology test bank.

• Psychometric properties of the pre-test and post-tests, including reliability and validity, as evidenced by a pilot of the three assessment forms be reported; additionally the administration specific reliability and validity of the testing instrument will be included in the final dissertation.

PL Group

VL Group VLIP Group VLIPLC Group

Weeks 1-4 of semester

Consent of the study y y y y

Week 5 of the semester

Participate in the pretest y y y y


1.Receive lab tutorial y y y y

2.Complete lab treatment PL VL VLIP VLIPLC

3.Immediate Post-Test y y y y


Delayed Post-Test y y y y

Week 8 of the semesterFocus Group y y y y

Data Collection & Procedure

Quantitative Data AnalysisQuantitative• If statistically significant differences in pre-test scores are found, a 4x2 repeated

measures ANCOVA will be run to determine differences in immediate and delayed post-test scores. If pre-experimental equivalence can be assumed, a 4x3 repeated measures ANOVA will be run (Huck, 2000; Urdan, 2010).

• If main effects are statistically significant, modified Tukey procedure will be post hoc analysis. If the interaction effect is statistically significant, analysis of simple effects will be post hoc analysis (Huck, 2000; Urdan, 2010). If no pre-test differences exist, pre-experimental equivalence between the four groups may be assumed.

• IBM (SPSS) v. 23.

• The mean difference effect sizes will be computed to examine practical significance of the findings.

• Small sample sizes (low power) will be acknowledged and discussed if the results are not statistically significant but effect sizes are meaningful.

Qualitative Data Analysis

Qualitative• Focus group data will be audio recorded using the voice memo feature of an iPhone 6. • Audio data will be transcribed verbatim into Microsoft word and sorted into codes,

categories, and themes using MAXQDA 11. • Analytic memos, as suggested by Saldana (2009). • First cycle coding: structural coding, Second cycle coding: magnitude coding(Saldana,

2009).• Qualitative findings will be integrated with the quantitative results of the study to describe

students experiences of the affordances of IP and LC in biology labs Methodological Framework• Interpretivism (Crotty, 1998)

Significance of the Study

Findings from this study will inform science educators regarding the effects of instructor presence which is afforded in physical labs and learner control which is afforded in virtual labs. I believe my research will help inform the fields of higher education, curriculum and instruction, and educational technology.

• Virtual lab research is timely and relevant (Darrah et al., 2014; Johnson, 2002; Miller, 2008).

I intend to share my study and findings with institutions of higher learning, curriculum publishers, and all other parties interested in the utility of virtual laboratories.

ReferencesAkpan, J. P. (2001). Issues associated with inserting computer simulations into biology instruction: A review of the literature. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 5(3).

Bell, J. (1999). The biology labs on-line project: Producing educational simulations that promote active learning. Interactive multimedia electronic journal of computer-

enhanced learning, 1(2).

Bhargava, P. Antonakakis, J., Cunningham, C. & Zehnder, A.T. (2006). Web-based virtual torsion laboratory. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 14(1), 1-8.

Brinson, J. R. (2015). Learning outcome achievement in non-traditional (virtual and remote) versus traditional (hands-on) laboratories: A review of the empirical research.

Computers & Education, 38(3), 218-237. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2015.07.003

Chen, J. A., Tutwiler, M. S., Metcalf, S. J., Kamarainen, A., Grotzer, T., & Dede, C. (2016). A multi-user virtual environment to support students' self-efficacy and interest in

science: A latent growth model analysis. Learning and Instruction, 41, 11-22.

Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the research process. London, UK: Sage.

Flowers, L. O. (2011). Investigating the effectiveness of virtual laboratories in an undergraduate biology course. The Journal of Human Resource and Adult Learning, 7(2),

110-116.

Ma, J., & Nickerson, J. V. (2006). Hands-on, simulated, and remote laboratories: a comparative literature review. ACM Computing Surveys, 3(1), 1-24.

Swan, A. E., & O’Donnell, A. M. (2009). The contribution of a virtual biology laboratory to college students’ learning. Innovations in Education and Teaching International,

46(4), 405-419.

Zacharia, Z. C., Manoli, C., Xenofontos, N., de Jong, T., Pedaste, M., van Riesen, S. A., & ... Tsourlidaki, E. (2015). Identifying potential types of guidance for supporting

student inquiry when using virtual and remote labs in science: A literature review. Educational Technology Research and Development, 63(2), 257-302.

Questions ???

I appreciate your feedback and questions.

Thank you

Contact me via [email protected]