Content uploaded by Paula Booth
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Paula Booth on Jun 26, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
Journal of Interactive Learning Research (2011) 22(3), 445-465
A comparison between Flash and Second Life
programs as aids in the learning of basic laboratory
procedures
PAULA BOOTH AND STEPHANIE HENDERSON-BEGG
University of East London
p.booth@uel.ac.uk
s.henderson-begg@uel.ac.uk
This study compared two programs developed as a learn-
ing tool for students to practise basic laboratory procedures.
One was a Flash simulation program, the other a Second Life
virtual reality program. A cohort of 93 bioscience students
participated in the between trial. A control group was used
to establish if using either program affected learning or con-
fidence gains. Gains were assessed by collecting pre-demo
and post-demo scores. Results showed no difference in gains
between the Flash and Second Life conditions but both had
significantly higher confidence gains than the control condi-
tion. However, the control group had a significantly higher
pre-demo score casting some doubt on the reliability of the
result. Students scored Flash significantly higher as a learning
tool in an evaluation questionnaire. Furthermore, comments
from the focus group demonstrated that the majority of stu-
dents preferred to use Flash finding it easier to use, quicker
and with less distractions than Second Life. The University of
East London will now focus upon developing the Flash ver-
sion of the laboratory procedures simulation.
Key words: Second Life, Flash, simulation, game, biology, laboratory
The number of students entering higher education in the United King-
446 Booth and Henderson-Begg
dom (UK) has increased by nearly 5% in the last 5 years. Furthermore, UK
entry into physical, biological and medical sciences has increased by more
than 10% in that same period (HESA, 2009). Increased numbers can cause
considerable problems particular in areas of education, such as Life Scienc-
es, in which experiential learning is desirable (Alic, 2008). Furthermore, it
has been suggested that many students that enter university to study Life
Sciences lack the basic laboratory skills (Jones, 2009; Rolfe, 2009). Re-
sources such as space, time and money become depleted. As a response to
these problems many universities are now using simulation software as an
adjunct to traditional teaching methods (Cheong, 2004; Dobson & Turner,
1995). Results from studies have supported that using a computer program,
as an addition to laboratory practicals are beneficial in terms of learning and
confidence gains (Booth et al. 2010; Rolfe, 2009).
An increasingly popular choice of computer based learning in educa-
tional institutions is Second Life (Kirremuir, 2008). Second Life (SL) is a
virtual world in which an avatar (a computer generated representation of the
user) can be created and which can interact with other avatars or objects.
Second Life has an impressive list of possible uses. Not only is it useful for
distance learning, when the student can interact with the lecturer and other
students virtually, but also as an additional resource for practicing practical
procedures such as medical or laboratory procedures. Second Life allows
the student to repeatedly practise laboratory procedures in a cost-effective
way and from a location other than the laboratory (Andersen, 2008).
There have been many studies that report students enjoy using Second
Life (Wang & Braman, 2009; Cargill-Kiper, 2009). Additionally, research
results suggest that students perceive that Second Life aids them in their
learning (Andersen et al, 2008) but there have been very few quantitative
studies to determine if use of Second Life actually increases learning gains.
One such study was carried out at the University of East London (UEL).
A Second Life virtual lab was developed with the virtual resources avail-
able for students to practise Electrophoresis and the Polymerase Chain Re-
action (PCR) laboratory procedures as an addition to laboratory practicals
(see Figure 1). While results reported that there was no benefit to short-term
learning gain (Cobb, et al., 2009) for those students using Second Life, they
were found to be quicker and more efficient in conducting the real-world
laboratory procedure than students who had watched a demonstration.
It seems critical, for higher education institutions, that the benefits of
the use of Second Life be established as developing learning scenarios in
this medium can be expensive and lengthy. Virtual property in Second Life
has to be purchased and developers of Second Life have to be employed
A comparison between Flash and Second Life programs 447
specifically for the purpose of designing scenarios as in-house stuff are of-
ten not qualified to work in this medium. Furthermore, Second Life requires
superior graphics capability often not available for students on campus com-
puters or personally owned laptops (Warburton, 2009). It is estimated that
learning basic orientation can take a minimum of four hours (Helmer, 2007)
and some users may find Second Life a challenging platform to master
(Wood et al. 2008). In Cobb et al (2009) older users, in particular, were less
satisfied with SL. This result is consistent with other literature that suggests
more mature users have less wish to participate in a virtual world scenario
(Wood et al, 2008). UEL has a large proportion of mature students so satis-
faction with the learning platform is an important consideration.
Consequently, as an alternative to Second Life, UEL have developed a
PCR and Electrophoresis practical simulation (Figure 1), as well as, basic
laboratory skills practise tasks in an interactive Flash movie(see Figure 2)
which can be viewed at the open websites at http://www.uelconnect.org.uk/
hab/UELVirtualLab.html and http://www.uelconnect.org.uk/hab/pcr_lab/
Flash is a commonly used front-end system (O’Rourke, 2004) that in-
house staff are more likely to be familiar with. In a pilot study on ten stu-
dents of the Flash laboratory examined within this paper (Booth et al, 2010)
confidence and learning gains were measured in students using Flash as a
voluntary addition to their module compared with a control group who had
no access to Flash. The Flash group had higher gains in both confidence and
learning than the control group, although only some of the confidence tests
were statistically significant. Results were consistent with other research us-
ing programs in Flash for students to practise laboratory procedures (Rolfe,
2009). As the pilot study of the Flash laboratory (Booth et al., 2010) in-
dicated similar benefits to student learning as the Second Life laboratory
(Cobb et al., 2009), it was deemed that a comparative study was needed to
determine what the benefits are of one platform over another.
Flash scenarios are cheaper and quicker to produce than Second Life
but the program, although a simulation, is not a virtual reality and may
therefore not provide students with an environment in which they can im-
merse themselves. In order to determine which, if either, software program
should be developed further, as an addition to laboratory practicals, stud-
ies were generated to compare the two. Short-term learning and confidence
gains were measured to determine if either of the software programs had
any significant effect compared to a control group. Moreover, it was consid-
ered that student’s opinions would be an important consideration, as these
programs are only to be employed as supplementary, voluntary resources.
Therefore, it was considered that students would be more likely to use a re-
448 Booth and Henderson-Begg
source which they enjoyed and was easily accessible. A questionnaire was
developed to compare measurements of student satisfaction, using a likert
scale, and students were also able to comment on the programs.
Additionally, a focus group was used as a “supplementary source of
data” (Morgan cited in Levers, 2005). The focus group allowed for further
probing as to why one software program may be preferable to another.
Thus, the hypotheses were:
H1: That both software groups would have significantly higher learning
gains than the control group.
H2: That both software groups would have significantly higher confi-
dence gains than the control group.
H3: That one of the software groups would have significantly higher
learning or confidence gains than the other software group.
H4: That one of the programs would be evaluated significantly higher
than the other.
Lastly, the comments on questionnaires as well as a focus group would
be utilised to illuminate further the student’s thoughts.
A comparison between Flash and Second Life programs 449
Figure 1 A screenshot of the Flash electrophoresis simulation in progress. In
this section the student is asked to prepare an agarose gel.
450 Booth and Henderson-Begg
Figure 2 A screenshot of the Flash basic lab skills simulation. In this sec-
tion the student is able to experiment with mixing different quantities of
solution with water to produce a dilution.
A comparison between Flash and Second Life programs 451
Figure 3 A screenshot of the Second Life PCR experiment in progress.
Figure 4 A screenshot of the Second Life Electrophoresis experiment.
METHOD
Four different classes (A, B, C & D), divided alphabetically by sur-
name, studying the same Year Two module class were invited to participate
in the study. Students with surnames beginning with A or B were assigned
to group A; those with surnames beginning with C-J were assigned to group
B; those with surnames beginning with K-N were assigned to group C; and
those with surnames beginning with O-Z were assigned to group D.
During separate timetabled computer sessions for each class, those
452 Booth and Henderson-Begg
participating were then asked to fill in a consent form, as well as complete
a PCR and Electrophoresis confidence log and quiz. Each confidence log,
developed from Draper (1996), consisted of two questions about the PCR
or Electrophoresis procedure and participants were asked to mark along a
visual analogue scale between 0 = not at all confident and 100= very confi-
dent. The quizzes consisted of 4 basic questions about PCR or Electropho-
resis and were scored with one mark per question for a correct answer. The
schedule of quizzes, confidence logs and classes is summarized in figure 5.
The classes then went on to complete a software program demonstra-
tion and an Electrophoresis and PCR practical. These events took place at
different times depending on each class timetable. For the control classes
the students were shown a demonstration of the technique. The key dif-
ference between the test groups and the controls then were that the soft-
ware groups were “learning by doing” whereas the control group were just
watching. For those students that were in the control group, they were then
shown the Electrophoresis and/or PCR software at the end of the study to
ensure that all students had equal access to materials in the end for ethical
reasons (see Figure 5 for the schedule).
A comparison between Flash and Second Life programs 453
Second Life Flash Demo
Consent form Consent form Consent form
Info sheet Info Sheet Info Sheet
Pre-Quizz/cl Pre-Quizz/cl Pre-Quizz/cl
Performed Virtual SL
experiment
Performed Virtual Flash
experiment
Control
Watched a demo
PRACTICAL PRACTICAL PRACTICAL
Post-Quizz/cl Post-Quizz/cl Post-Quizz/cl
Eval q Eval q
Performed virtual experi-
ments
Eval q
Figure 5 Schedule of demos and practicals for groups.
For the demonstration sessions the participants were randomly divid-
ed into Flash and Second Life conditions. Twenty students from each class
were sent to a different classroom to take part in a Second Life workshop,
the remainder stayed to participate in the Flash Workshop. In the Second
Life workshop the students each created an avatar before being given some
short orientation exercises, such as how to move around and how best to use
the camera. The group were then shown the PCR and Electrophoresis dem-
onstration and allowed to practise this virtual procedure in the laboratories
454 Booth and Henderson-Begg
on UEL Island and UEL Habitat. After completion of the session they were
asked to complete an evaluation questionnaire. The remaining students in
the Flash workshop were given a demonstration of the program and then
told to practise in the basic skills section and complete the PCR and Elec-
trophoresis tasks. After the workshop every student was asked to fill out a
software evaluation.
The evaluation questionnaires for Second Life and Flash were identical
and consisted of three questions about previous virtual reality world use and
length of time that each scenario took to complete and 11 statements scored
on a 5 point Likert scale (Table 1). The questionnaire was developed from a
questionnaire used by (Cobb et al, 2009). The statements were about ease of
use, enjoyment, level of engagement and gains in terms of confidence and
preparation for a real life practical. The Likert scale ranged from not at all
characteristic of me to extremely characteristic of me and some negatively
scored statements were added to confirm participants were properly reading
and scoring the statements. Additionally, comments were requested at the
end of the questionnaire. The evaluations were analysed by t-test.
A comparison between Flash and Second Life programs 455
Table 1
Evaluation Questionnaire. Participants had to score each question. The
scores ranged from 1 ‘not at all characteristic of me’ to 5 ‘extremely charac-
teristic of me.’
Questions
How long did the scenario take to complete?
Enjoyment 1. The computer program used in this session was uninspir-
ing
10. I had lots of fun learning in the computer program.
Ease of 2. The program was easily accessible
Use 8. I understood what I needed to do very well.
9. I found using the computer program quite difficult
Level of 3. I became intensely absorbed in the scenario.
Engagemt 7. I was unable to concentrate fully on the activity
Learning 4. I think the computer program is useful as a learning tool.
& Confidence 5. Using the computer program left me unprepared for a
practical.
Gains 6. I learned a lot from this session.
11. I would be more confident in carrying out procedures after
participating in the session
After the practical sessions the students completed the post-test confi-
dence log and quiz. The pre and post-test confidence log and quiz were ana-
lysed using an ANOVA to determine if there were any differences in perfor-
mance gains between Flash, Second Life or control conditions.
A focus group was carried out at the end of Semester A, when all stu-
dents had had the opportunity to use both software programs, to add depth
and details. An open invitation to the Focus group, with lunch provided as
motivation for attending, was given to the Year 2 students, so those who par-
ticipated were self-selected. It was facilitated by two of the authors and the
conversation was recorded and then transcribed.
456 Booth and Henderson-Begg
RESULTS
Demographic
In the Year 2 module 153 students consented to participate. However,
only 93 students attended both the practical and the Second Life and Flash
demos, so the remaining 60 participants were removed from the analysis.
There were 57 females and 35 males (1 unknown). Only 70% of the stu-
dents indicated what their first language was and of those 55% did not speak
English as a first language. The ethnicity of the cohort was varied with
black-african being the largest group (38%). Most of the participants (79%)
were taking the module for the first time but there were second and third
time re-takers.
QUIZZ AND CONFIDENCE LOGS ANALYSIS.
PCR
Pre-test quiz and confidence log scores were analysed to determine if
there were any baseline difference between the Flash, Second Life or con-
trol conditions. Missing data was replaced with mean values. ANOVA re-
ported significant differences between conditions for both the pre-test PCR
quiz F(2,90)=16.505, p<0.00 and PCR confidence logs F(2,90)=4.749,
p<0.05. T-tests reported that the control condition had significantly high-
er scores than the Flash and Second Life conditions (see Figure 6). There
were fifteen participants taking the module for the third time and ten of
these were in the Control condition. However, when second and third retake
students were removed the Control condition still had significantly higher
pre-quiz scores than the Flash condition. There were no significant differ-
ences in PCR pre-test scores for participants in the Flash & Second Life
conditions. As each class took the pre-tests on different dates within the first
month of the semester, the data was analysed to determine if the pre-test
result correlated with the number of days after the beginning of the semester
that the test was taken. There were no significant findings.
A comparison between Flash and Second Life programs 457
factor1
21
Estimated Marginal Means
3.50
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
Control
SL
Flash
PCRcondition
Estimated Marginal Means of Test
Figure 6 Pre and post PCR quiz results for Flash, Second Life and Control
groups.
T-tests results reported that there were significant learning and confi-
dence gains for all conditions. There were no significant differences in con-
fidence gains between conditions but the ANOVA reported significant dif-
ferences in quiz gains F(2,90) = 22.055, p<0.00. Post-hoc tests reported that
Second Life and Flash participants had improved their scores significantly
more than those in the control group (see Figure 6). Although the mean gain
for Flash (1.88) was higher than Second Life (1.09) there was no statisti-
cally significant difference between them. Correlations showed a low posi-
tive relationship between date of post-test and learning gain r=0.220 p<0.05
which was to be expected. The control group had their PCR Practical in the
second week of the semester so may account for less of a confidence and
learning gain.
Electrophoresis
ANOVA reported that there were significant differences in pre-test quiz
458 Booth and Henderson-Begg
(p<0.00) and confidence log (p<0.00) results between conditions. There
were still statistical differences between conditions when second and third
re-takers were removed. Post-hoc tests were carried out which reported that
the Control condition had the highest pre-test quiz and confidence log re-
sults. Moreover, there were significant differences between all three condi-
tions (see Figure 7) with Flash having significantly higher pre-test scores
than Second Life.
Tests
21
Estimated Marginal Means
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
Control
SL
Flash
ELEcondition
Estimated Marginal Means of MEASURE_1
Figure 7 Pre and post quiz Electrophoresis results for Flash, Second Life and
Control.
As with the PCR, the learning and confidence gains, were statistically
significant for all conditions. ANOVA reported that there were no signifi-
cant differences between conditions for confidence log gains but there was
a significant difference in conditions for quiz gains (p<.000). Post hoc re-
sults reported that there was no significant difference in gains between the
Flash and Second Life conditions but that both these groups had significant-
ly higher gains than the control group (see Figure 7). Correlations between
date of post-test quiz and score show a positive correlation r=.434 p<0.000.
The control condition had their practicals in the first and third week and
A comparison between Flash and Second Life programs 459
the Flash and Second Life conditions had their practicals in the second and
fourth week.
Evaluation Analysis
Data analysis showed that 34.5% of the participants had used virtual
world software before and only 2 participants said that they would not do
so again. Second Life users had a significantly longer user time, the Second
Life mean score was 33.12 minutes compared to 13.60 minutes for Flash us-
ers (p<0.00).
Data from the evaluation questionnaire was analysed by t-test to deter-
mine if there were any significant differences in scoring between participants
who attended the Flash workshop and those that attended the Second Life
workshop. Questions 4,5,6 and 11 related to learning/confidence gains, 2,8
and 9 related to ease of use, 1 and 10 enjoyment and 3 and 7 level of engage-
ment (see Table 1). Question 4, ‘I think the computer program is useful as a
learning tool’ had statistically significant higher scores (p<0.05) for Flash in
comparison with Second Life.
The only comments on the evaluation forms were:-
Flash
• I found adding and disposing of pipette tips very tedious.
• The software is quite useful if we have the practical method be-
forehand.
Second Life
• Due to the fact that it is new to me, I found it difficult to catch up. I
hope I’ll get it when I do it in my own time.
Every student was then encouraged to use either the Second Life or
Flash or both in their spare time at home or at University during the semes-
ter. At the end of the semester students were invited to a focus group. The
focus group was run to further illuminate reasons for opinions or prefer-
ences between software.
When the transcription was coded for negative and positive aspects
of Flash and Second Life, there were far more positive aspects of Flash
mentioned and very few negative. Second Life, overall was discussed less
and more negative aspects were featured. Issues raised were that :-
Flash was the preferred software program by the majority – Many
460 Booth and Henderson-Begg
participants listed benefits of Flash such as: its ease of accessibility; its
intuitive interface and that retention of knowledge learned in Flash is high.
Second Life was often spoken about more negatively – Some of the
students said that the whole process of Second Life such as getting an avatar
and finding the lab was too prolonged. It was also noted that it was easy
to get distracted in Second Life, for example finding new clothes, visiting
other virtual worlds or having irrelevant conversations with other avatars.
Improvements – In response to questions about improvements,
most of the suggestions were for Flash, although this may have been be-
cause it was the software of choice for most. In particular, additions such as
bigger fonts or links to other information for students with learning difficul-
ties were mentioned.
DISCUSSION
The quantitative analysis found that both the Flash and Second Life
groups had significantly higher learning gains in the PCR and Electropho-
resis quiz than the Control condition and so supported the first hypothesis.
However, these results were not consistent with Cobb et al. (2009), with the
control group showing a smaller increase in learning gains than the two test
groups.
It was considered that the significant improvement in learning gain for
the two software conditions compared to the Control condition might be in
part due to the much higher baseline scores for the control group. As the
groups were assigned alphabetically by surname, there may have been un-
uniform distribution of students across the groupings. Dividing the students
into groups based on ability at the beginning of the study as done in Booth
et al. 2010 was considered, but as the module used for this study consisted
of nearly 200 students it was deemed unmanageable with such a large co-
hort.
On further analysis of the compositions of the groups it became appar-
ent that there was a greater percentage of third time re-takers in the Control
condition than the other groups. This group did not improve their scores af-
ter baseline as much as the other two, so the possibility that the groups had
all reached the maximum score (a ceiling) was explored. The control group
post PCR quiz mean score was 2.8, out of a maximum of 4 and so there was
room for improvement. Again, data was checked to determine if achieving a
maximum score of 4 was a possibility. For all conditions there was a wide
range of frequency of scores between 1 and 4, so a maximum score was cer-
A comparison between Flash and Second Life programs 461
tainly achievable. Other variability in learning gain due to differences in the
practicals were minimised as each PCR and Electrophoresis practical was
taught in the same lab by the same lecturer, with the same materials, for
all conditions. Unavoidably, due to restraints of lecture scheduling and the
particular module content requirements, each class was either a control con-
dition or was randomly divided into a Flash or Second Life condition. The
differences in demographics and dates of pre and post-tests were therefore
not counter-balanced between the Control and Software conditions.
However, analyses showed that the timing of lectures could not be de-
termined as a possible explanation for the very high baseline results for the
control group but post-test quiz results did correlate with the date of test.
Unsurprisingly it seems likely that the student’s knowledge and, therefore,
ability to answer the quiz improved over time. Some of the difference in
learning gain between software and control conditions may, therefore, be
explained by the length of time between the start of the semester and the
post-test.
Importantly, it should be noted that as each class was randomly divided
into Flash and Second Life conditions there would be no effect of schedul-
ing on these variables. However, there was no significant difference in learn-
ing gain between the two software programs. Therefore, there was no sup-
port for hypothesis 3.
Additionally, there was no difference in confidence gains between the
Second Life and Flash conditions. Nor were there any significant differ-
ences between the software groups and control group which does not sup-
port Booth et al (2009) and hypothesis 2. A possible explanation is that the
numbers of participants in Booth et al (2009) were very low and data was
not normally distributed. Alternatively, inconsistencies with previous liter-
ature may be due to the methodological flaws within this study. In future
research each class should be divided into Control, Second Life and Flash
conditions. Further studies need to be undertaken to investigate if the use of
computer programs in addition to laboratory practicals are beneficial.
To sum up the results: there was no statistical difference found between
either of the software conditions for learning or confidence gains; there was
no difference in confidence gains between software and control conditions
but the software conditions had a statistically higher learning gain than the
control condition. The difference may in part by explained by scheduling of
post-tests.
When analysing student opinion and preference the results from the
evaluation questionnaire showed that the students considered that Flash was
a more useful learning tool than Second Life. Comments made in the focus
462 Booth and Henderson-Begg
group consistent with this result included;-
“It really affects your state of mind. Because if you’ve done Flash
it’s the first thing you’ll remember when you’re just about to make
that mistake.”
“It (Flash) was probably some of the strongest learning experience
in this semester”
I’d noticed that my retention from the videos and Flash was so
high that I could sit around and not need to look at it because I’d
remembered it so well that there isn’t a need to go back and refresh
because it’s stuck in there.”
These comments are consistent with comments made by students using
Flash as an educational tool in a similar study (Rolfe, 2009). Furthermore,
in the focus group when asked “which software did you enjoy the most”
most participants reported that it was Flash. This response was a surprise as
no significant differences were found between the two software programs
in the confidence log, quiz and for 10 of the 11 evaluation questions. It was
considered that students had answered the evaluation questionnaire favour-
ably for Second Life as they had nothing to compare it with. However, once
they had used Flash the majority preferred this to Second Life. A ‘within’
study at UEL to test this reasoning is now taking place. Reasons for prefer-
ring Flash were stated, in the Focus Group, as:-
With Second Life it just takes so much time, walking around, sign-
ing in, everything. For me I prefer Flash.
Because the interface was very intuitive and you didn’t have to
learn more skills to learn to use this (Flash).
You tend to move from what you intend to do, you just forget what
you want to look at (Second Life).
Indeed, when the transcript was coded, statistically there were many more
positive comments about Flash than Second Life and overall, the students
discussed Flash more than Second Life. Some of the favourable remarks
about Flash included:-
It gives you confidence.
A comparison between Flash and Second Life programs 463
It inspires you to get practising. And to get it right.
The overall criticism of Second Life was that it was too easy to become
distracted :-
You can get carried away can’t you. You just go in and you’ve
gone in to do something and then you find this other person that
starts off a conversation about, say sport , you know how are you
and then you get carried away.
Additionally, the results from the evaluation questionnaire showed that
each laboratory procedure took significantly longer in Second Life, which
in itself could act as a deterrent to using the program. Helmer (2007) states
that Second Life has a very steep learning curve and that often, even after
four weeks of regular use, users are still not completely comfortable in the
virtual environment.
The study was a worthwhile exercise, despite there being no statistical
differences in learning or confidence gains between the two software pro-
grams. Students described Flash as easier to use, less time consuming and
having less distractions than Second Life and it was concluded that the stu-
dents preferred Flash. Moreover, Flash is quicker and cheaper to develop
and can be supported on most computers. The Flash laboratory cost ap-
proximately 8000 USD to produce and took no more than a week, while
the Second Life versions were twice as costly and took twice as long to pro-
duce. Therefore, the results from this study have convinced UEL that Flash
will be the software program of choice for the purpose of practising labo-
ratory processes. Further studies are now underway to assess the effects of
short term and long term use of Flash on student learning and confidence.
References
Andersen, A. , Hristov, E. , Karimi, H. , & Sasinovskaya, O. . (2008). Second
Life: New opportunity for higher educational institutions. JÖNKÖPING
UNIVERSITY. Retrieved January 11, 2010 from
http://urn.kb.se/
resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:hj
: diva-1326
Alic, J. (2008) Technical knowledge and
experiential
learning
: what people know
and can do.
Technology analysis and strategic management
. 20:4. pp.427-442.
2
464 Booth and Henderson-Begg
Booth, P., Westhead, E., Heaney, R. & Henderson-Begg, S. (2010) A Pilot evalu-
ation of an online tool designed to aid development of basic laboratory
skills, Bioscience Education, 15:C3
Cheong Chu, K. (2004) Using Virtual Instrument to Develop a Real Time
Web-Based Laboratory. International Journal of Distance Education Tech-
nologies
. 2 (1) 18.
Cobb, S., Heaney, R., Corcoran, O. and Henderson-Begg, S. (2009). The
Learning Gains and Student Perceptions of a Second Life Virtual Lab.Biosci-
ence Education, 13 Article 5
Dobson, E. L., Hill, M. & Turner J, D. (1995) An Evaluation of the Students
Response to Electronics Teaching Using a Cal Package. Computers
Educ.25,(1/2) 13-20
Draper, S. W. (1996) Observing, Measuring, or Evaluating Courseware. Re-
trieved July, 17, 2009 from www.psy. gla.ac.uk/ ~steve/Eval. HE.html
Helmer, J (2007) Second Life and Virtual Worlds. Learning Light. Retrieved on
February ,5,2010 from http://www. Norfolkelearning forum.co.uk /wp-con-
tent/uploads/2009/04/virtual-worlds_ll_oct_2007.pdf
Higher Education Statistics Agency (2009) Press Release 141- Science and Medi-
cine Studies see 5 year growth. Retrieved January, 11, 2010 from http://www.
hesa.ac.uk/index.php/content/view/1541/161/
Jones, H (2009) Fundamental Problems. The Times Higher Education. Retrieved
on July, 15, 2009 from
www.timeshigh
ereducation.co.uk/ story. Asp ? sec-
tioncode
Kirriemuir, J. (2008) The Second Life in Higher Education, Medicine and
Health, Health Information on the Internet, 64: 6-8.
Levers, L (2005) Focus groups and related rapid assessment methods: identify-
ing psychoeducational HIV/AIDS interventions in Botswana. In Fischer,
C. T Qualitative Research methods for psychologists: introduction through
empirical studies. Academic Press
O’Rourke, C. (2004). A look at rich internet applications. Oracle Magazine.
July/August.
Rolfe,V (2009) Development of a Virtual Analytical Laboratory (VAL) multi-
media resource to support student transition to laboratory science at univer-
sity. Bioscience Learning 7 Teaching Case Study. Retrieved on October, 20,
2009 from www.bioscience.heacademy.ac.uk /ftp/casestudies /VRolfe.pdf
Siegel, M.A. (2000). Changes in student decisions with Convince Me: Us-
ing evidence and making tradeoffs. In M. Hahn & S. C. Stoness (Eds.), Pro-
ceedings of the Twenty First Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science
Society, 671-676. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Warburton, S. (2009)
Second Life in higher education: Assessing the potential for
and the barriers to deploying virtual worlds in learning and teaching. British
Journal of Educational Technology, 40 (3), p414-426
Wood, T. Solomon, M. and Allan, D. (2008). Welcome to the Matrix: E-Learn-
ing Gets a Second Life. Marketing Education Review. 18, 47-53