Content uploaded by Robin Holding Kay
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Robin Holding Kay on Nov 28, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
Assessing the Impact of a Virtual Lab
In Health Care Education
Helene Goulding
Senior Lecturer
Faculty of Health Sciences
University of Ontario Institute of Technology
Oshawa, Canada
helene-marie.goulding@uoit.ca
Robin Kay
Professor
Faculty of Education
University of Ontario Institute of Technology
Oshawa, Canada
robin.kay@uoit.ca
Jia Li
Assistant Professor
Faculty of Education
University of Ontario Institute of Technology
Oshawa, Canada
Jia.Li@uoit.ca
Abstract: The purpose of this study was to investigate the effectiveness of an online virtual lab as a learning
tool to prepare allied health students for face-to-face laboratory sessions. Both qualitative and quantitative
data were collected from 64 university students (55 females, 9 males) and analyzed to assess attitudes
towards the virtual lab. Students reported that the virtual lab made skill acquisition easier and faster, helped
them prepare for hands-on laboratory sessions, and was a tool they would use again. The key benefits of the
virtual lab was that it enabled students to visualize procedures and reactions outside of the traditional
laboratory setting. Student visualization enhanced preparedness and performance in the laboratory
environment.
Introduction
For long-term benefits to be obtained from hands-on laboratory experiences, students must be theoretically
and procedurally prepared (Gregory & Di Trapani, 2012). Previous research suggests that students do not prepare
well for laboratory work (e.g., Ealy & Pickering, 1992; Jones & Edwards, 2010; Pogacnik & Cigic, 2006; Whittle &
Bickerdike, 2015). Jones and Edwards (2010) reported that only 15% of undergraduate biology students (n=128)
did substantial preparation, while 85% did some or no preparation. Pogacnik and Cigic (2006) found 20% of their
undergraduate chemistry students (n=223) did no preparation at all.
Poorly prepared students may experience cognitive overload as they attempt to learn hands-on skills and
theoretical concepts simultaneously (Gregory & Di Trapani, 2012; Jones & Edwards, 2010). If students focus on the
practical competencies in a lab, they may fail to make the correct observations and consequently may be unable to
make connections between the laboratory experience and theory (Johnstone & Al-Shuaili, 2001; Jones & Edwards,
2010). Pre-laboratory exercises may reduce cognitive load and allow students to observe and make conceptual
connections better.
It has also been argued that hands-on, phsycial laboratories may not provide an optimal learning experience
(Rollnick et al., 2001). Physical laboratories require extensive time and materials to operate (Gibbons et al., 2004)
and have rigid teaching schedules (Flint & Stewart, 2010). Laboratory skill training is expensive (Lombardi, 2007;
Tuysuz, 2010) and can only accommodate small groups (Lehmann et al., 2013; Tuysuz, 2010). With monetary
constraints for supporting traditional educational laboratories, there exists a real need to find less costly alternatives
-923-
E-Learn 2016 - Washington, DC, United States, November 14-16, 2016
(Baker & Verran, 2004). Gibbons et al. (2004) noted that if the manipulation and interpretation of data are the
primary learning outcomes, then virtual laboratories can provide a more economical, easier, and less time-
consuming alternative. Virtual laboratories are also regarded as a safer alternative than traditional hands-on
laboratory sessions (Baker & Verran, 2004; Lewis, 2014; Scheckler, 2003).
While virtual learning environments have been adopted for health care education in medicine, dentistry,
and nursing, there is minimal literature regarding its use in allied health education (Butina et al., 2013). Butina et al.
(2013) reported that 84.6% of allied health programs that do not currently use virtual learning environments and
would be interested in doing so. Baker and Verran (2004) added that it is important for allied health students to be
exposed to as many different scenarios as possible to become more efficient in clinical diagnostics and that virtual
laboratories may allow for this enriched exposure.
The purpose of this study was to examine the perceived benefits, challenges and impact of a virtual lab
designed to support university students for face-to-face laboratory sessions.
Method
Participants
The participants consisted of 64 students (55 females, 9 males) sampled from a total population of 97
undergraduate allied health students in a Canadian University, for a response rate of 66%. Students were enrolled in
the second (n=35), third (n=17), or fourth year (n=12) of a medical laboratory science program. Sixty-seven percent
of the students (n=42) reported that they were native-English speakers. Thirty-one percent (n=23) of the students were
between 17-20 years old; 36% (n=23) were 21-24 years old; 19% (n=22) were 25-29 years old; and 14% (n=9) were
over 29 years old.
Virtual Lab
The virtual lab was used as a supplementary pedagogical tool in clinical microbiology courses with both
hands-on and theoretical laboratory components. The virtual lab was available, via the Internet, to all students enrolled
in the courses and was designed to promote the mastery of a broad array of procedures and bacterial nomenclature.
The virtual lab, which mimicked algorithmic bacterial identification procedures performed in a clinical microbiology
laboratory, included procedural videos and images of expected reactions. It enabled students to view and review
expected results before the hands-on laboratory sessions. The intent was that procedural mimicking would reduce
students’ cognitive load during hands-on laboratory sessions, thus resulting in better learning outcomes.
Data Collection
The online survey used for this study contained 14 seven-point Likert scale questions. The Likert survey
was used to determine students’ attitudes towards using the virtual lab for laboratory preparedness and the perceived
impact on the development of their practical skills. Three items were related to student learning with the virtual lab,
three items referred to the design elements of the virtual lab, and eight items referred to the perceived impact of the
virtual lab. Six open-ended questions were used to ask students about the benefits and challenges of using the virtual
lab and changes that might be made to improve the learning experience.
Procedure
A pre-laboratory checklist explained the requirements for each hands-on laboratory and directed students to
the particular components in the virtual lab. Students were advised that completing the pre-laboratory activities and
using the virtual lab was voluntary and no extrinsic motivational factors such as assessments or grades would be
associated with participation. From week one to week 13 of the course, the virtual lab was integrated into weekly
activities that included traditional lectures and hands-on laboratory sessions. At week 10, students were sent an email
inviting them to participate in the online survey. Sixty-four students filled in the survey for a response rate of 66%.
-924-
E-Learn 2016 - Washington, DC, United States, November 14-16, 2016
Results
Benefits of Virtual Lab
The means for the virtual lab benefit items ranged from 5.9 to 6.6 on a seven-point Likert scale (Table 1).
The scores suggest that most students agreed that the virtual lab was easy to use, provided images and videos that
helped them learn, presented a useful checklist that helped them prepare for hands-on laboratory sessions, offered a
helpful layout for bacterial identification, and provided helpful feedback.
Table 1 - Student Ratings of Virtual Lab Benefits
Item
M
SD
Disagree
Agree
Images helped me to learn
6.6
0.6
0%
97%
Videos helped me to learn
6.4
0.9
0%
86%
Pre-lab checklist exercise helped me prepare for labs
6.4
0.9
2%
81%
Was easy to use
6.2
1.1
3%
86%
Offered helpful layout for bacterial identification
6.2
0.9
0%
80%
Provided helpful feedback
5.9
1.1
2%
75%
Students offered 159 comments about the benefits of using the virtual lab. Seventy-five percent (n=119) of
the comments focused on learning, 18% (n=29) referred to the design of the virtual lab, and 7% (n=11) targeted
engagement. Key learning benefits cited by students included visual supports (n=46), authenticity (n=32), learner
control (n=17), and helping them to understand (n=12) and remember concepts (n=11). Key design features identified
as beneficial included the overall organization (n=16), graphics (n=5), ease of use (n=5) and interactivity (n=3).
Finally, engagement benefits included the virtual lab being a better alternative to a reading-based format (n=6) and
increasing confidence (n=3).
Challenges of Virtual Lab
Thirty-nine responses were collected from students regarding challenges of using the virtual lab. Most
challenges were related to learning (n=22) or the design of the virtual lab (n=14). With respect to learning, lack of
learner control (n=8), difficulties in understanding the material (n=6), and missing content (n=5) were the most
challenging for students. Learner control issues included not being able to skip forward to the end and the inability
of the program to save the students’ progress. Regarding understanding, some students noted that they did not
understand the material well enough to use it effectively. Finally, regarding missing content, a few students remarked
that the virtual lab did not include all tests and organisms.
For design challenges, organization issues (n=9) were the most common. For example, some students
disliked not being able to retrieve information quickly and being required to go through entire identification pathways.
Other students found the pathways confusing at times and had difficulty navigating.
Perceived Impact of Virtual Lab
The mean scores Likert scale items assessing the perceived impact of the virtual lab ranged from 6.1 to 6.7
on a seven-point Likert scale (Table 2) suggesting that university students believed that the virtual lab had a positive
impact on preparation for the face-to-face laboratory sessions.
-925-
E-Learn 2016 - Washington, DC, United States, November 14-16, 2016
Table 2 - Student Rating of the Perceived Impact of Virtual Lab
Item
M
SD
Disagree
Agree
I would use the virtual lab again
6.7
0.7
0%
95%
Viewing procedures ahead of time was helpful
6.6
0.7
0%
97%
It helped me to prepare for labs
6.4
1.1
3%
91%
It helped me achieve greater success in learning
6.1
1.0
2%
84%
It made it was easier to learn new skills
6.1
1.0
0%
78%
It helped me develop skills faster
6.1
1.1
2%
77%
The open-ended questions produced 69 responses from students regarding the key characteristics of the
virtual lab they thought were most beneficial in helping them acquire new skills. The visual components (images and
video) were identified as helpful (n=36) as well as the organizational design (n=11).
Discussion
Triangulation of the data in this study suggested that the overall attitudes of undergraduate allied health
students toward the virtual lab as a tool for facilitating pre-laboratory preparation were positive. The categories which
students rated highest included visual learning, authenticity, learner control, and organizational design.
Students struggle to visualize laboratory expectations from written or verbal instructions (e.g., Jones &
Edwards 2010). The results of the Likert scale and open-ended responses indicated that the greatest benefit of the
virtual lab was the ability for students to visualize results and procedures outside the traditional laboratory, which is
not surprising as the literature suggestss that the majority of students prefer visual learning resources (e.g., Lehmann
et al., 2013) over traditional written laboratory manuals (e.g., Gregory & Di Trapani, 2012; Jones & Edwards, 2010).
Authentic learning is not restricted to traditional laboratory work (Lombardi, 2007). Carefully designed
virtual reality learning environments may provide students with real-life laboratory scenarios. While the authenticity
of the virtual lab was not included as a Likert scale item, this category had the second highest number of comments
(n=32) from the open-ended questions on the benefits of the virtual lab for preparing for laboratory classes. This
result contradicts Scheckler’s (2003) perspective that virtual laboratories do not embody the reality of the hands-on
laboratory. However, the results are consistent with Lombardi (2007) who noted that a virtual laboratory might help
students apply knowledge to new situations, thereby providing authentic learning.
The literature supports the importance of students being able to control the learning process (e.g., Gibbons et
al., 2004; Issenberg et al., 2005; Ruiz et al., 2006). The learner control category was not included as a Likert scale
item. However, the third highest number of comments (n=17) from the open-ended questions referred to student
ability to learn independently at their own pace, when and where they wanted.
Triangulation of the data indicated that students found the design elements of the virtual lab to be beneficial.
From the Likert scale survey and open-ended questions, students reported that the virtual lab was easy to use. This
result is consistent with Limniou and Whitehead’s (2010) research on the importance of online resources being easy
to negotiate. If students can access information quickly and easily, they are more likely to use and enjoy the pre-
laboratory resource (Flint & Stewart, 2010; Limniou & Whitehead, 2010).
Though virtual laboratories may overcome many of the constraints of physical laboratories (Johnson &
Gedney, 2001), they come with their own inherent limitations (Lewis, 2014). Students reported some challenges
concerning the organizational design of the virtual lab. Though the organizational design of the virtual lab was rated
highly as a benefit (80%), it was also viewed as a challenge for some students in the open-ended questions (n=9).
Flint and Stewart (2010) reported similar results with their virtual lab in which organization received the highest rating
as both a benefit and a challenge. Flint and Stewart (2010) suggested that a short training exercise prior to use would
be beneficial. The virtual lab in this study did have a navigation tutorial; however, given the results of this study, it
may be useful to perform a careful review of this resource.
While learner control was reported as a benefit in the open-ended questions (n=17), it also was reported as a
challenge for some students in the open-ended comments (n=8). The same design feature can be seen as a benefit to
some and a challenge to others. For example, Flint and Stewart (2010) said that although students reported their
virtual laboratory exercises to be well mapped, they cited navigation and screen layout as areas for improvement.
-926-
E-Learn 2016 - Washington, DC, United States, November 14-16, 2016
Regarding perceived impact, student attitudes towards the virtual lab as a resource for both laboratory
preparation and increasing performance were positive. The virtual lab enabled students to become familiar with tasks
before hands-on laboratory sessions and provided helpful visual supports. The virtual lab may have affected
performance by decreasing cognitive load in the hands-on laboratory, thereby allowing students to acquire new skills
faster and easier and aiding in completing the hands-on laboratory sessions. Over three-quarters of the students
reported that the virtual lab made it easier and faster for them to develop and learn new skills. This finding is consistent
with Jones and Edwards (2010) who found that student performance improved when educational tools supported their
learning preferences. Sancho et al. (2006) also found that students gained competence using a virtual lab.
Limitations and Future Research
There are several limitations of this study that should be noted for future researchers. First, the sample
population was relatively small and lacked complexity. More research needs to be conducted on a diverse population
from a wider range of allied health programs to determine the generalizability of the results. Second, the Likert scale
could be expanded to include challenges to using virtual labs, authenticity, learner control, and content items. Third,
the Likert scale needs to be improved in terms of reliability and validity. Finally, future analysis could be enhanced
by comparing the actual performance of students who used and did not use virtual labs to prepare for face-to-face
laboratory sessions.
References
Baker, N., & Verran, J. (2004). The future of microbiology classes-wet, dry or in combination? Nature Reviews
Microbiology, 2(4), 338-342. doi:10.1038/nrmicro868
Butina, M., Brooks, D., Dominguez, P., & Mahon, G. (2013). Utilization of virtual learning environments in the
allied health professions. Journal of Allied Health, 42(1), e7-e10. Retrieved from
file:///C:/Users/100329759/Downloads/out.pdf
Ealy, B., & Pickering, M. (1992). High school laboratory without lab handouts. Journal of Chemical Education,
69(2) 150. doi:10.1021/ed069p150
Flint, S., & Stewart, T. (2010). Food microbiology—design and testing of a virtual laboratory exercise. Journal
of Food Science Education, 9(4), 84–89. doi:10.1111/j.1541-4329.2010.00108.x
Gibbons, N., Evans, C., Payne, A., Shah, K., & Griffin, D. (2004). Computer simulations improve university
instructional laboratories. Cell Biology Education, 3(4), 263-269. doi:10.1187/cbe.04-06-0040
Gregory, S., & Di Trapani, G. (2012). A blended learning approach for laboratory preparation. International
Journal of Innovation in Science and Mathematics Education, 20(1), 56-70. Retrieved from
http://openjournals.library.usyd.edu.au/index.php/CAL/article/view/6650
Jones, S., & Edwards, A. (2010). Online pre-laboratory exercises enhance student preparedness for first year
biology practical classes. International Journal of Innovation in Science and Mathematics Education, 18(2),
1-9. Retrieved from http://ecite.utas.edu.au/65415
Limniou, M., & Whitehead, C. (2010). Online general pre-laboratory training course for facilitating first year
chemical laboratory use. Cypriot Journal of Educational Sciences, 5(1), 39-55.
doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.08.224
Lehmann, R., Bosse, H., Simon, A., Nikendei, C., & Huwendiek, S. (2013). An innovative blended learning
approach using virtual patients as preparation for skills laboratory training: Perceptions of students and
tutors. BMC Medical Education, 13(23). doi:10.1186/1472-6920-13-23
Lewis, D. (2014). The pedagogical benefits and pitfalls of virtual tools for teaching and learning laboratory
practices in the biological sciences. The Higher Education Academy. Retrieved from
https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/sites/default/files/resources/the_pedagogical_benefits_and_pitfalls_of_virtual
_tools_for_teaching_and_learning_laboratory_practices_in_the_biological_sciences.pdf
Lombardi, M. (2007). Authentic learning for the 21st century: An overview. ELI Report No. 1. Boulder, CO:
EDUCAUSE Learning Initiative. Retrieved from http://www.educause.edu/ir/ library/pdf/ELI3009.pdf
Pogacnik, L., & Cigic, B. (2006). How to motivate students to study before they enter the lab. Journal of Chemical
Education, 83(7), 1094-1098. doi:10.1021/ed083p1094
Rollnick, M., Zwane, S., Staskun, M., & Green, G. (2001). Improving pre-laboratory preparation of first year
university chemistry students. International Journal of Science Education, 23(10), 1053-1071.
doi:10.1080/09500690110038576
-927-
E-Learn 2016 - Washington, DC, United States, November 14-16, 2016
Sancho, P., Corral, R., Rivas, T., González, M., Chordi, A., & Tejedor, C. (2006). A blended learning experience
for teaching microbiology. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 70(5), 1-9. Retrieved from
http://www.ajpe.org/doi/pdf/10.5688/aj7005120
Scheckler, R. (2003). Virtual labs: a substitute for traditional lab? International Journal of Developmental Biology,
4(2-3), 231-236. Retrieved from http://www.ijdb.ehu.es/web/paper.php?doi=12705675
Tuysuz, C. (2010). The effect of the virtual laboratory on students’ achievement and attitude in chemistry.
International Online Journal of Education Sciences, 2(1), 37-53. Retrieved from
http://www.iojes.net/userfiles/article/iojes_167.pdf
Whittle, S., & Bickerdike, S. (2015). Online preparation resources help first year students to benefit from practical
classes. Journal of Biological Education, 49(2), 139-149. doi:10.1080/00219266.2014.914554
-928-
E-Learn 2016 - Washington, DC, United States, November 14-16, 2016
