George Washington Are Virtual Labs as Effective as Hands on Labs Essay For this assignment, you are going to revise the research using: -The comments from

George Washington Are Virtual Labs as Effective as Hands on Labs Essay For this assignment, you are going to revise the research using:

-The comments from the instructor, it has everything you need to make the essay better

-First draft essay, that you need to make the changes on

-The project format that you need to follow

-The article that I used to make the research

Don’t worry about Single/double spaced. Just follow the information above

That’s all, any question, I’m here. J Sci Educ Technol (2014) 23:803–814
DOI 10.1007/s10956-014-9513-9
Are Virtual Labs as Effective as Hands-on Labs
for Undergraduate Physics? A Comparative
Study at Two Major Universities
Marjorie Darrah • Roxann Humbert •
Jeanne Finstein • Marllin Simon • John Hopkins
Published online: 29 August 2014
Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014
Abstract Most physics professors would agree that the
lab experiences students have in introductory physics are
central to the learning of the concepts in the course. It is
also true that these physics labs require time and money for
upkeep, not to mention the hours spent setting up and
taking down labs. Virtual physics lab experiences can
provide an alternative or supplement to these traditional
hands-on labs. However, physics professors may be very
hesitant to give up the hands-on labs, which have been such
a central part of their courses, for a more cost and timesaving virtual alternative. Thus, it is important to investigate how the learning from these virtual experiences
compares to that acquired through a hands-on experience.
This study evaluated a comprehensive set of virtual labs for
introductory level college physics courses and compared
them to a hands-on physics lab experience. Each of the
virtual labs contains everything a student needs to conduct
a physics laboratory experiment, including: objectives,
background theory, 3D simulation, brief video, data collection tools, pre- and postlab questions, and postlab quiz.
This research was conducted with 224 students from two
large universities and investigated the learning that
occurred with students using the virtual labs either in a lab
setting or as a supplement to hands-on labs versus a control
group of students using the traditional hands-on labs only.
Findings from both university settings showed the virtual
labs to be as effective as the traditional hands-on physics
labs.
Keywords Physics Virtual labs Physics labs
Comparative study
M. Darrah (&)
Department of Mathematics, West Virginia University,
Morgantown, WV 26506, USA
e-mail: Marjorie.Darrah@mail.wvu.edu
R. Humbert
School of Education, Health and Human Performance, Fairmont
State University, Fairmont, WV 26554, USA
J. Finstein
Polyhedron Learning Media, Wheeling, WV 26003, USA
M. Simon
Professor Emeritus Physics Education, Auburn University,
Auburn, AL 36849, USA
J. Hopkins
Department of Physics, The Pennsylvania State University,
University Park, PA 16801, USA
Introduction
In any given year, an estimated 400,000 college students
are enrolled in introductory physics courses. For these
students, meaningful laboratory experiences are necessary
to introduce, demonstrate, and reinforce physics concepts.
Traditionally, physics laboratory courses have been taught
as separate courses under junior faculty and/or graduate
students in labs equipped with various levels of instrumentation. As budget cuts become more prevalent, it has
become increasingly difficult, especially for small colleges,
to afford the expense of upgrading lab equipment and
maintaining adequate teaching staff. Unfortunately, these
shortages have led to less than ideal experiences for students. Additionally, in cases where students miss labs for
various reasons, professors find it difficult to set up the labs
123
804
again for makeup purposes. With the increased number of
online courses being offered, there also exists a need for
the implementation of online or virtual labs as supplements
or replacements for the traditional high school and college
labs (Bhargava et al. 2006). Well-developed and pedagogically sound virtual laboratory experiences can serve to
supplement or replace existing hands-on lab experiences,
reducing the need for equipment and lab space and offering
a suitable alternative to students and professors.
Students have come to expect technology in educational
settings, and research has shown that technology can be
used as a thinking tool to engage students and foster
meaningful learning (Jonassen et al. 1999). Many professors are on a quest to determine what materials or course
elements are most effective to promote learning. With
physics being a course that is particularly difficult for
college-level students, this quest is very important. Meltzer
and Thornton (2012) compiled a list of resources for
active-learning instruction in physics. Their resource letter
provides a guide to the literature on research-based
instruction in physics, and they include a section titled
‘‘Impact of Technology’’ in which they outline several
research studies dealing with technology tools for physics.
These authors point out that instruction in physics made a
rapid advance with the introduction of the microcomputer
for real-time data acquisition, graphing, and analysis and
that computers enabled rapid feedback in the instructional
laboratory to a degree not previously possible. Thornton
(2008) also points out that an activity-based, researchbased environment supporting peer learning is the best
environment for student learning in physics and that this
type of environment, as well as the use of computer tools
such as simulations that can be manipulated by students,
will support real-time data logging and result in conceptual
learning.
Many examples of computer simulations for introductory physics can be found in the literature (Hansson and
Bug 1995; Wieman and Perkins 2005; Bhargava et al.
2006; Pyatt and Sims 2007; Sokoloff et al. 2007; Taghavi
and Colen 2009). In most of these cases, computerized labs
were shown to increase understanding and provide many
benefits over their hands-on counterparts. Even so, some
drawbacks were noted. For example, simulations may not
yet be widely accepted by accrediting agencies as alternatives for hands-on labs (Pyatt and Sims 2007), and in
some cases, students may prefer to use physical equipment
(Bhargava et al. 2006). However, for the most part, the
evidence supports the belief that virtual simulations are a
viable replacement or supplement to hands-on labs.
Several of the studies cited above show that students
have learning gains with the use of virtual labs. The
123
J Sci Educ Technol (2014) 23:803–814
Swarthmore College Interactive Physics (IP) is an early
example of a computer simulation used along with the
hands-on laboratory component (Hansson and Bug 1995).
In that study, students performed an experiment and then
used the IP to simulate the setup of the same experiment.
The professors using this system found that the combination of real and simulated lab tools along with real data
being recorded in computer-aided form resulted in sound
understanding of the physical systems. Real-time physics
(RTP) (Sokoloff et al. 2007) is an example of a computerbased tool that enables students to collect, display, and
analyze data in real time while acquiring traditional lab
skills. This curriculum and the companion computer tools
were developed using solid design principles based on the
best practices for physics education (Laws 1991, 2004).
These labs were adopted by over 58 colleges and universities. The research team (Sokoloff et al. 2007) also
developed the force and motion conceptual evaluation
(FMCE) test and used it to test the RTP modules showing
that students demonstrated dramatic conceptual learning
gains after using the modules. Taghavi and Colen (2009)
sought to compare the effectiveness of computer simulated
lab instruction versus traditional labs. They determined that
both groups gained knowledge of the topic, but the group
using the simulations scored significantly higher than the
traditional hands-on lab group.
Other studies focused on additional benefits of virtual
labs. Bhargava et al. (2006) tested the effectiveness of webbased labs and noted that virtual labs reduced equipment
needs, were available at any time from any place, offered
more information to students, and offered students the
opportunity to work at their own pace while exploring
difficult or interesting sections. Pyatt and Sims (2007)
found evidence to suggest that the hands-on lab has lost
instructional value, while emerging technologies such as
simulations can be used as viable replacements. These
researchers explored both high school and college-level lab
experiences and also found that simulated labs had many
benefits over the hands-on equivalents, which included:
they were perceived to be more open-ended, easier to use,
and easier to generate usable data; and they took less time
than hands-on labs. Wieman and Perkins (2005) and their
team developed and tested about 45 physics simulations in
various forms for use in lecture, as part of homework
problems, and as lab replacements or enhancements. These
researchers pointed out that the use of a real-life demonstration or lab often includes an enormous amount of
peripheral information, which can be avoided in a carefully
designed computer simulation. The use of a simulation can
greatly reduce the cognitive load for the student who is
trying to determine what is important in the given
J Sci Educ Technol (2014) 23:803–814
experiment. These research studies show that simulated
labs can serve as a legitimate alternative and provide many
advantages over the hands-on laboratory experience.
The Virtual Physics Lab used in this study was developed using a four-stage process. During the first stage,
physics experts provided input into the design of the labs
and determined what content should be covered in each
lab. During the second stage, physics experts worked with
software and lesson designers to develop the labs. During
the third stage, another group of physics experts, external
to the project, reviewed the labs using the heuristic
approach to evaluate user interfaces and the lab content and
pedagogical approach. During the final stage, students
enrolled in introductory college-level physics reviewed the
labs using the heuristic approach to evaluate the user
interfaces, and these same students were used to test student learning. The assessment of student learning discussed
in this article was completed at Auburn and Penn State
Universities. During the first phase of testing, four labs
were tested with 68 students at Auburn University enrolled
in four different Physics I lab sections. During the second
phase of testing, ten labs were tested with 156 students
from Penn State University enrolled in sixteen lab sections.
In previous research, it has been shown that simulated
labs can impact learning in positive ways and provide
many other benefits. Many of the computerized resources
discussed above utilize very basic functionality and basic
graphical displays. The Virtual Physics Lab is a next
generation computerized resource that seeks to incorporate
research-based active-learning characteristics as described
in Meltzer and Thornton (2012) and also utilizes the most
recent technologies (i.e., videos with real people, 3D
interactive game-like simulations) making the experiments
more ‘‘real world’’ and engaging for students. The labs
were developed to provide a variety of problem-solving
activities that can be completed during class time. Students
can work alone or in small groups to complete the labs and
receive rapid feedback from the computer simulation. The
simulations require active engagement and provide the
material in context. Conceptual thinking is emphasized,
and students have the ability to complete the experiments
over and over to increase understanding. This study seeks
to further illustrate the point that when virtual labs are
developed properly to contain all necessary components,
they can be just as effective in producing learning as handson labs. The authors wish to address the need for virtual
labs while highlighting the facts that virtual labs are shown
to produce positive learning outcomes for many students in
this study.
The research questions that guided the study are
•
Do students using the Virtual Physics Lab software as a
replacement for traditional hands-on perform as well on
805
•
content-based evaluations as students who complete the
traditional, hands-on laboratory?
Do students using the Virtual Physics Lab software as a
supplement to traditional hands-on perform as well or
better on content-based evaluations as students who
complete the traditional, hands-on laboratory?
Methods
The Intervention: Virtual Physics LabTM
Through a Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR)
contract funded by the US Department of Education,
Polyhedron Learning Media, Inc. created the Virtual
Physics LabTM, a set of online labs suitable for collegelevel physics. This software incorporates the strategies of
the ‘‘Five E Cycle’’ of engagement, exploration, explanation, elaboration, and evaluation (Bybee 2003). In this
sequence, students are motivated by a question of interest,
such as might be presented in a physics laboratory experiment, and then apply process skills to describe findings
and apply them in developing deeper understanding. The
labs were developed following a planned sequence that
focused on content, technology integration, and formative
assessment. Throughout the development process, formative assessment for usability, feasibility, and content was
completed using a heuristic approach. Review criteria were
based on project team questions and procedures and criteria
from usability testing of computer interfaces (Nielsen and
Mack 1994; Albion 1999; Nielsen 2010; Hvannberg et al.
2007). The feedback led to improvements in final versions
of the labs.
Each lab includes general background information,
theory, objectives, prelab questions, a list of equipment
needed to conduct the experiment hands-on, brief video
clips demonstrating an overview of the lab, postlab questions, and a postlab quiz. The primary components of the
labs are the virtual laboratory experiments, featuring
interactive, real-time 3D simulations of laboratory equipment along with data collection, analysis, graphing, and
reporting tools that will allow users to perform all phases of
the experiment online using simulated equipment. Screen
captures below illustrate some one specific lab within the
Virtual Physics Lab.
The screen shot in Fig. 1 shows how Lab 5—Uniformly
Accelerated Motion on the Air Table simulates the motion
of a puck traveling on an air table that approximates a
frictionless surface. This figure illustrates the data collection screen where the table can be tilted to form an inclined
plane to study the one-dimensional motion of a uniformly
accelerated object. On this screen to the left of the
123
806
J Sci Educ Technol (2014) 23:803–814
Fig. 1 Lab 5 Data Collection Screen—An example of the data collection screen where the table can be tilted to form an inclined plane to study
the one-dimensional motion of a uniformly accelerated object
simulation, the student has access to the procedures for the
lab and instructions for doing the experiment using the
simulation. Figure 2 illustrates how the data analysis
screen allows students to position a ruler on the data
recording paper, created using the simulation, to measure
the positions of spark marks, and to record them in the Data
Table on the left (Table 1).
Figure 3 shows a screen from the Ideal Gas Law lab
video demonstration. These demonstrations accompany
each of the labs and feature students using the actual
apparatus to perform the experiment. During the development of the labs, physics professor consultants pointed out
the advantage of using the videos as a prelab activity for
students—even for those students who perform the lab with
actual equipment. They reported that a great deal of time is
typically spent at the beginning of each lab period
123
explaining the procedures to the students. Using the videos
to provide this preliminary explanation can save time in
class, which can be better used to debrief after the lab is
completed.
As each lab is completed, a printable lab report is generated (Fig. 4), providing students with hard copy of their
data and graphs, and instructors with a convenient way to
assess student work.
The following labs from Virtual Physics Lab were tested
at the two locations:
Auburn University
•
•
•
•
Uniformly Accelerated Motion on the Air Table
Simple Harmonic Motion
Ideal Gas Law
Torques and Rotational Equilibrium of a Rigid Body
J Sci Educ Technol (2014) 23:803–814
807
Fig. 2 Lab 5 Data Analysis Screen—This illustrates how the data analysis screen allows students to position a ruler on the data recording paper
to measure the positions of spark marks and record them in the data table to the left
Table 1 Alignment of exam
questions with labs for test score
Exam
Uniform
1
2
Cons. of energy
Cons. of
momentum
1
17, 18
3, 19
6
5
Uniformly Accelerated Motion on the Air Table
Newton’s Second Law of Motion
Moment of Inertia and Rotational Motion
Torques and Rotational Equilibrium of a Rigid Body
Conservation of Momentum
Conservation of Energy
Moment
of inertia
6, 15
10, 16, 20
Penn State University
•
•
•
•
•
•
Torque
10, 12, 16, 18
11
3
Total
Newton
3,9
11,26
2
22, 24
4
2
A great deal effort was put into making the hands-on
labs and the virtual labs identical. The virtual labs listed
above were selected to be part of the testing based on the
ability of each university to provide a true one-to-one
comparison in terms of real lab equipment versus virtual
lab equipment. The Simple Harmonic Motion virtual lab
was designed after the real lab equipment at Auburn
123
808
Fig. 3 Example of Video Demonstration—Students watch the
experiment being conducted with hands-on equipment and then
perform the same experiment using a simulation
University. Since Auburn University was not originally
doing the Ideal Gas Law lab, or one similar to it, they
obtained the needed equipment, so they could conduct a
hands-on lab the same as the virtual lab. Penn State had
all the equipment necessary to conduct hands-on labs that
were identical to the virtual labs tested there. The only
substitution at both places was for the virtual lab that used
an air table. For this lab, the hands-on lab used an air
track. It is important to note that this lab was a study of
one-dimensional motion and so the data from an air table
and an air track are the same if the angle of the air table
and air track with respect to the horizontal are the same
(and they were). Since it was an investigation in one
dimension, this was deemed to be an appropriate substitution by all physics professors involved. In every case,
the analysis portion of the hands-on lab was modified to
be identical to the virtual lab analysis. All questions, the
procedure followed, the data taking process and the data
table, calculation, and questions asked were the same for
the hands-on and the virtual labs.
Participants
Two different sets of participants were used during the first
and second phases of testing. The first set of participants
included 68 students from Auburn University. The students
enrolled in Physics I tested four virtual labs to provide a
formative assessment of the product. One group of these
students (n = 21) used the labs as a replacement to traditional labs, one group (n = 18) used the labs as a supplement to their traditional lab experience, and two groups of
123
J Sci Educ Technol (2014) 23:803–814
students (n = 17 and n = 19) were used as control groups
and completed traditional hands-on labs. The groups were
assigned at random to one of the two treatments or control.
Group 1—Treatment 1 Virtual Lab as Replacement:
(n = 21) Teaching Assistant 1.
Group 2—Control: (n = 17) Lab 02 Teaching Assistant
1.
Group 3—Treatment 2 Virtual Lab as Supplement:
(n = 18) Teaching Assistant 2.
Group 4—Control: (n = 19) Teaching Assistant 2.
The second set of participants included 156 students
from Penn State University enrolled in 16 different sections of Physics I. As in the previous testing …
Purchase answer to see full
attachment