Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Background

Given the increased emphasis on active learning in psychology, it is important to use data to enhance these experiences. In learning courses, both live animals and virtual training laboratories have been found to enhance learning, but less research has examined student preferences. Generally, live rats are preferred, but students may resist these experiences. Additionally, both laboratory types have drawbacks.

Objective

This study examined student preferences for learning laboratory experiences.

Method

The current study surveyed students to understand preferences between laboratory experiences and within a virtual program. Specifically, students were asked preference for species and between realistic and cartoon versions.

Results

Participants preferred live animals, but the difficulties of working with live animals may require the use of virtual laboratory programs. For those programs, students preferred realistic dogs. Additionally, based on these preferences a pilot program was designed and tested in a class. The students supported the inclusion of the program for similar classes and provided feedback for improvement.

Conclusion

Live animal laboratories are worthwhile when feasible, but well-designed virtual programs can be beneficial for engaging and impactful learning experiences.

Teaching Implications

Instructors should consider using live or virtual animal laboratories for psychology of learning courses.

Keywords

active learning survey methodology simulation virtual laboratory experiential learning

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Alloway

Wilson

Graham

(2005). Sniffy the virtual rat pro version 2.0. Wadsworth Cengage Learning.

Cohen

(1988). Statistical power and analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Cunningham

(2003). Animal use, student choice, and nonanimal alternatives at “America’s best” undergraduate colleges. Teaching of Psychology, 30(4), 288–296. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328023TOP3004_02

Elcoro

Trundle

(2013). Student preferences for live versus virtual rats in a learning course. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 7(1), 16. https://doi.org/10.20429/ijsotl.2013.070116

Epting

L. K.

Green

T. D.

(2011). Basic behavioral principles in action: An easy human operant lab for the classroom. Journal of Behavioral and Neuroscience Research, 9(2), 75–87.

Flint

R. W.

Anderson

M. J.

(2011). Editorial special issue – pedagogical activities for courses on learning and memory. Journal of Behavioral and Neuroscience Research, 9(2), i–iv.

Goodhue

R. J.

Liu

S. C.

Cihon

T. M.

(2019). Incorporating the portable operant research and teaching laboratory into undergraduate introduction to behavior analysis courses. Journal of Behavioral Education, 28(4), 517–541. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-019-09323-y

Graf

S. A.

(1995). Three nice labs, no real rats: A review of three operant laboratory simulations. The Behavior Analyst, 18(2), 301–306. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03392717

Graham

Alloway

Krames

(1994). Sniffy, the virtual rat: Simulated operant conditioning. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 26(2), 134–141. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03204606

10.

Hazel

O’Dwyer

Ryan

(2015). “Chickens are a lot smarter than I originally thought”: Changes in student attitudes to chickens following a chicken training class. Animals, 5(3), 821–837. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani5030386

11.

Hunt

M. J.

Macaskill

A. C.

(2017). Student responses to active learning activities with live and virtual rats in psychology teaching laboratories. Teaching of Psychology, 44(2), 160–164. https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628317692632

12.

Jakubow

J. J.

(2007). Review of the book sniffy the virtual rat pro version 2.0. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 87(2), 317–323. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.2007.07-06

13.

Kelling

A. S.

(2022). “Dogs are a lot cuter”: An analysis of student perspectives on an operant conditioning laboratory at an animal shelter. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 34(1), 36–44. https://isetl.org/ijtlhe/pdf/IJTLHE4245.pdf

14.

Lewis

J. L.

(2015). A comparison between two different activities for teaching learning principles: Virtual animal labs versus human demonstrations. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology, 1(2), 182–188. https://doi.org/10.1037/stl0000013

15.

McConnell

B. L.

(2016). Teaching with dogs: Learning about learning through hands-on experience in dog training. Psychology Learning & Teaching, 15(3), 310–328. https://doi.org/10.1177/1475725716662550

16.

Ray

R. D.

Miraglia

K. M

. (2011). A sample of CyberRat and other experiments: Their pedagogical functions in a learning course. Journal of Behavioral and Neuroscience Research. 9(2), 44–61.

17.

Venneman

S. S.

Knowles

L. R.

(2005). Sniffing out efficacy: Sniffy lite, a virtual animal lab. Teaching of Psychology, 32(1), 66–68. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328023top3201_13