Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Background

Research indicates that laboratory experiences facilitate student learning.

Objective

This study aimed to evaluate the impact of a virtual laboratory (CyberRat) on student performance in Learning and Behavior classes. Additionally, we evaluated the impact of this laboratory as a function of class modality.

Method

We incorporated CyberRat laboratories into two classes (one in-person and one asynchronous online), with two classes of the same modality serving as controls. The same instructor taught all four classes. We evaluated student performance using target exam items and class grades. We also collected self-report data regarding the perceived usefulness of CyberRat and perceptions about the class.

Results

Performance on both learning measures was higher for CyberRat classes than for control classes. This main effect was fueled by the differential benefit of CyberRat in online but not in face-to-face classes. Online students in the CyberRat condition benefited more than their in-person peers.

Conclusion

Incorporation of a virtual laboratory appears to bolster student success; however, the impact of this type of laboratory may be limited to online classes. Teaching Implications: Educators should evaluate the efficacy of virtual laboratory experiences for in-person learning because the benefit seems to lie uniquely for online classes.

Keywords

Virtual laboratory academic performance teaching psychology learning

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Abdrabou

Shakhatreh

(2021). On assessment and evaluation of teaching computer networks to electrical engineering students by the aid of a lab course. Journal of Technology and Science Education, 11(2), 388–402. https://doi.org/10.3926/jotse.1186

Anderson

L. W.

Krathwohl

D. R.

(Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. Longman.

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 and Education, 87, 218–237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.07.003

Catena

R. D.

Carbonneau

K. J.

(2019). Guided hands-on activities can improve student learning in a lecture-based qualitative biomechanics course. Anatomical Sciences Education, 12(5), 485–493. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1832

Cooper

(2018). Differences in student engagement between online and face-to-face courses. Master’s thesis, California State University, Scholarworks Cal State. https://scholarworks.calstate.edu/concern/theses/73666562z

Diong

Lee

Reed

(2023). The effect of face-to-face versus online learning on student performance in anatomy: An observational study using a causal inference approach. Discover Education, 2, Article 3. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44217-022-00027-6

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), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.20429/ijsotl.2013.070116

Epting

K. L.

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.

Francis

M. K.

Wormington

S. V.

Hulleman

(2019). The costs of online learning: Examining differences in motivation and academic outcomes in online and face-to-face community college developmental mathematics courses. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, e2054. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02054

10.

Garrett

Simunich

Legon

Fredericksen

E. E.

(2023). CHLOE 8: Student demand moves higher ed toward a multi-modal future. Quality Matters and Encoura Eduventures Research. https://encoura.org/project/chloe-8/

11.

Goodhue

Liu

Cihon

(2019). Incorporating the portable operant research and teaching laboratory into undergraduate introduction to behavior analysis courses. Journal of Behavioral Education, 28(2), 517–541. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-019-09323-y

12.

Graf

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

13.

Graham

Alloway

Krames

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

14.

Helms

J. L.

(2014). Comparing student performance in online and face-to-face delivery modalities. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 18(1). https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v18i1.348

15.

Heradio

de la Torre

Galan

Cabrerizo

F. J.

Herrera-Viedma

Dormido

(2016). Virtual and remote labs in education: A bibliometric analysis. Computers and Education, 98, 14–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.03.010

16.

Hofstein

Lunetta

V. N.

(1982). The role of the laboratory in science teaching: Neglected aspects of research. Review of Educational Research, 52(2), 201–217. https://doi.org/10.2307/1170311

17.

Hofstein

Lunetta

V. N.

(2003). The laboratory in science education: Foundations for the twenty-first century. Science Education, 88(1), 28–54. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10106

18.

Hofstein

Mamlok-Naaman

(2007). The laboratory in science education: The state of the art. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 8(2), 105–107. https://doi.org/10.1039/B7RP90003A

19.

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

20.

Hyten

(1989). A review of CMS software's psychology on a disk. The Behavior Analyst, 12(2), 227–232. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03392501

21.

Iverson

I. H.

(2011). Commentary on CyberRat. Behavior and Philosophy, 39/40, 303–307.

22.

Joffe

(2011). Thematic analysis. In Harper

Thompson

A. R.

(Eds.), Qualitative research methods in mental health and psychotherapy: A guide for students and practitioners. (pp. 209–223). John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119973249.ch15.

23.

Kallarackal

A. J.

(2021). Benefits of using the invertebrate model organism C. elegans in an inquiry-based laboratory activity. Teaching of Psychology, 50(1), 26–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/00986283211029649

24.

Karp

H. J.

(1995). Rat lab for fun and profit. The Behavior Analyst, 18(1), 147–154. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03392700

25.

Kennesaw State University . (2023). Fall 2023 enrollment. https://www.experience.kennesaw.edu/fall-2023-enrollment

26.

Kennesaw State University Fact Book . (2024). Annual student enrollment report: 2023–2024. https://www.kennesaw.edu/data-strategy/institutional-research/publications/fact-book/docs/fact-book-archives/factbook-2023-2024.pdf

27.

Lee

I. C. J.

Wong

(2024). A mixed methods, longitudinal study: Characterizing the differences in engagement and perceived learning of medical students in online and in-person team-based learning classes. MedEdPublish, 13(33). https://doi.org/10.12688/mep.19535.2

28.

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

29.

Mallavarapu

Martin

A. L.

Taglialatela

L. A.

(2025). Impact of a virtual laboratory on student learning depends on course modality. OSF Project.

30.

Means

Toyama

Murphy

Bakia

Jones

(2009). Evaluation of evidence-based practices in online learning: A meta-analysis and review of online learning Studies. U.S. Department of Education. https://www.ed.gov/sites/ed/files/rschstat/eval/tech/evidence-based- practices/finalreport.pdf

31.

Mulick

J. A.

(1992). Review of behavior on a disk from CMS academic software: Instructional programs for teaching teachers. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 13(3), 301–307. https://doi.org/10.1016/0891-4222(92)90031-z

32.

Phelps

(2011). How close to real can a non-real CyberRat behave? Behavior and Philosophy, 39/40, 309–313.

33.

Ray

R. D.

(2003). CyberRat (Version 2.0). (AI)2, Inc.

34.

Ray

R. D.

(2011). Cyberrat, interbehavioral systems analysis, and a “turing test” trilogy. Behavior and Philosophy, 39/40, 203–301.

35.

Ray

R. D.

(2019) CyberRat (Version 5.0) [Computer software]. (AI)², Inc. https://www.ai2inc.com

36.

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.

37.

Roach

Lemasters

(2006). Satisfaction with online learning: A comparative descriptive study. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 5(3), 317–332.

38.

Santos

M. L.

Prudente

(2022). Effectiveness of virtual laboratories in science education: A meta-analysis. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 12(2), 150–156. https//doi.org/10.18178/ijiet.2022.12.2.1598

39.

Shimoff

Catania

C. A.

(1995). Using computers to teach behavior analysis. The Behavior Analyst, 18(2), 307–316. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03392718

40.

Soffer

Nachmias

(2018). Effectiveness of learning in online academic courses compared with face-to-face courses in higher education. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 34(5), 534–543. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12258

41.

Spencer

Temple

(2021). Examining students’ online course perceptions and comparing student performance outcomes in online and face-to-face classrooms. Online Learning, 25(2), 233–261. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v25i2.2227

42.

Tatli

Ayas

(2010). Virtual laboratory applications in chemistry education. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 9, 938–942. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.12.263

43.

Thieman

T. J.

Clary

E. G.

Olson

A. M.

Dauner

R. C.

Ring

E. E.

(2009). Introducing students to psychological research: General psychology as a laboratory course. Teaching of Psychology, 36(3), 160–168. https//doi.org/10.1080/00986280902959994

44.

Tobin

(1990). Research on science laboratory activities: In pursuit of better questions and answers to improve learning. School Science and Mathematics, 90(5), 403–418. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.1990.tb17229.x

45.

Tratnik

Urh

Jereb

(2019). Student satisfaction with an online and a face-to-face business English course in a higher education context. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 56(1), 36–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2017.1374875

46.

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

47.

Jaggars

S. S.

(2014). Performance gaps between online and face-to-face courses: Differences across types of students and academic subject areas. The Journal of Higher Education, 85(5), 633–659. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2014.11777343

Impact of a Virtual Laboratory on Student Learning Depends on Course Modality

Abstract

Background

Objective

Method

Results

Conclusion

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References