Exploring Supports to Enhance Learning from Online Virtual Experiments in Science

Abstract

ABSTRACTVirtual experiments offer opportunities for students to engage in the scientific process and observe scientific phenomena. However, virtual experiments are not always effective for learning. The current study examined how two small manipulations might support better learning from virtual experiments and the extent to which this varied across learners. Undergraduates in an introductory biology class (n = 415) were randomly assigned to a 2(agency: active, passive) × 2(strategy instruction: control condition, control of variables [CVS] strategy instruction) between-subjects design and completed two prior knowledge tests (topic, general science). Comprehension tests results indicated that the students had relatively good comprehension of the experiment content, but that performance was driven by prior knowledge. Although there were no significant effects of the agency or strategy instruction manipulations, exploratory interactions suggest a need to further investigate which types of virtual experiment supports might be most beneficial for different learners.KEYWORDS: Science simulationsvirtual science experimentsprior knowledgelearner guidancecomprehension Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Notes1 Per IRB requirements, students were allowed to complete the study for extra credit without consenting to have their data used in this research study. Students who selected “no” on the informed consent form were given credit and their data was removed from the data files.Additional informationFundingThis research was supported in part by funding from the Spencer Foundation (201900217) and the American Psychological Association (APA) Division 15. The research reported herein was also supported by the Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, through Grant R305B200020 to Florida State University. The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not represent views of the Spencer Foundation, APA, or the Institute of Education Sciences or the U.S. Department of Education.