Advertisement

Journal of Formative Design in Learning

, Volume 3, Issue 1, pp 62–81 | Cite as

Development of an Online Experiment Platform for High School Biology

  • Dimitri V. Blondel
  • Anna Sansone
  • Joshua M Rosenberg
  • Elizabeth A Godin
  • Brenda W. Yang
  • Lawson T. Jaglom-Kurtz
  • Lisa Linnenbrink-Garcia
  • Rochelle D. Schwartz-BloomEmail author
Article

Abstract

We developed a novel online platform, Rex (Real experiments), that immerses students in a scientific investigative process. Rex is a virtual Web-based biological science experiment platform, hosted by real scientists and uses actual lab experiments that generate real data for students to collect, analyze, and interpret. Seven neuroscience experiments use zebrafish and rats as model systems to study the effects of drugs such as tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), caffeine, alcohol, and cigarette smoke, which are of interest to high school students. We carried out a small field test of Rex in a variety of high school biology classrooms (e.g., standard, honors, AP, anatomy/physiology) to obtain student and teacher feedback about the implementation and usability of the program. We also assessed student situational interest (SI) to determine whether the Rex experiment captured students’ attention, and whether it was an enjoyable and meaningful experience. Overall, students reported a moderate level of SI after participating in the Rex experiments. Situational interest did not differ across teachers, class section, class level, or the type of experiment. In addition, we present details of the technical issues encountered in the classroom, and we provide guidance to readers who may want to use the resource in their classrooms.

Keywords

Online lab experiments High school biology Virtual experiments Neuroscience Drugs Situational interest 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank J. Alvarado, G. Anderson, L. Cantin, J. Child, A. Eily, G. Gedman, S. Maurer, A. Oliveri, N. Parikh, and E. Petter for serving as the scientist-hosts in the Rex videos. Thanks to C. Wells for help performing the Rex experiments and to K. Tsukayama for videography and editing. A special thanks goes to R. Borczuk for help with several aspects of the project. This study was funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) Science Education Drug Abuse Partnership Award (SEDAPA) R25 DA 35133 to RDS.

Funding

This study was funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) Science Education Drug Abuse Partnership Award (SEDAPA) R25 DA 35133 .

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Research Involving Human Participants and/or Animals

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. IRB approval for exempt research with human subjects was obtained from the Duke University Medical Center Institutional Review Board (#Pro00043061) prior to beginning the project. All applicable international, national, and/or institutional guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed. All procedures performed in studies involving animals were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institution or practice at which the studies were conducted.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

41686_2019_30_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (8.2 mb)
ESM 1 (PDF 8.18 MB )

References

  1. Bahk, J. Y., Li, S., Park, M. S., & Kim, M. O. (2002). Dopamine D1 and D2 receptor mRNA up-regulation in the caudate–putamen and nucleus accumbens of rat brains by smoking. Progress in Neuro-Psychopharmacology and Biological Psychiatry, 26(6), 1095–1104.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0278-5846(02)00243-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brame, C. J. (2016). Effective educational videos: Principles and guidelines for maximizing. student learning from video content. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 15(es6), 1–6,  https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-03-0125.
  3. 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 & Education, 87, 218–237.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.07.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Buck, L. M. J., Winter, M. J., Redfern, W. S., & Whitfield, T. T. (2012). Ototoxin-induced cellular damage in neuromasts disrupts lateral line function in larval zebrafish. Hearing Research, 284(1-2), 67–81.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heares.2011.12.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cachat, J., Stewart, A., Grossman, L., Gaikwad, S., Kadri, F., Chung, K. M., et al. (2010). Measuring behavioral and endocrine responses to novelty stress in adult zebrafish. Nature Protocols, 5(11), 1786–1799.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nprot.2010.140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Carvan, M. J., Loucks, E., Weber, D. N., & Williams, F. E. (2004). Ethanol effects on the developing zebrafish: neurobehavior and skeletal morphogenesis. Neurotoxicology and Teratology, 26(6), 757–768.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ntt.2004.06.016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cha, Y. M., White, A. M., Kuhn, C. M., Wilson, W. A., & Swartzwelder, H. S. (2006). Differential effects of delta9-THC on learning in adolescent and adult rats. Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior, 83(3), 448–455.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pbb.2006.03.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chen, S. F. (2010). The view of scientific inquiry conveyed by simulation-based virtual laboratories. Computers & Education, 55(3), 1123–1130.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.05.009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Childers, G., & Jones, M. G. (2015). Students as virtual scientists: An exploration of students' and teachers' perceived realness of a remote electron microscopy investigation. International Journal of Science Education, 37(15), 2433–2452.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2015.1082043.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. de Jong, T., Linn, M. C., & Zacharia, Z. C. (2013). Physical and virtual laboratories in science and engineering education. Science, 340(6130), 305–308.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1230579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Design-Based Research Collective. (2003). Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5–8.  https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X032001005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Echevarria, D., Toms, C., & Jouandot, D. (2011). Alcohol-induced behavior change in zebrafish models. Reviews in the Neurosciences, 22(1), 85–93.  https://doi.org/10.1515/rns.2011.010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Egan, R. J., Bergner, C. L., Hart, P. C., Canavello, P. R., Elegante, M. F., Elkhayat, S. I., et al. (2009). Understanding behavioral and physiological phenotypes of stress and anxiety in zebrafish. Behavioral Brain Research, 205(1), 38–44.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2009.06.022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ellgren, M., Spano, S. M., & Hurd, Y. L. (2007). Adolescent cannabis exposure alters opiate intake and opioid limbic neuronal populations in adult rats. Neuropsychopharmacology, 32, 607–615.  https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.npp.1301127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gerlai, R., Lahav, M., Guo, S., & Rosenthal, A. (2000). Drinks like a fish: zebra fish (Danio rerio) as a behavior genetic model to study alcohol effects. Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior, 67(4), 773–782.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0091-3057(00)00422-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Godin, E. A., Wormington, S. V., Perez, T., Barger, M. M., Snyder, K. E., Smart Richman, L., Schwartz-Bloom, R., & Linnenbrink-Garcia, L. (2015). A pharmacology-based enrichment porgram for undergraduates promotes interest in science. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 14, ar40.  https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.15-02-0043.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gomes, L., & Bogosyan, S. (2009). Current trends in remote laboratories. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, 56(12), 4744–4756.  https://doi.org/10.1109/tie.2009.2033293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gravier, C., Fayolle, J., Bayard, B., Ates, M., & Lardon, J. (2008). State of the art about remote laboratories paradigms - foundations of ongoing mutations. International Journal of Online Engineering, 4(1), 19–25.Google Scholar
  19. Guerra-Varela, J., Cabezas-Sainz, P., Yebra-Pimentel, E., Gutierrez-Lovera, C., Cedron, V. P., Obarrio, M. A. O., et al. (2016). “A zebra in the water”: Inspiring science in Spain. Zebrafish, 13(4), 241–247.  https://doi.org/10.1089/zeb.2015.1178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hardisty, A. R., Bacall, F., Beard, N., Balcazar-Vargas, M. P., Balech, B., Barcza, Z., et al. (2016). BioVeL: A virtual laboratory for data analysis and modelling in biodiversity science and ecology. BMC Ecology, 16, 49.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12898-016-0103-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Heradio, R., de la Torre, L., Galan, D., Cabrerizo, F. J., Herrera-Viedma, E., & Dormido, S. (2016). Virtual and remote labs in education: A bibliometric analysis. Computers & Education, 98, 14–38.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.03.010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hill, T., Chidambaram, L., & Summers, J. D. (2017). “Playing ‘catch up’ with blended learning” performance impacts of augmenting classroom instruction with online learning. Behaviour & Information Technology, 36(1), 54–62.  https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2016.1189964.Google Scholar
  23. Iannaccone, P. M., & Jacob, H. J. (2009). Rats! Disease Models & Mechanisms, 2(5–6), 206–210.  https://doi.org/10.1242/dmm.002733.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jenkins, E. W., & Nelson, N. W. (2005). Important but not for me: Students’ attitudes towards secondary school science in England. Research in Science and Technological  Education, 23(1), 41–57.   https://doi.org/10.1080/02635140500068435.
  25. Kimmel, C. B., Patterson, J., & Kimmel, R. O. (1974). The development and behavioral characteristics of the startle response in the zebra fish. Developmental Psychobiology, 7(1), 47–60.  https://doi.org/10.1002/dev.420070109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kwiek, N. C., Halpin, M. J., Reiter, J. P., Hoeffler, L. A., & Schwartz-Bloom, R. D. (2007). Pharmacology in the high-school classroom. Science, 317(5846), 1871–1872.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1146811.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Linnenbrink-Garcia, L., Durik, A. M., Conley, A. M., Barron, K. E., Tauer, J. M., Sarabenick, S. A., et al. (2010). Measuring situational interest in academic domains. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 70(4), 647–671.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164409355699.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Linnenbrink-Garcia, L., Patall, E. A., & Messersmith, E. E. (2013). Antecedents and consequences of situational interest. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(4), 591–614.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8279.2012.02080.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Liu, D., Amagai, S., & Cordon, A. (2001). Development and evaluation of virtual labs and other interactive learning tools. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 29(4), 163–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-8175(01)00061-3.
  30. Ma, J., & Nickerson, J. V. (2006). Hands-on, simulated, and remote laboratories: A comparative literature review. ACM Computing Surveys, 38(3), 7.  https://doi.org/10.1145/1132960.1132961.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. McComas, W. (2005). Laboratory instruction in the service of science teaching and learning: Reinventing and reinvigorating the laboratory experience. Science Teacher, 72(7), 24.Google Scholar
  32. Modell, H. I., & Michael, J. A. (1993). Promoting active learning in the life-science classroom - defining the issues. In H. I. Modell, & J. A. Michael (Eds.), Promoting active learning in the life science classroom (Vol. 701, pp. 1–7, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences).Google Scholar
  33. Munn, M., Knuth, R., Van Horne, K., Shouse, A. W., Levias, S. & Hatfull, G. F.  (2017) How do you like your science, wet or dry? How two lab experiences influence student understanding of science concepts and perceptions of authentic scientific practice. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 16(2):ar39.  https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-04-0158.
  34. National Association of Biology Teachers (2008). Position Statement--The use of animals in biology education. https://nabt.org/Position-Statements-The-Use-of-Animals-in-Biology-Education. Accessed 7 March 2019.
  35. National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common Core State Standards for Mathematics. National Governors Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers. Washington, D.C. http://www.corestandards.org/wp-content/uploads/Math_Standards1.pdf Accessed: 19 April 2019.
  36. National Research Council. (2006). America’s lab report: Investigations in high school science (p. 10.17226/11311). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  37. National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and Core ideas (p. 10.17226/13165). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  38. NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.  https://doi.org/10.17226/18290.Google Scholar
  39. Renninger, K. A., & Hidi, S. (2016). The power of interest for motivation and engagement. New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  40. Rowe, R. J., Koban, L., Davidoff, A. J., & Thompson, K. H. (2018). Efficacy of online laboratory science courses. Journal of Formative Design in Learning, 2, 56–67.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s41686-017-0014-0.
  41. Rutten, N., van Joolingen, W. R., & van der Veen, J. T. (2012). The learning effects of computer simulations in science education. Computers & Education, 58(1), 136–153.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.07.017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Sandoval, J. (1995). Teaching in subject-matter areas - science. Annual Review of Psychology, 46, 355–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Schiefele, U. (2009). Situational and individual interest. In K. Wentzel & A. Wigfield (Eds.), Handbook of motivation at school (pp. 197–222). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  44. Schneider, M., & Preckel, F. (2017). Variables associated with achievement in higher education: A systematic review of meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 143(6), 565–600. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000098.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Schwartz-Bloom, R. D., & Halpin, M. J. (2003). Integrating pharmacology topics in high school biology and chemistry classes improves performance. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(9), 922–938.  https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Schwartz-Bloom, R. D., Halpin, M. J., & Reiter, J. P. (2011). Teaching high school chemistry in the context of pharmacology helps both teachers and students learn. Journal of Chemical Education, 88(6), 744–750.  https://doi.org/10.1021/ed100097y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Tarng, W., Hsie, C. C., Lin, C. M., & Lee, C. Y. (2017). Development and application of a virtual laboratory for synthesizing and analyzing nanogold particles. Journal of Computers, 12(3), 270–283.  https://doi.org/10.17706/jcp.12.3.270-283.Google Scholar
  48. Ton, C., & Parng, C. (2005). The use of zebrafish for assessing ototoxic and otoprotective agents. Hearing Research, 208(1-2), 79–88.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heares.2005.05.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Vorhees, C. V., & Williams, M. T. (2006). Morris water maze: procedures for assessing spatial and related forms of learning and memory. Nature Protocols, 1(2), 848–858.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nprot.2006.116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wang, F., & Hannafin, M. J. (2005). Design-based research and technology-enhanced learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 5–23.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504682.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Wong, K., Elegante, M., Bartels, B., Elkhayat, S., Tien, D., Roy, S., et al. (2010). Analyzing habituation responses to novelty in zebrafish (Danio rerio). Behavioural Brain Research, 208(2), 450–457.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2009.12.023.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Yaron, D., Karabinos, M., Lange, D., Greeno, J. G., & Leinhardt, G. (2010). The ChemCollective-Virtual Labs for introductory chemistry courses. Science, 328(5978), 584–585.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1182435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Educational Communications & Technology 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dimitri V. Blondel
    • 1
    • 2
  • Anna Sansone
    • 3
  • Joshua M Rosenberg
    • 3
    • 4
  • Elizabeth A Godin
    • 1
  • Brenda W. Yang
    • 5
  • Lawson T. Jaglom-Kurtz
    • 1
  • Lisa Linnenbrink-Garcia
    • 3
  • Rochelle D. Schwartz-Bloom
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Pharmacology & Cancer BiologyDuke University Medical CenterDurhamUSA
  2. 2.Department of Biological SciencesNorth Carolina State UniversityRaleighUSA
  3. 3.Department of Counseling, Educational Psychology, & Special EducationMichigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA
  4. 4.Department of Theory & Practice in Teacher EducationThe University of TennesseeKnoxvilleUSA
  5. 5.Department of Psychology & NeuroscienceDuke UniversityDurhamUSA

Personalised recommendations