Development of an Online Experiment Platform for High School Biology

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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).

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Sandoval, J. (1995). Teaching in subject-matter areas - science. Annual Review of Psychology, 46, 355–374.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

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 .

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rochelle D. Schwartz-Bloom.

Ethics declarations

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.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

(PDF 8.18 MB )

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Blondel, D.V., Sansone, A., Rosenberg, J.M. et al. Development of an Online Experiment Platform for High School Biology. J Form Des Learn 3, 62–81 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41686-019-00030-5

Download citation

Keywords

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