Examining Teachers' Practical Experiences with Virtual Labs in

High School Science: A Narrative Study

CHAPTER ONE

STUDY RATIONALE AND PURPOSE

Problem Statement

Virtual Laboratories are quickly replacing hands-on laboratory

activities as the norm for teaching and learning science in the

high school setting (Van Lejeune, 2002). Van Lejeune (2002) and

Mint (1993) describe three main reasons for this shift.  First,

materials for hands-on laboratory activities are very expensive.

Second, the use of chemicals in the classroom could potentially

lead to lawsuits if chemicals are not properly handled by either

the teacher or student. Third, virtual labs can provide a quality

experience for students, especially if the teacher lacks in-depth

knowledge of the subject being taught. Research findings by

Redish and Steinberg (1999) suggest that students learn most

effectively in an active engagement learning environment.

Virtual labs, if used properly, can create and foster this kind

of active learning environment. Virtual labs also provide a

cheaper alternative to school systems struggling with tight

budgets (Van Lejeune, 2002) and eliminates the potential for

lawsuits associated with the use of strong or potentially

poisonous chemicals (Mint, 1993).

Despite the numerous potential benefits associated with using

virtual laboratories to teach science in the high school setting,

few studies have been conducted to assess teachers’ practical

experience with using virtual laboratories and how these

experiences can be used to identify best practices for improving

praxis among teachers, especially for new science teachers.

Results from several studies suggest that online labs and videos

can be as effective as physical or hands-on lab activities

(Leonard, et al., 1992; Malderelli, 2009; Cengiz, 2010; Gobert, et

al., 2011; Tatli, Z. & Ayas, A, 2013; Kun-Yuan, Y. & Jian-Sheng,

H. 2007).  In addition, a study among high school students

identified a number of positive effects associated with using

technology in the classroom (Reid-Griffin & Carter, 2004). These

positive effects include improved student achievement and better

student engagement.  Furthermore, the individualized nature of

technology empowers students to take more risks in their learning

and to be more willing to make mistakes. Controversy around

virtual labs remains, however, as some researchers (Kennepohl, D.

2001; Nedic, Z., Matchoska, J., & Nafalski, J. 2003;

Finkelstein, et al., 2005) have found online labs to be less

effective than hands-on labs.  These researchers also found that

students preferred face-to-face labs over virtual labs.

Despite the mixed evidence around the effectiveness of virtual

laboratories, the use of these labs in high school science

classrooms continues to rise.  The purpose of this research study

is to elucidate teachers’ practical experiences with using

virtual laboratory activities in their science classroom. 

Understanding how teachers experience and use virtual labs in

their classroom may provide some context for explaining the

discrepancy observed in the literature on the effectiveness of

virtual labs at improving student outcomes.  

Why Is Organizational Learning Important?

Learning is an everyday occurrence for most humans (Dewey, 1938).

The success of the human race, can in large part, be attributed

to the ability of humans to learn and to use that new knowledge

to adapt to changes in their environment.  Humans, unique among

animals, are able to create and share knowledge.  This shared

knowledge allows them to make improvements in their environment

or organization. This type of learning is called organizational

learning (Argyris & Schon, 1978).  To improve practice in

organizations, including schools, it is crucial to understand

shared practical experience.

Moreover, there are three types of informational knowledge. 

These include: (1) the hard and formal character of knowledge

(Childreth & Kimble, 2002); (2) the paradigm mode of knowing

(Bruner, 1986); and (3) the soft, tacit, and practical knowledge

(Takeuchi, 1995). Current research indicates that soft, tacit,

and practical knowledge can be meaningfully captured using a

narrative inquiry approach (Boje, 2007; Czarniawski, 2007; &

Gabriel, 2000). This study, therefore, will use a narrative

approach to investigate teachers’ shared practical experiences

with using virtual laboratories to teach science in their high

school classrooms. It is my assumption that teachers hold

valuable personal and practical knowledge. This study will gather

that personal and practical knowledge in order to facilitate the

sharing of best practices with teachers unfamiliar with the use

virtual laboratories as a teaching tool. This information will be

especially useful for new science teachers who most often find

themselves using virtual labs in their classrooms with little or

no training.

What Led Me to This Topic?

I was born and raised in Tanzania. I attended school in Tanzania

for primary school, secondary school, high school, and

University. I came to the United States in 2001. I attended a

graduate program in environmental science at Towson University

from 2002 to 2004. While attending graduate school I worked as an

Assistant Laboratory and Field Technician for the Center for

Urban Research and Environmental Education at the University of

Maryland, Baltimore County. In my capacity as an environmental

lab and field assistant, I investigated water, air, and soil

pollution in Baltimore City and Baltimore County. After I

graduated with a Master degree in Environmental Science, I

decided to teach for the Baltimore City Public School. I applied

to the Baltimore City Teaching Residency (BCTR) in May, 2004, a

program designed to attract experienced science and mathematics

professionals to teach in the Baltimore City School System. I was

accepted into the program and was formerly hired as a teacher in

July, 2004. Through the BCTR program, I attended the Johns

Hopkins University for a Master’s Degree in Education from July

2004 to May 2007.

Throughout my teaching career, I have witnesses many changes in

the technology used in schools. When I was first hired as a

science teacher, I had little exposure to classroom technology

and its uses. I found it very hard to implement a new technology

in the classroom especially when little or no training was

offered to accompany that training. For the past five years, I

have been using virtual laboratories to teach high school

chemistry.  These labs teach a variety of concepts including the

difference between chemical and physical changes, the periodic

table, naming compounds, and the concept of “moles”.  I have

found virtual laboratories to be an effective tool for teaching

concepts where a hands-on lab either does not exist or is too

expensive or dangerous to conduct.  Since many schools are

shifting their investments from hands-on labs to virtual labs, I

thought, it would be important to gather teachers’ personal and

practical experiences with virtual labs to inform this shift and

to identify best practices that could be shared with other

teachers.  I plan to capture the experiences that teachers have

when using virtual labs with their students through their

narratives.

Conceptual Framework

            Learning from experience is central to the creation

of practical knowledge in an organization (Cole & Wertsch, 2004).

Dewey (1916) suggests that learning from experience is crucial in

connecting the past, the present, and the future (as cited in Liu

& Mathews, 2005). This study will examine learning from

experience through the Vygotskyan social constructivist lens and

also through personal reflections. According to Wolcott (1990a),

personal experiences can be used to examine a phenomena such as

teachers’ personal and practical experiences with virtual labs.

           Social constructivist theory originated from

Vygotsky’s work. Social constructivist theory emphasizes

collaboration and views learning or meaning as being socially

constructed (Resnick, 1991). A central concept of Vygotsky’s work

is the role that social collectivity plays in learning and

development (Liu & Mathews, 2005). Individuals learn from each

other and form their understanding of the world from their

interactions with each other.  Social constructivist theory,

however, is not without criticism. The major criticism of this

theory is that it places too much emphasis on the role of social

and collective, but, ignores the role of the individual in

meaning construction.  While I acknowledge this criticism, I plan

to use social constructivist theory as the basis for my study

because I believe that teachers share their experiences with

teaching tools, like virtual laboratories, with each other and it

is through this communication that they decide whether or not to

use these tools in their own classroom.  Thus, I feel that this

theory is most aligned with the purpose of my study.  Figure 1

below illustrates the conceptual framework for my study.

Informed Future

Practical Experience

Teachers’ Past Experiences

Teachers’ Present Experiences

Socially Constructed Meaning through Stories

Figure 1: Socially Constructed Practical and Personal Experiences

of Teachers When Using Virtual Labs.

Study Rationale

As mentioned earlier, the use of virtual labs and online learning

continues to rise in in high school science courses. This rise in

virtual lab usage has implications on how successfully the

learning experiences are going to be for teachers and students.

This research will identify teachers’ practical and personal

experiences with virtual laboratory activities to help create a

body of best practices for other teachers. As noted in my

personal and professional narrative, most teachers do not

actually receive formal training on how to effectively use

virtual labs with their students. Therefore, teachers learn

through trial and error how best to implement virtual labs in

their classrooms.  The risk, however, is that they will not

utilize virtual labs correctly, leading to poor student outcomes.

This study will gather teachers’ experiences with virtual labs,

including the knowledge they have acquired through the use of

virtual labs in their own classrooms.  Best practices will be

identified and shared with other teachers who are considering

implementing virtual labs in their own classrooms.

Research Questions

As in any qualitative study, choosing the type of qualitative

inquiry and the questions to fit the approach is the first

challenge. In the beginning, I explored various approaches to

qualitative inquiry to see which approach was most appropriate to

answer my research questions.  After, much deliberation, I chose

narrative inquiry to investigate teachers’ practical experience

using virtual labs in their classrooms. In my interview, I asked

eight main questions to elucidate teachers’ experiences with

virtual labs.  These questions are listed below:

1. Tell me about your educational and professional background.

A. Probe: How did you become an educator?

2. What is your teaching philosophy?

3. How do virtual labs fit within this philosophy?

4. How did you learn about virtual labs?

5. When did you start using them?

6. Why did you decide to use virtual labs in your classroom?

7. What do you see as barriers and benefits to using virtual labs

with your students?

8. What adaptations (if any) did you make to ensure that all

students in your class benefit from virtual labs?

Summary

In Chapter One, I provided a rationale for my research study and

presented the theoretical framework that will form the basis of

my study.  In addition, I reviewed the questions that I asked the

teachers participating in my study in order to elucidate their

experiences using virtual laboratories.  In Chapter Two I will

review the origin and definition of several key terms related to

my study including: Social Constructionist Theory, Deweyan

Experience, Schon’s Reflective Practitioner, and Narrative

Inquiry.

CHAPTER TWO

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Chapter One provided an overview of the purpose of this research

study and described the theoretical framework that will be used

as the basis of this study. Chapter Two will continue this

discussion by reviewing some key terms related to the study. The

terms described herein are “Social Constructivist Theory”,

“Reflective Practitioner”, and “Experience”. This chapter will

also describe Narrative Inquiry which forms the basis of this

research study. At the surface level, these terms appear very

different, but, at a deeper level they have inter-related

meanings.

Social Constructivist Theory: A Vygotskyan Idea

            As described in Chapter One, social construction

theory emphasizes the importance of collaboration and views

learning or meaning making as socially constructed (Resnick 1991;

as cited in Liu & Mathews 2005).  A central concept in Vygotsky’s

work is the role that social collectivity plays in learning and

development (Liu & Mathews, 2005).  Vygotsky’s social

constructivist theory argues that “knowing is relative to the

situations in which the knowers find themselves” (Liu & Mathews;

2005; p.392).  The concept of social and the individual being

interconnected is the cornerstone of the social constructivist

theory and it provides a valid explanation for social and

individual change.

Reflective Practitioner: Schon’s Idea

Schon (1986) describes reflection as what practitioners do to

examine their increased understanding of a phenomenon that arises

from practicing. Reflectivity combines reflections from both past

and present actions in order to improve future actions. Schon

emphasizes that knowing with doing and thinking with action must

go together because they work hand-in-hand.  We cannot “know” and

“think” without “doing” and “acting” (Schon, 1986).  Thus,

thinking with action is crucial to improving practice. In my

experience, teachers and school administrators rarely use

reflective action to enhance their praxis. Part of this research

study will be encouraging teachers to use narratives or

storytelling as form of reflection in action in order to improve

and transform their teaching practice.

Experience: A Deweyan Idea

Dewey (1916) views experience as a continuum of reason. Dewey’s

work shows his attempt to resolve the dichotomy between

experience and reason.  According to Dewey (1916) experience and

reason are a continuous mesh of consciousness most meaningful

when connected to everyday life. There are two natures of

experiences described by Dewey. The first is “trying” which is

related to active experience. The second is “undergoing” which is

related to passive experience. Dewey was more concerned with

active experience because it involves changes of actions through

reflection. In order to better understand the nature of active

experience, I identified two qualitative studies that described

the experiences of teachers who became students.  Their

experiences as students helped them identify strategies to

improve their teaching.  Mann (2003), a college professor,

described her own experience as a student attending an online

course.  From her experience, she identified several strategies

that teachers can use to foster student learning in a virtual

environment.  Similarly, Sinclair (2004; as cited in Case,

Marshall, & Linder,2010) spent two years as a student in a

mechanical engineering program.  During her time as a student,

she identified several challenges that students encounter when

entering a new discourse or discipline. She also identified

strategies that educators can use to help their students be

successful in a new discourse.

The two studies illustrate the need to understand teachers’

experiences with virtual labs as it may be one strategy to foster

student learning in a virtual environment. Currently, little

research has been done in this area, especially among high school

science students. My study will address this existing gap in the

literature by exploring teachers’ experience with virtual labs

using a narrative inquiry approach. In addition, the teachers’

experiences and stories from my exploratory study will help other

educators understand the challenges and opportunities associated

with using virtual labs in their classrooms, including

identifying best practices for integrating virtual labs into the

science classroom.

Narrative Inquiry: Stories as a Reflective in Action Tool

Creswell (2013) identifies several approaches to conducting a

narrative inquiry. These approaches include: biographical

studies, auto-ethnographies, life histories, and oral histories.

In my exploratory study, I used a life story narrative approach. 

I am not, however, trying to portray the person’s entire life

history.  Instead, my questions will focus on capturing a defined

time period in the lives of two teachers, namely their

experiences using virtual labs as a teaching tool in their high

school chemistry course.   This life story narrative approach

will take the form of a personal experience story. Denzin (1989a;

as cited in Creswell, 2013) states that a personal experience

story may be used to study an individual’s personal experience in

a single episode and/or in multiple episodes. In this pilot

study, I asked the teachers to recall the episodes where they

used virtual labs in their classrooms and to relay to me their

personal experiences using these labs in their classrooms.  In

addition, I collected information about the teachers’

background.  The information helped me to contextualize how their

experiences using virtual labs were influenced by their

educational background and their teaching philosophy and how the

information can be used as best practices for other teachers with

little to no experience with virtual lab usage.

Summary

In Chapter Two I explained the key terms: Social Constructionist

Theory, Deweyan Experience, Schon’s Reflective Practitioner, and

Narrative Inquiry. In the narrative inquiry tradition, stories

are used as a tool for capturing practical experiences through

reflection. These stories can then be passed on from person to

person in an organization as best practices. Brown, Denning, Groh

& Prusack (2005) posits that stories are a powerful tool for

sharing practical experiences and knowledge in an organization

such as a school or school system.

Chapter 3 explains the research approach I have chosen for this

study. I have chosen a narrative approach to conduct my study. In

addition, I offer justification to why I chose a narrative

approach for this study. Finally, I explain how the data was

collected and analyzed using the narrative inquiry approach.

CHAPTER THREE

METHODOLOGY

In Chapter Three, I will explore the reasons behind why I chose

narrative inquiry methodology for my research study. I will also

explain how I conducted this study from data collection to data

analysis, including how I selected my research site and

participants.

What Led Me to Choose Narrative Approach

Clandinin & Connelly (2000) argue that practical knowledge

gathered from people’s experiences is sharable in the story

format.  Narrative inquiry is arguably the best method for

capturing those stories and the inherent knowledge to be gained

from these stories. In addition, narrative inquiry is a useful

methodology for describing an insiders’ experiential knowledge in

the form of story-telling (Clandinin & Connelly, 2000).  My

intention for this study was to identify practical experiences of

teachers (Clandinin & Connelly, 2000). In addition, I wanted to

recognize my self –reflective knowledge and how to capture the

experience of teachers who use virtual labs with their students.

To put my experience with technology in context, I will provide

my life and professional history.  I was born and raised in

Tanzania. I went to school in Tanzania from primary school,

secondary school, high school, and University. I came to the

United States in 2001. After I graduated with a Master degree in

Environmental Science from Towson University, I decided to teach

for the Baltimore City Public School. I began my career as a

teacher in July 2004 at an inner-city middle school. Most of my

students were African-American and from low income households. 

When I was first hired as a science teacher, I had little

exposure to classroom technology and its uses. I found it very

hard to implement a new technology in the classroom since I

rarely received any training to accompany the new technology.  In

2009, I began teaching at a suburban high school in Atlanta.  It

was at this high school that I learned about virtual

laboratories.  I began using these laboratories in my chemistry

classroom.  Again, I did not receive formal training on how to

use these labs. Instead, I learned by doing.  I believe this is

an experience that many new teachers face. Since many schools are

shifting their investment from hands-on labs to virtual labs, I

thought it would be useful to gather teacher’s personal and

practical experiences with virtual labs. The challenge was that

personal and practical knowledge is often hard to capture

systematically.

In the process of finding which method was most appropriate to

answer my questions, I started by trying the phenomenological

approach. According to Creswell (2013), a phenomenological study,

“describes the common meaning of several individuals of their

lived experience of a concept or a phenomenon.” There are two

types of phenomenological studies.  The first type is a heuristic

phenomenological approach which brings to the fore the personal

experience of the researcher (Moustakas, 1990b:9, as cited in

Patton; 2002b).  The second type is a transcendental

phenomenological approach that involves the researcher bracketing

themselves through acknowledging their experiences with the

phenomenon under investigation (Creswell, 2013). However, after a

careful analysis of the method, I came to the conclusion that a

phenomenological study was not the best for my research question

because my sample size was too low and also I was relying on a

single method for data collection which is not advisable for a

phenomenological study. To conduct a well-rounded

phenomenological study, a number of data collection methods such

as surveys, observations, journaling, and photographs need to be

used.

I then turned to a mixed method approach. A mixed method study

uses both qualitative and quantitative research designs. In the

1990’s, mixed method study design gained popularity (Creswell,

2011). Green, Caracelli & Graham (1989) define a mixed method

study as “research in which an investigator collects and analyzes

data, integrates findings, and draws inferences using both

qualitative and quantitative  approaches  or methods in a single

study or program of inquiry” (p.20). According to Creswell (2011)

mixed method study increases the breadth and depth of the

research findings. Using more than one research method can also

help corroborate the study findings, ensuring the findings have a

stronger validity. To use a mixed method design, Creswell (2011)

suggests that the research questions must include both

quantitative and qualitative elements. It is important that the

formulated questions address both the needs for a quantitative

and a qualitative study design. Again, after a careful

examination of the method and the question, I realize that my

questions did not match well with the mixed method design.

While examining a possible method to capture teachers’ experience

with virtual labs, narrative inquiry emerged slowly but surely as

the best method for capturing teachers’ experience with virtual

labs and identifying the practical knowledge inherent in these

experiences. Narrative inquiry emerged as a new research method

in social research in the 1980s (Clandinin & Connely, 1990). In

1986, Clandinin and Connelly experimented with narratives as an

alternative way of representing experience in graduate courses at

Ontario Institute of Studies (OISE). According to Clandinin &

Connelly (2000), an individual’s story should be considered as a

source of phenomenon and method. Atkins (1995) pointed to two

advantages of using narrative inquiry. First, the story creating

process is similar to the self-reflection process, thus, helps to

expand experiences. Second, developing stories helps to connect a

person to the human experience through narratives. Therefore,

narrative inquiry can be used to gather personal and practical

experiences and knowledge and to share them with the community.

Data Collection

This study takes place in a high school environment in an upper

income suburban neighborhood in the Southeastern United States. I

purposely chose my two participants for the following reasons.

First, I wanted them to have different levels of teaching

experience.  My first participant was a new teacher (two years

teaching experience) who had limited experience with virtual

labs. Thus, I chose her because I wanted to understand and

chronicle new teachers’ experiences with virtual lab usage in the

science classroom. The other participant was a veteran teacher

with more than 15 years of teaching experience. I wanted to

interview him because I wanted to gain deeper insights into the

use of virtual labs by an experienced teacher.  The second reason

for choosing these two teachers was a matter of personal

convenience.  The participants and I work in the same hallway and

have the same planning period; therefore, I have easy access to

them.

I used the life story narrative to elucidate the personal

practical experiences of my teacher participants. I took the life

story approach because I believe each and every one of us has his

or her story to tell.  I interviewed each participant for

approximately 15 minutes in their classroom using a semi-

structured interview guide.  I began with an open-ended question

followed by a probing question whenever necessary to gain a

deeper conversation of the participant’s experiences.  Even-

though I had developed structured and open-ended questions for

the interviews, I conducted the interviews mainly as

conversations. The reason for choosing a conversational approach

rather than a direct interview approach is that probing is most

effective when it takes place in the form of a conversation

(Clandinin & Connelly, 2000).  Since I was using only a single

method of data collection and a small sample of interviewees, I

decided to record the interviews so I did not miss any relevant

information and so I could produce a verbatim transcript for

analysis. I used my IPad to record the interviews with the

permission of each participant.  I received human subject

approval in September of 2013 and conducted both interviews in

October 2013. The open-ended questions used for this study are

presented below:

1. Tell me about your educational and professional background.

Probe: How did you become an educator?

2. What is your teaching philosophy?

3. How do virtual labs fit within this philosophy?

4. How did you learn about virtual labs?

5. When did you start using them?

6. Why did you decide to use virtual labs in your classroom?

7. What do you see as barriers and benefits to using virtual labs

with your students?

8. What adaptations (if any) did you make to ensure that all

students in your class benefit from virtual labs?

Data Analysis

            After I conducted and recorded the interviews, I

attempted to analyze the data through first listening and

transcribing the interviews. To better understand the stories, I

used the restoring or retelling method to reconstruct the

participants’ stories as they were told to me during the

interview. I identified and interpreted the major themes such as

technology-related problems, when to use virtual labs, when not

to use them, and in what instances they most benefit students’

understanding.  I then wrote summary statements for each of the

identified themes using the information from the participants’

interviews.  Participants’ narratives are presented in Chapter

Four and the conclusions and recommendations resulting from the

research findings are presented in Chapter Five.

CHAPTER FOUR

TEACHER STORIES

In this chapter, I examine each participant’s experience with

virtual labs using a story-telling or retelling approach of the

narrative inquiry methodology. I begin with a description of the

classroom environment followed by narratives from each

participant’s interview. In Chapter Five, I examine the data and

offer analysis and interpretation. I then, conclude the chapter

with conclusions and recommendations for future studies. What is

presented here is a verbatim transcript of the participants’ own

words. To the best of my ability, I refrained from adding any of

my comments or additions to this transcript. However, I sometimes

use my own words to help create smooth transitions, where

necessary. Note that the names used below are pseudonyms to

protect the confidentiality of the participants.

Mr. Physics Jones’s Class

            Mr. Physics Jones is 37-year old, white male who

teaches physics and chemistry at the suburban high school. He has

13 years of teaching experience and has been with the science

department for 10 years. Prior to working with this department,

Mr. Jones worked for a private Christian high school for three

years. Mr. Jones is a highly qualified teacher in the broad

science category, but specializes in teaching Advanced Placement

Physics and general chemistry.

            My classroom is located next to Mr. Jones’ classroom.

We normally have lengthy conversations about teaching physics and

chemistry. We also share a stock room for chemicals and

laboratory equipment that we use to teach chemistry and physics.

In his spare time, Mr. Jones likes to run. He is the head coach

for the school’s running team. His team has won numerous awards

including State championships and zonal championships.

            Mr. Jones’ classroom is very orderly. The classroom

is arranged into eight two rows with eight lab desks. He has a

promethean board, LCD projector, laptops, and a student response

system that he uses on a daily basis. Mr. Jones also has five

computers in the back of his classroom that are connected to the

internet. Mr. Jones’ students are very diverse with a variety of

racial and ethnic groups represented. His students also come from

a range of socio-economic backgrounds. His classes contain a

fairly even gender distribution.

Mr. Jones’s Experience with Virtual Labs

Mr. Jones has a Bachelor’s degree in environmental engineering

and chemistry. He also has a Master’s of Arts degree in teaching

with a specialty in chemistry education. Mr. Jones worked as a

research technician for the state of North Carolina and he is now

teaching. He decided to become a teacher because he thought his

skills would be better utilized in educating the kids (children)

of America. Mr. Jones teaching philosophy is a triangle between

the teachers, parents, and the students.

Mr. Jones feels that virtual labs give the kids a tool to explore

the topic more on their own. He also feels that virtual labs form

a good substitute when the student is absent. If a kid is absent,

virtual labs serves as the lab.  Virtual labs also serve as the

alternative when we don’t have the funds for the lab equipment or

chemicals. Mr. Jones mentioned that he did not receive any

professional development regarding the effective use of virtual

labs. He learned how to use virtual labs through trial and error.

Mr. Jones sees the barriers of virtual labs as that students

don’t see the true results of what’s happening. They are pre-

programmed and therefore devoid of real life experiences. Another

barrier to virtual labs is that students tend to copy from each

other without engaging themselves in the actual learning

activity. In addition, virtual labs offer the same results, so

it’s hard to talk about real life errors (e.g. experimental

errors) that often occur during real life experiments.

Mr. Jones sees the benefits of virtual labs as that they can be

accessed anywhere at any time. Another benefit of virtual labs is

that there is no preparation time for the teacher. In addition,

virtual labs are useful at substituting instruction especially

when the equipment is too expensive. Mr. Jones uses several

adaptations to make sure that all students in his class benefit

from virtual labs. First, he discuss the lab with students ahead

of time. Second, he does a demo for the class before-hand. Third,

Mr. Jones does group discussions to enhance student understanding

of concepts covered in the virtual labs session.

Ms. Biology Tanisha

            Ms. Biology Tanisha is a 34-year old black female who

teaches general biology in the science department. She has two

years of teaching experience and has been with the science

department for one year. Ms. Tanisha is a highly qualified

teacher in the broad science category, but, specializes to teach

general biology. She explained her experience with virtual labs

in her classroom during the interview.

            Ms. Tanisha’s classroom is very orderly. The

classroom is arranged into two rows with eight lab desks. She has

a promethean board, LCD projector, a laptop cart, and student

response systems that she uses often. Ms. Tanisha also has five

computers in the back of her classroom that are connected to the

internet. The students in Ms. Tanisha’s classroom, like those in

Mr. Jones’ class, are very diverse in terms of race and socio-

economic status.  Her class also has an even distribution of boys

and girls. 

Ms. Tanisha’s Experiences with Virtual Labs

Ms. Tanisha has a bachelor degree in education. She became a

certified teacher two years ago. She decided to become a teacher

for four reasons.  She is a people person.  She likes showing

children the different ways to learn. She likes to give back to

the community and she thinks that there are not enough people in

the world who want to teach but just want to be a part of

something so that they can get vacation time. She wants to give

back and show why having a good education is important. She says

that growing up, even though her mom and her relatives were

educators, she never saw the importance of going home and

studying or doing what she was supposed to do. As such her GPA

after she graduated high school was below a 2.0 and she actually

flunked out of college twice. The third time she went back,

including grad school, her GPA was well above a 3.0. She learned

the importance of an education but it took her awhile and now

she’s at a point in her life that she wants to give back and to

show why it’s important to be educated.

Ms. Tanisha’s teaching philosophy is every child can learn,

however, not every child can learn the same way. She believes

that teachers need to engage all students individually if

possible throughout the week. To continually communicate with

your students so you know where they are. She also believes that

it is up to the teacher to actually engage each one of their

students so that they can learn. In addition, Ms. Tanisha feels

that virtual labs are good because the teacher has the ability to

rewind as opposed to doing a lab in class step one, step two and

typically you don’t even have the resources to go back and see

where did I get this from? Virtual labs are good for proofing

one’s work because of the ability to go back and check where the

information came from.

Ms. Tanisha went to the Explore Learning workshop last year where

she learned that a teacher had the ability to add to the labs

everything he/she needs to engage students in their learning. She

feels that the workshop she attended last year was beneficial in

making the labs better. It helped her in different ways as far as

getting the concepts across to her students. Ms. Tanisha sees the

only barrier to virtual labs is that some students are not as

engaged as others.  She feels as though these students would

prefer hands on labs rather than virtual ones. In addition, some

students just don’t want to do the lab because it does not fit

their learning style. Ms. Tanisha recognizes several benefits for

using virtual labs in the science classroom. First, virtual labs

offer the ability to go back and redo the labs up to a certain

degree. Second, students have to follow directions and engage

themselves in the lab and learn at their own pace. Third, she

thinks students learn more because virtual labs follow the

learner centered approach.

Ms. Tanisha uses various adaptations to make sure that all

students in her class benefit from virtual labs. She walks around

and talks to students often to make sure they understand the lab.

She checks for understanding and engagement by communicating with

each student on a regular basis.

Summary

In this chapter, I presented participants’ narratives. In Chapter

Five, complete data analysis, discussions, conclusions, and

recommendations for future research will be presented.

CHAPTER 5

DATA ANALYSIS, CONCLUSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE

RESEARCH

In this chapter, I first analyze the data, then, I present the

conclusions of the study, and finally, I present my

recommendations for future research. 

Data Analysis and Conclusion

Narrative inquiry was used in this study to shed light on the

practical experiences that teachers have when using virtual labs

with their students. The purpose of the study was to identify

personal and practical experiences that teachers have when using

virtual labs in their science classrooms. After reading and re-

reading the transcripts from the interviews, I identified two

characteristics that were shared by both teachers – a love of

teaching and a belief that all children can learn.  In addition,

I identified several best practices that these participants had

used to maximize the success of virtual labs in their classrooms:

(1) pre-lab discussions, often with a demonstration, (2) post-lab

discussions where students’ questions were answered, (3) regular

monitoring during lab sessions to check student understanding and

engagement, and (4) receiving proper training on how to

effectively use virtual labs as a teaching tool.

Love of Teaching

            Both participants expressed their love for teaching

during the interview. I realize that teaching is not a get rich

and/or money making profession. Mr. Jones is an environmental

engineer. He has many job options, but, he choose to share his

knowledge and engineering skills with the children of America. In

addition, Ms. Tanisha spoke of her love of teaching very

explicitly during the interview. She shared with me that she was

a “people person” and loved to show students different ways to

learn.

The Belief That All Children Can Learn

            The saying that all children can learn has been used

in many educational articles and books. In many settings, this

saying has become a cliché.  During my interview with both

participants, I genuinely felt that these teachers believed what

they were saying. Ms. Tanisha said “all children can learn, but,

differently.” It is true that all children can learn. This is

especially true when the needs of each of the student are met.

For example, each child comes to class with his or her own

capability, learning preferences, and world view. If these needs

are not met by the teacher, some children will be left behind and

deemed to be incapable of learning. Therefore, according to the

participants, it is crucial to meet each individual child

wherever they are and to help them to achieve success in

learning. This will boost their confidence to learn.

Pre-Lab Discussions

            Since virtual labs are somewhat different than hands-

on and real life experiments, it is paramount that teachers

discuss the lab before students actually do the lab. This will

improve student understanding by activating their prior knowledge

and by making them ready to learn. Mr. Jones normally discusses

the lab before students begin doing the lab. It is a good

practice as it helps iron-out student misunderstandings and

reduces the amount of questions that students may have during the

lab session. Once students know what to do and how to do it,

completing the lab becomes easier for them and they are more

likely to learn from it. Therefore, Mr. Jones and Ms. Tanisha

employ the pre-lab discussion to help their students understand

what the lab is all about and how to complete it.

Post-Lab Discussions and Regular Monitoring during Lab Sessions

Mr. Jones discussed the use of post-lab discussions as an

important tool for effective use of virtual labs with students in

science. Once students have completed their virtual lab sessions,

it is important to have a discussion regarding the concept or

concepts covered. This is important because it helps students to

consolidate what they have learned. It also helps the teacher to

assess what students have learned and what topics may need

further discussion. I concur with Mr. Jones’s views on this, I

believe that post-lab discussions are crucial for helping student

re-evaluate their understanding of the lab and also to receive

confirmation regarding their understanding. Post-lab discussions

also offer students the opportunity to explain and reflect on

their understanding of the concept covered by the lab and to ask

any clarifying questions.  In addition, both participants

mentioned the importance of circulating throughout the classroom

while students are completing the lab to monitor their

understanding and to make sure they remain engaged in the task.

This also allows students the opportunity to ask questions as

they are completing the lab so that they are able to successfully

complete all their assigned tasks.  Teachers can also monitor

their progress and provide one-on-one guidance as needed.

The Importance of Proper Training

            Lack of proper training was one issue raised by the

participants during the interviews. It is quite obvious that in

the absence of training, things tend not to work as effectively

as they should. This applies to virtual labs as well. Ms. Tanisha

discussed a two day training she received on how to effectively

use virtual labs. In my view, in-service training is needed for

teachers to help them understand how to best use virtual labs in

their classrooms. School districts’ tend to buy these programs

with little or no emphasis placed on training teachers how to use

the programs. Mr. Jones reports that he never received any formal

training on how to use virtual labs. He trained himself through

trial and error. Allowing teachers to train themselves on the

effective use of virtual labs with their students is not a good

practice. Teachers should be trained to use technology properly

in order to increase student engagement and academic achievement.

Recommendations for Future Research

            This study was centered on two research participants’

practical and personal experiences with virtual labs. Six themes

emerged from the interviews with research participants. The

emerged themes include: (1) love of teaching, (2) the belief that

all children can learn, (3) pre-lab discussions, (4) post-lab

discussions, (5) regular monitoring during lab sessions, and (6)

the importance of proper training. As discussed in the study

results and discussion, these themes have direct implications for

the effective use of virtual labs in science classrooms. In order

to validate the results from this study, additional research with

more teachers from different settings is needed.  For example,

studies with teachers from middle school science or other high

school science setting would be desirable. In addition, the

questions used to capture teachers’ practical experiences with

virtual labs in this study were not very focused. Therefore,

studies with more focused questions on this matter are needed to

capture the essence of these practical experiences. Finally, I

realize that one’s cultural background influences one’s

experiences.  My background, cultural experiences, and world view

may have affected the way I analyzed the data. Therefore,

research done by people with different cultural and background

experiences are warranted.

References

Boz, Nihat., and Boz, Yezdan. (2008). A qualitative case study of

prospective chemistry teacher’ knowledge about instructional

strategies: Introducing particulate theory, Journal of Science

Teacher Education, 19(33), 135-156.

Case, J. M., Marshall, D., & Linder, C. (2010). Being a student

again: A narrative study of a teachers’ experience. Teaching

in Higher Education, 15(4): 423-433.

Cengiz, T. (2010). The effect of virtual laboratory on students’

achievement and altitude in Chemistry.

Clandinin, D.J., & Connelly, F. M. (2000). Narrative inguiry: Experience

and story in qualitative research. San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass.

Cole, M., & Wertsch, J. V. (2004). Beyond the individual-social

antimony in discussions of Piaget and Vygotsky. Accessed:

www.massey.ac.nz/~alock/virtual/cplevyg.htm [October, 2013].

Connelly, F. M., & Clandinin, D. J. (1990). Stories of experience

and narrative inquiry. Educational Researcher, 19(5): 2-14.

Creswell, J. W. (2011). Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research

(2nd ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing

Among Five Approaches (3rd ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE

Publications, Inc.

Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy of education. New York: MacMillan.

Falvo, D. (2008). Animations and simulations for teaching and

learning molecular chemistry. International Journal of Technology in

Teaching and Learning, 4(1), 68-77.

Greene, J., Caracelli, V., & Graham, W. (1989). Toward a

conceptual framework for Mixed-Methods Evaluation Designs.

Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 11:255-274.

Gobert et al. (2011). Examining the relationship between students’

understanding of the nature of models and conceptual

learning in Biology, Physics, and Chemistry, International

Journal of Science Education, 33(5): 653-684.

Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. N. (2004). The laboratory in science

education: Foundation for the 21st century. Science Education,

88, 28-54.

Hofstein, A. (2004). The laboratory in chemistry education:

Thirty years of experience with developments,

implementation, and research. Journal of Chemistry Education

Research and Practice,5(3): 247-264.

Hofstein, A., & Mamlok-Naaman, R. (2007). The laboratory in

science education: the state of the art. Journal of Chemistry

Education Research and Practice, 8(2): 105-107.

Kennepohl, D. (2001). Using computer simulations to supplement

teaching laboratories in chemistry for distance delivery.

The Journal of Distance Education, 16(2):58-65.

Kun-Yuan, Y., and Jian-Sheng, H. (2007). The impact of internet

virtual physics laboratory instruction on the achievement in

physics, science process skills and computer attitudes of

10th –grade students. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 16:

451-461.

Mann, S. J. (2003). A personal inquiry into an experience of

adult learning on-line.

Patton, M. Q. (2002b). Variety in qualitative inquiry: Qualitative research and

evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE

Pratt, K., and Sims, R. (2012). Virtual and physical

experimentation in Inquiry-based science labs: Attitudes,

Performance, and Acess. Journal of Science Education and Technology,

21(1), 133-147.

Smith, C., Maclin, D., Houghton, C., & Hennessy, G. (2000). Six-

grade students’ epistemologies of science: The impact of

school science experiences on epistemological development.

Cognition and Instruction, 18(3), 349-422.

Schon, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. New York:

Jossey-Bass.

Tatli, Z., and Ayas, A. (2013). The effect of a virtual chemistry

laboratory on students’ achievement. Journal of Technology and

Society, 16(1):159-170.

Van LeJeune, J. (2002). A meta-analysis of outcomes from the use

of computersimulated experiments in science education.

Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, Texas A&M University.

Wittman, M., Steinberg, R., and Redish, F. (1999). Making sense

of how students make sense of mechanical waves. Journal of

Physics Teacher, 37, 15-21.