| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
||||||
|
||||||||
ARTICLES |
,
* Cell and Chromosome Biology Group, Department of
Biological Sciences; Centre for Educational
Multimedia, School of Business and Management, Brunel University, Uxbridge,
Middlesex UB8 3PH, United Kingdom
Submitted June 14, 2004; Accepted August 16, 2004
 |
ABSTRACT |
|---|
 TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTIONMETHODRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
Key Words: simulations • practical classes • bioinformatics • karyotyping • undergraduate • chromosomes
|
INTRODUCTION |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMETHODRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
It has also been suggested that virtual laboratories offer an additional set of potential advantages as follows:
Research in this field also challenges the notion that computer-based simulations are, in some way, inferior to "real" practical classes, suggesting that student performance in assessments is comparable (Dewhurst et al., 1994; Leathard and Dewhurst, 1995). In this regard, Hughes (2000) adds the caveat that this is only appropriate if the learning outcomes of the practical class do not include the development of laboratory-based skills. The ability to use laboratory equipment and reagents or manipulate test animals can be an essential learning outcome of a practical class, but this is not always the case. For instance, if the learning outcomes focus on the interpretation and manipulation of data, virtual laboratories can provide workable alternatives.
In this study, we test the hypothesis that, in certain situations, computer simulations can provide an improvement in student learning compared with real, or traditional, laboratory classes. For the purposes of this study, improvement is measured objectively either as a decrease in the time taken for students to study to a given level of performance (efficiency) or by an increase in the marks they achieve in assessment (effectiveness). To test this hypothesis, we evaluated two simulations, the first in chromosome analysis (karyotyping) and the second in bioinformatics.
In all cells, chromosome condensation occurs in a very ordered fashion, and the distinct pattern of chromosomes (karyotype) is easily recognizable to the trained eye for most organisms. The ability to karyotype humans is essential in clinical diagnostics and physical gene mapping and is thus a skill taught in practical classes in many university biological science departments. Conversations with colleagues reveal that, traditionally, students are given a photograph of a chromosome preparation, scissors, and glue and asked to cut out, arrange, and stick the chromosomes in the correct order (Paris Conference, 1971). It has been suggested to us through several personal communications that large amounts of time are spent cutting and pasting, leaving proportionally less time available for analysis; this is also supported by our own experience. Other colleagues have, however, suggested that the physical cutting and pasting does not significantly affect time and, in any event, is a task that is enjoyed by the students. With this in mind, we propose the hypothesis that a computer-based simulation provides a significantly quicker alternative to cutting and pasting and leads to higher marks in the subsequent assessment.
The second study involves a practical class in bioinformatics (genome analysis). Skills that students need to develop include accessing existing Human Genome Mapping Project databases and answering a variety of biological questions directly at the computer terminal. Traditionally these classes are taught by didactic lectures and practical computer laboratories. A tutor would take the class through each stage in selected examples. In this study, we test the hypothesis that students learn more effectively in a bioinformatics class that involves a set of computer-based lectures and computer simulations of database navigation compared with the traditional approach.
|
METHOD |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMETHODRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
Study 1: Chromosome Analysis
In the first study, a cohort of level-one undergraduates in the Department
of Biological Sciences at Brunel University (West London) were recruited. To
match the groups as much as possible according to academic ability, students
were pretested on their knowledge of basic genetics, and this data was used to
divide them into two groups of equal size and ability. Group A undertook the
traditional approach to learning the skill of chromosome analysis involving a
photograph, scissors, and glue (Figure
1), whereas group B undertook the computer-based simulation
approach. The development of the aforementioned computer simulation
("KaryoLab") has been reported by us previously
(Gibbons et al., 2003)
and involves a series of drag and drop interactions that were incorporated
into the program with images of individual chromosomes
(Figure 2). Both groups were
given a 30-minute lecture on the rudiments of karyotyping and one karyotyping
exercise to perform in order to learn and practice the skill of analysis. For
both groups, the chromosome images were identical. Group A received formative
feedback from their tutor on their performance, whereas in group B in the
virtual laboratory, if chromosomes were positioned incorrectly, they returned
immediately to their original position. In a second exercise, both groups were
given an identical image of a chromosome preparation. Group A did the exercise
with scissors and glue and group B with KaryoLab. In this case no formative
feedback was given and student performance was assessed. The time involved in
completing the learning section and the assessment was not constrained for
either group; however, location was constrained to prevent collusion between
groups. The time taken for each student to perform both sections was logged so
comparisons could be drawn. For the virtual laboratory (KaryoLab), marking was
automatic and a feature of the Authorware 6.0 software. For the students
undertaking the traditional approach, marking was performed by a tutor. Any
differences between the marks for groups A and B were evaluated by an unpaired
one-tailed Student's t-test.
|
|
In addition, student opinion of KaryoLab was evaluated by 10 final-year undergraduates in the Biological Sciences Department. These were a different subset of students than did the comparative studies outlined above who did both exercises. Students were asked 18 closed questions on a five-point Likert scale.
Study 2: Bioinformatics
The virtual laboratory for bioinformatics was written in the same learning
environment as KaryoLab. In this case the virtual laboratory consisted of
"virtual lectures" (Evans and
Fan, 2002) on the subject material (which included the use of NCBI
and NIX databases), followed by an exercise in genome database searching (see
Figures 3, 4). The exercise
involved a simulation of the appropriate databases with relevant instruction
of how to perform a series of example operations (e.g., searching for the
alkaline phosphatase gene). This compares with the traditional approach in
which students are given an oral lecture by the tutor and then asked to
perform the same exercise on the real databases overseen by the tutor.
Specifically, students were given instructions on how to perform the various
analyses and how to identify CpG islands, definitions of specific terms such
as STS and clones, and the use of different NCBI databases such as Map Viewer,
Locus Link, and Unigene. In both "real" and "virtual"
modes, the subject matter was the same. The use of a simulation of a database
rather than a real database has the advantage that it is possible to trap
mistakes made by the student before the consequences have a drastic effect on
the whole experiment. This is much like the early spotting of a mistake in the
use of physical equipment in a real laboratory. The major differences between
the lecture-delivered and the electronic-delivered styles are summarized in
Table 1. In this study, a
cohort of level-two undergraduates in the Department of Biological Sciences at
Brunel University were recruited. These students were randomly assigned into
one of two test groups (A and B). The bioinformatics teaching material and
exercises were divided into two topics (1 and 2). In this case the time taken
was roughly the same for both real and virtual exercises. That is, the
students were given 1 h to complete each of the virtual lectures and a 3-h
session for each of the practical exercises.
|
|
The experimental design involved both groups experiencing both teaching techniques (real and virtual). This allows a comparative analysis to be undertaken, obviates the need to pretest the students, and has the advantage that the sample size is effectively doubled. To achieve this, group A undertook topic 1 using the virtual approach and topic 2 with the real approach. Conversely, group B undertook topic 1 with the real approach and topic 2 with the virtual approach. At the end of each topic, both groups were given the same assessed assignment on the material. The assessments were carried out under examination conditions, and both groups were kept separate during the learning process and the assessments to prevent students from different groups communicating. For this study both the time and location were constrained. The assignments were marked anonymously by the tutor in both approaches. We felt that this approach was not appropriate in study 1 because karyotyping is a generic skill applicable to all G-banded chromosome preparations. Thus, students would learn karyotyping by one means in the first exercise and then, if the groups were reversed, use that knowledge in the second, negating the significance of the results comparison.
Any significant differences were evaluated by one-tailed Student's t-tests.
|
RESULTS |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMETHODRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
|
Time Analysis. The results of the time analysis are displayed in Table 3. In both cases, practice and assessment, group B using KaryoLab was able to complete the sections faster than group A. In the practice session, group B took almost a quarter of the time (unpaired samples t-test, t(30) = 11.96, one-tailed p, .001). In the assessment itself, group B (using KaryoLab) took less than half the time taken by group A, who all used scissors and glue (unpaired samples t-test, t(32) = 8.03, one-tailed p, .001).
|
Questionnaires. The results for study 1 questionnaires are in Table 4. Because these were a different set of students than those who did the tests and because these students did both exercises compared with those above, who only did one, it was not possible to triangulate qualitative and quantitative data in this case. The responses were, however, generally positive. The most notable response was 100% of the students asked would have preferred to complete KaryoLab over the real lab with the scissors and glue method.
|
The tutor also reported that it was much easier to perform practical classes with KaryoLab than with the scissors and glue approach, in that students (after about half an hour of tuition) could go off and do the exercise in their own time. In contrast the scissors and glue approach required a dedicated 3-h session with postgraduate "demonstrator" help and the inevitable hazards of losing cut-out chromosome images because of open windows, passing colleagues, coughing, sneezing, sighing, etc. Now KaryoLab has completely replaced the scissors and glue approach in our classroom because of the perceived increase in popularity.
Study 2
Assessment marks. A total of 30 students took part in study
2. Topic 1 was studied and assessed 1 wk before topic 2. The number of
students in each group and their mean marks are given in
Table 5. Collapsing the groups
(and removing students who didn't take both tests for direct comparisons on
the same students) gives a mean score of 59.5% for students doing the virtual
lectures and simulation and 58.0% for students receiving a real lecture and
traditional laboratory session. However this difference is not statistically
significant (paired samples t-test, t(24) = 0.25, one-tailed
p = .40). Results are similar if the three students who took topic 2
but not topic 1 are included.
|
The experimental design allows for a possible interaction between the topic studied and the delivery (real or virtual); therefore, we should also consider the uncollapsed results.
For topic 1, the mean score was 7.4% higher in the virtual mode compared with the real mode. This result is statistically significant (unpaired samples t-test, t(25) = 1.78, one-tailed p = .04).
For topic 2, by contrast, the mean score was 9.9% lower in the virtual mode compared with the real mode. This result is not, however, statistically significant (unpaired samples t-test, t(28) = 1.04, one-tailed p = .15).
In this case, the time to complete the exercises was roughly the same for real and virtual exercises; however, this outcome reflects the fact that time was restricted for these exercises. Anecdotally it seems that the students were taking roughly the same time to finish the exercises, but the range was greater in the virtual exercises, with some students finishing much earlier and others taking more time. The tutor reported that the practical sessions were much less stressful; that is, they were not being called for assistance by quite so many students at one time and not as many postgraduate student "demonstrators" were needed.
|
DISCUSSION |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMETHODRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
The use of computer-based simulations in undergraduate practical classes is becoming more widespread (Dewhurst et al., 1992, 1994; Hughes, 2000; Maury and Gascuel, 1999; Modell, 1989). For the most part however, studies concentrate on making the experience at least as good or nearly as good as the real practical class. The benefits of safety and flexibility are often highlighted in these studies. To the best of our knowledge however, this study is among the first to consider the ability of a computer-based simulation to achieve a significant improvement in student learning. Clearly in instances where students are required to manipulate laboratory equipment or reagents, computer simulations would not be appropriate. In the two cases considered in this study—chromosome analysis and bioinformatics—the use of a virtual laboratory can represent an overall improvement. The issue of when and whether computer-based simulations should be considered for simulating practical classes is entirely dependent on the intended learning outcomes. In study 1 (karyotyping) the intended learning outcome was that students should be able to accurately analyze chromosomes. For the real laboratory, the necessary skill of accurately cutting and pasting chromosomes from a photograph was not one of the intended outcomes. Thus, achievement was measured by their karyotype mark and, although these were not significantly different for each group, the group using KaryoLab were able to complete the exercises in a much shorter time frame, thereby allowing them to practice more karyotypes (and hence hone their skills) more efficiently. In study 2 (bioinformatics) the learning outcomes were the accurate and confident use of the NIX and NCBI databases. These learning outcomes were measured by the tests described in this paper. In this case the use of computer simulation is not only entirely consistent with the intended outcomes, but also helps to reinforce them.
This paper investigates the effect of short-term learning but does not address the issue of whether learning practical exercises via multimedia reinforces long-term student learning compared with traditional approaches. Previous research, however, suggests that computer-based packages show a significant improvement in both the short term and long term for deep learning, as shown with transfer tests (Mayer et al., 2003). To the best of our knowledge, the effect of multimedia-based approaches on long-term learning has yet to be tested in the context of simulations of student practical classes, and this will form the basis of future studies in our group.
Finally it is important to note that, although the main advantages of the use of virtual laboratories are for the students and their learning, there are also important benefits for lecturers. The time spent marking assessments can be almost eliminated by integrated computer assessment, and the time spent lecturing can be considerably reduced by the provision of virtual lectures.
We suggest that the results presented in this study provide evidence of the advantages of computer-based practical classes over traditional ones, at least in the subject areas presented. Combined with the advantages they offer in terms of flexibility in time, location, pace, and process, they can offer a potentially more efficient mode of teaching for lecturers and a more effective and efficient mode of learning for students. Further studies will establish examples of other practical class scenarios to which this pertains.
|
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS |
|---|
|
FOOTNOTES |
|---|
1 Potential conflict of interest: The authors were involved in both
production and review of the products reported in this paper. 
Corresponding author. E-mail address:
darren.griffin{at}brunel.ac.uk.
|
REFERENCES |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMETHODRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
Dewhurst, D.G., Hardcastle, J., Hardcastle, P., and Williams, A.D. (1992). An interactive computer-simulation of experiments to teach the principles of nutrient transport in the small intestine. Alt. Lab Anim. 20,529 -535.
Dewhurst, D.G., Hardcastle, J., Hardcastle, P.T., and Stuart, E. (1994). Comparison of a computer simulation program and a traditional laboratory practical class for teaching the principles of intestinal absorption. Adv. Physiol. Educ. 12(1),S94 -S104.
Evans, C., and Edwards, M. (1999). Navigational Interface Design for Multimedia Courseware. J. Educ. Multimedia Hypermedia 8(2),151 -174.
Evans, C., and Fan, J. (2002). Lifelong learning through the Virtual University. J. Campus Wide Inf. Syst. Multimedia Syst. Lifelong Learning Success Challeng. 19(4),127 -134.
Gibbons, N.J., Evans, C., and Griffin, D.K. (2003). The teaching of chromosome analysis in higher education. Development and evaluation of a novel learning tool. Cytogenet. Genome Res. 101, 1-4.[Medline]
Heerman, D.W., and Fuhrmann, T.T. (2000). Teaching physics in the virtual university: the mechanics toolkit. Comput. Phys. Commun. 127,11 -15.[CrossRef]
Hughes, I.E. (2000). Alternatives to laboratory practicals—do they meet the needs? Innov. Educ. Teach. Int. 38(1),3 -7.
Leathard, H.L., and Dewhurst, D.G. (1995). Comparison of the cost-effectiveness of a computer-assisted learning program with a tutored demonstration to teach intestinal motility to medical students,Assoc. Learn. Technol. J. 3(1),118 -125.
Maury, O., and Gascuel, D. (1999). SHADYS, a GIS based numerical model of fisheries. Example application: the study of a marine protected area. Aquat. Living Resour. 12(2),77 -88.
Mayer, R.E., Dow, G.T., and Mayer, S. (2003). Multimedia learning in an interactive self-explaining environment: what works best in the design of agent based microworlds?. J. Educ. Psychol. 95(4),806 -813.[CrossRef]
Modell, H.L. (1989). Can technology replace live preparations in student laboratories? Adv. Physiol. Educ. 6(3),S18 -S20.
Najjar, L. (1996). Multimedia information and learning. J. Educ. Multimedia Hypermedia 5,129 -150.
O'Hare, D., Mackenzie, D., O'Reily, C., and Wilkins, H.1998 . Practical assessment using the TRIADS computer-based assessment system. Life Sci. Educ. Comput. 9(3),1 -3.
Paris Conference. (1971). Paris Conference: Standardization in Human Cytogenetics: Birth Defects. Original Article Ser. 8,1 -46.
Race, P. (1994). The Open Learning Handbook, 2nd ed. London: Kogan Page.
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  E. Meir, J. Perry, D. Stal, S. Maruca, and E. Klopfer How Effective Are Simulated Molecular-level Experiments for Teaching Diffusion and Osmosis? CBE Life Sci Educ, September 1, 2005; 4(3): 235 - 248. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
