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, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Iannaccone, P. M., & Jacob, H. J. (2009). Rats! Disease Models & Mechanisms, 2(5–6), 206–210. https://doi.org/10.1242/dmm.002733.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
McComas, W. (2005). Laboratory instruction in the service of science teaching and learning: Reinventing and reinvigorating the laboratory experience. Science Teacher, 72(7), 24.
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).
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.
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.
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.
National Research Council. (2006). America’s lab report: Investigations in high school science (p. 10.17226/11311). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
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.
NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/18290.
Renninger, K. A., & Hidi, S. (2016). The power of interest for motivation and engagement. New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis.
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.
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.
Sandoval, J. (1995). Teaching in subject-matter areas - science. Annual Review of Psychology, 46, 355–374.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
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
About this article
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
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41686-019-00030-5