What Can Students Learn from Virtual Labs?
Wendy Keeney-Kennicutt (Texas A&M University); Kurt Winkelmann (Florida Institute of Technology)
Abstract
The educational benefits of students performing simulated chemistry laboratory experiments in the 3D,
immersive, virtual world of Second Life (SL) are being investigated at Texas A&M University by
students enrolled in General Chemistry II Laboratory, with funding provided by a 3 year NSF grant. This
fall, 90 students have completed two weeks of lab activities in Second Life while 400 other students
complete the same experiments in a real laboratory. In Spring 2014, 100 students will perform SL
experiments and over 2000 students will participate in the control group. This will be repeated for the
2014-2015 school year.
This project will answer the following research questions:
• How does the laboratory environment (Second Life or the real world) affect students’ ability to achieve
the learning goals of the laboratory experiment, including content knowledge and kinesthetic
skills?
• How does the laboratory environment affect students’ attitudes towards learning chemistry in the
laboratory and performing laboratory work?
Our assessment methods include surveys, focus groups, pre/post lab quizzes, lab reports and a practical
exercise in which student assemble parts of a laboratory apparatus. Differences in student outcomes due
to academic background or demographic characteristics will be analyzed. This study is the first to
evaluate students’ learning and attitudes in a Second Life chemistry laboratory. If we find that SL
experiments lead to better student attitude and academic performance in the lab, the information would be
most useful for (1) designing new on-line distance learning science lab experiments and (2) creating a
viable alternative for schools which do not offer chemistry laboratory courses.
Introduction
Virtual worlds offer chemical educators an interesting new platform for faculty and students to interact in
order to augment or even replace existing classroom and laboratory sessions. Virtual worlds provide a
visually rich, three dimensional environment in which users interact with each other and virtual objects.
Each user controls an avatar, the user’s representation in the virtual world. By creating content for the
world, educators can design new learning activities that would not be possible in the real world.
Second Life is the mostly widely used and well known virtual world and is maintained by Linden Labs.
Users communicate with each other through audio using a headset and microphone or through instant
messages and they interact with their surroundings by clicking on objects with the mouse pointer. Access
to Second Life is free (with some age restrictions for young users). The success of Second Life is due to
Linden Labs providing the platform for the virtual world but allowing users to create their own content
(similar to YouTube maintaining the website but users uploading their own videos). Users can write
programming code within Second Life to create objects and control their properties using Linden
Scripting Language, a language similar to C+ and JAVA.
Second Life is not a game - there are no predetermined goals, scoring or inherent competition. Instead,
Second Life is designed to promote socialization, communication and exploration among avatars. Second
Life has its own economy based on the Linden dollar (L$), which users can exchange for real world
currencies. Users purchase Linden dollars so that they can buy items for their avatar. Users can purchase
Fall 2013 ACS CHED CCCE Newsletter
1
land in Second Life (server space) in order to own and maintain their own section of the world. Land
owners can modify land features and control access to their property. This is important to educators who
might only want students to enter their part of Second Life.
Use of Second Life in education is growing, as is the research showing its effectiveness. Students can
feel more comfortable attending class in Second Life compared to a real classroom.(1) Since many
students attend class online, Second Life can provide a sense of “presence”, which is important in
distance learning classes.(2-4) Many studies report that students respond positively to learning within
virtual worlds when added to an existing course(2,5-8) and influences their grades as well.(6-8)
Educators in information systems,(5) computer science,(6) biology,(7) medicine(9, 10) and chemistry(1115) have all used Second Life for their courses. Two reviews explain how chemists use Second Life in
the classroom.(11, 16)
Dr. Wendy Keeney-Kennicutt, project Co-PI, completed an extensive study of using Second Life to teach
students about 3D molecular shapes and Valence Shell Electron Pair Repulsion (VSEPR) theory. She
employed a quasi-experimental re-/post-test control group research design study on her two Texas A&M
general chemistry lecture classes (a total of 480 students). The experimental group performed activities
w i t h 3 D m o l e c u l e s in Second Life while the control group did the same activities using 2D
images which were screen shots of SL images. U l t i m a t e l y , s h e f o u n d t h a t students working in
a 3-D environment did show subtle but significant differences in increased student ability by the SL
group for interpreting routine 2D presentations of 3D chemical structures using solid lines, dashed lines
and wedges.(13, 14, 15, 17)
The Study
Although STEM educators use Second Life in a variety of ways, no virtual laboratory experiments are
available. More importantly, it is not clear how well such lab experiments might compare to real world
experiments in terms of students’ learning and attitudes.
A year ago, we received a 3 year NSF TUES grant entitled “Evaluating Students’ Learning and Attitudes
in a Virtual Chemistry Laboratory.” The first year was spent developing assessment tools and two
laboratories that were as identical as possible to two laboratories that were part of the curriculum in
second semester general chemistry laboratory at Texas A&M University; we used two professional SL
programmers in the development process. Our goals were to measure students’ attitudes towards the real
world and virtual experiments, their ability to achieve the learning goals of both types of experiments and
the students’ development of kinesthetic skills during the experiments.
Here is a link to a 20 minute video tour of the facilities:
http://www.chem.tamu.edu/class/fyp/keeney/Chemistry%20World%20tour/tour-SLlab/tour-SLlab.html
Fall 2013 ACS CHED CCCE Newsletter
2
Figures 1-3 show the Second Life environment.
Figure 1. The virtual laboratory building on Chemistry World Island
Figure 2. The virtual labroom.
Fall 2013 ACS CHED CCCE Newsletter
3
Figure 3. Super-sized equipment for the first SL experiment behind Dr. Keeney-Kennicutt’s avatar
The lab experiments were designed to mimic as closely as possible the actual lab experiments. In Second
Life, students assemble equipment and perform the experiment by clicking on chemicals and pieces of
laboratory equipment, and use menus to select other options. They wear headsets with microphones to
communicate with their lab partner and TA. Students record their own data and their results depend on
their actions, just like in a real chemistry laboratory experience. A student’s mistake in performing
the procedure or inattention to details affects the experimental results. Although the mathematical
equations that are a part of the experiment’s programming code provide perfectly precise results, the
code also introduces a small degree of randomness into the results so that the data “looks real.” Just as in
a real classroom, no two sets of data from the SL experiments are exactly the same. Students still have to
read volumes in graduated cylinders, graduated pipets and burets. The first SL experiment, Experiment 2:
Molar Mass Determination, involved collecting gas over water and the ideal gas law to determine the
molar mass of the gas in a butane lighter. The second SL experiment, Experiment 3: Precipitation
Titrations, involved 7 argentometric titrations, to determine the salinity of 2 San Antonio bay water
samples at one location in the bay at two different times. Each pair of students had samples from a
different part of the bay.
Fall 2013 Pilot Study
This fall was our pilot study. Four experienced teaching assistants were chosen who would teach one
section in SL and the other as normal. Their schedules determined which sections were chosen as the
experimental group. On the first day of lab during week 1, students signed their IRB consent forms and
took an on-line survey. Four sections (69 students) were in the experimental group and 19 sections (371
students) were in the control group. Here were the student demographics:
College:
Year:
27% engineering, 18% education, 16% agriculture, 14% science, 11% biomedical science
plus 14% in geoscience, liberal arts, business and general studies.
50% sophomore, 21% freshman, 18% junior and 11% senior
Fall 2013 ACS CHED CCCE Newsletter
4
Semesters at TAMU: 30% less than 1 semester, 27% 2 semesters, 20% 3 semesters
Age:
98% 18-24 with 2% under 18 and 1% 25-34
Gender:
56% female and 44% male
Ethnicity: 66% white (non-Hispanic), 15% Hispanic, 10% Asian, 5% mixed and 3% black.
Among other facts, we found that 99% of students had access to computers or laptops with 94% using
them daily and 34% own or have access to a tablet. The top 5 uses for computers are: email, doing
homework, using social media, watching videos and doing research. However, 87% had little to no
experience with online virtual worlds. Training is critical for a student’s success in a virtual world.
During week 1, the experimental group was introduced to SL on the laboratory computers. Each student
created their avatar and was able to find their way within the program to the area where they would be
professionally trained. Our trainer is located out-of-state. She and the co-PI met with 12 groups of
students the following week within Second Life for a 30 – 40 minute training period to give proper lab
attire and lab goggles to their avatars, teach them to read a buret and graduated cylinder, give access to
the study area on the Chemistry World island and find the classroom. There is a learning curve to Second
Life. Students need to feel comfortable controlling their avatars in SL, so they can concentrate on doing
the experiment and not the software. As a note, the first lab was short, so students who missed training
were able to get trained as well as complete the lab.
During week 2, all students did the first lab as normal. For weeks 3 and 4, the experimental group met at
their normal time at a nearby computer lab and the control group met in their regular lab room to do the
second and the third labs. See Figures 4, 5, 6, and 7. At the start of each period, all students would take a
5 question multiple choice quiz on the procedure. Then the TA either in SL or the normal lab would
show a PowerPoint presentation explaining the lab and the lab would begin. As students finished, they
would take the identical quiz again. During week 5, a practicum on the week 3 lab procedure was given
to the 8 sections taught by the experienced TAs: 4 SL sections and 4 control sections. During week 5, the
4 TAs took an on-line survey and in week 6, they participated in a focus group. In week 8, the control
group took an on-line attitudinal survey during lab and the experimental group took a lengthier similar
survey in lab. At the end of the week, volunteers from the experimental group took part in a focus group.
A subset of both the experimental and control groups took an additional on-line survey to help the
assessment team better understand and interpret the attitudinal survey results from Week 8. The
assessment team also received all student lab report grades for the two labs under study.
Figure 4a. Prelab lecture in the SL classroom.
Fall 2013 ACS CHED CCCE Newsletter
Figure 4b. Prelab lecture in the computer lab.
5
Figure 5a. TA giving prelab lecture
Figure 6a. Students in SL lab preparing to begin
their experiments.
Figure 5b. Students listening to prelab lecture.
Figure 6b. The actual lab at TAMU
Figure 7a,b. Students completing Exp. 2 in SL.
Fall 2013 ACS CHED CCCE Newsletter
6
Here are links to videos, demonstrating the Second Life activities in the computer lab.
 Students in the computer lab – clip 1
 Students in the computer lab – clip 2
 Students in the computer lab – clip 3
 Students in Second Life – clip 1
 Focus on the PI instructor – clip 1
 Focus on the PI instructor – clip 2
Preliminary Results and Discussion
Here are some of our findings for the Fall 2013 Pilot Study:
No significant differences were seen between the SL group and the control group in
 Bauer’s “Attitude toward Subject of Chemistry Inventory” (18)
 Student lab reports
 Pre- post- lab quiz for Experiment 2, the more straightforward gas experiment.
 Practicum based on the procedure: collecting gas over water. This was interesting since the SL
group never handled the equipment. However, a few students in the control group mentioned that
they did not do part of the procedure; their partner did. Since students work in pairs and divide
the labor, half the students do not get hands-on experience on every part of a procedure.
We did see some intriguing differences between the two groups:
 There were significant differences in the pre- post- lab quiz results for Experiment 3, the more
difficult argentometric titration lab. The gain in score was 1.22±1.12 (N=78) for the SL group as
opposed to only 0.50±1.07 (N=349) with p<2E-7 and Cohen’s d = 0.66, a large effect size. We
did not expect the SL group to do so much better. Here are student comments to shed light on
this finding.
o
In the second life, experiment process would be done only if you clicked the right button,
which meant students had to think about the process carefully. So, the details in the
experiment could stay in students' head longer than doing the real world experiment,
because in the real world, students knew how to do but did not think about how to do.
o
The simplicity of the procedure on second life made me understand it very well. For me, I
think instead of me worrying about doing the experiment 100% correct, I was able to
focus on what all was going on in the procedure to get a better understanding of it.
o
I think it was because that in Second Life the program prompts you to perform tasks all
the time, therefore making you reread the procedure over and over again. These repetitive
prompts help to imprint the information in your head and allow you to fully understand
the procedure better than the students reading the book once and performing the lab in the
real world. I, personally, thought it helped me to remember the lab procedure very well
and made me understand what I was doing a lot more than just performing the lab in the
real world in the classroom.
o
I think that the students who performed Experiment #3 in Second Life rather than in the
real world probably understood the lab procedure better because they got to do it in a
cleaner environment. When I say this, I do not mean that the labs in the real world are
dirty, only that they are far more daunting. The Second Life labs were cleaner and easier
Fall 2013 ACS CHED CCCE Newsletter
7
to understand in that each piece of equipment corresponded to one or very few functions
in respect to the lab, whereas equipment and procedures in the real world forced students
to make decisions based on a larger choice pool. In my experience, the Second Life lab
was easier to understand because the briefing was thorough, the chemicals and equipment
were prepared beforehand, and the equipment offered a list of choices rather than forcing
me to make one up on my own. This way, we could focus on the importance and meaning
of the lab, rather than hurrying to get it done while trying to not spill chemicals all over
ourselves.

o
The fact that all the materials are laid out in front of you and the directions when you
click on each material really helps. I think that it gives us a better understanding of how
to do the procedures and helps us also to memorize how it is done. Also, it when the
directions are given in that format, I for one felt like i was doing the experiment correctly
instead of always second guessing myself when doing experiments in real life.
o
Using Second Life helped me understand the Experiments more than if I did the
experiments in the real world. This is because having the materials and everything
organized right in front of you and your partner made a lot easier to grasp everything
because instead of focusing on if we are using the right chemicals or materials, you can
focus on what you are doing and learning and what is happening during the experiment.
Also, this generation is more computer oriented so I think that helped with it, too. This is
because since we liked computers we loved that we could do our labs on the computers
instead of in the lab room, so we paid attention more while we were doing the experiment
on Second Life.
We found differences in attitude toward lab from a survey based on the Inquiry Laboratory
Attitude Survey (19), a semantic differential survey.
o
In general, SL students found their SL experiments likeable, easy and quick to do. They
thought the SL experiments took less time and had better grades. However, they thought
they would learn more by doing the real world labs. Selected student comments:

SL labs are far less stressful than real world labs. In real world labs, students are
very concerned about the lab procedures and being a good laboratory student (i.e.
safety, not wasting materials, not breaking equipment, etc.). However in Second
Life, students did not need to worry about these things because they were
essentially removed from the situation. This allowed the student to focus more on
the lab itself and its consequences rather than hurrying to get it done within the
time limit. In SL labs, we were allowed to think critically as we performed the
lab. In real life labs, all of the thinking was done later. The only drawback I see
to this is that when students do the SL labs, they lose their care for being safe in
the lab and conducting good lab procedure. But critical thinking, at least to me, is
more important than the ability to pour an acid in a waste beaker rather than the
sink.

I think that students found the Second Life labs more fun and easier to complete
because of the virtual aspect of them. There was no mess, no inherent danger
with chemicals, glassware, lighters, etc. and the clicking aspect of completing a
lab was very user friendly. For example, when clicking a piece of equipment, the
menu of available choices made the lab simple and user-friendly because it
Fall 2013 ACS CHED CCCE Newsletter
8
minimized user error and helped with the understanding of the procedure and
possible options for that equipment. Although these menu options made the lab
simpler, I do think that the Second Life labs lacked something that the real world
labs provided, which is that they over-simplified the laboratory and made the
experiment a clicking game instead of a hands-on discovery process. I think that
the menu-clicking aspect of Second Life took the discovery, albeit the chance for
mistakes, out of the experiment. The Second Life labs were more fun, faster, and
sometimes less tedious than the real world labs though, because of the way it
made the experiment feel like a game.
o
o
When SL student attitudes toward their SL and RL experiments were compared more
thoroughly, it was found that they liked their SL labs and RL labs the same and thought
they were both fun. There were large significant differences between their attitudes
towards SL and RL labs on ease and time for performing the labs, ease, effort, time and
thinking/analyzing when writing lab reports with the real world labs being more difficult,
taking longer and requiring more thinking and analyzing. Selected student comments:

Students who did the Second Life Experiment enjoyed he lab more than the
students who did the real world labs because since there was a TA and other
students to help each other, the students were able to understand the lab and not
be confused about the procedures. A lab becomes enjoyable when one can
understand what they are doing. Since there is a TA and other people to help each
other out during the lab, it makes the lab easier. The TA can help answer
questions about the lab that students do not understand. Thus, an easy lab is an
enjoyable lab.

The second life labs provided the same information about the experiments
without the frustration of improper measurement of chemicals, setting up the lab,
and cleaning the equipment. In second life, there were only a few functions
possible whereas in real life experiments, there are an infinite number of actions
with equipment. Real life requires extensive decision making, and therefore real
world experiments are subject to greater error. In second life, students were only
concerned with learning the chemistry concepts instead of being worried about
making mistakes and incorrectly performing the experiment. The second life labs
were also exciting because they were new and used technology which is more
stimulating.

It was a whole lot easier on second life because it was all point and click work
instead of the hard work in real life. Also help was just one click away and Bruno
(the TA) appeared out of no where.
On average, the SL students like the real lab experiments just as much as they liked their
SL experiments. This means that they liked their real world labs significantly more than
the students who had only done real world labs. In fact, SL students who said that they
liked their SL experiments were 3.4 times more likely than the control group to say they
liked their real life experiments, 2.4 times more likely to say they thought their real world
experiments were easy, 2.0 times more likely to say they took less effort, and 2.2 times
more likely to say they found real world experiments fun to do. Selected student
comments:
Fall 2013 ACS CHED CCCE Newsletter
9

Second life experiments are just as effective and enjoyable as the real world
experiments because they are both hands on and makes learning the material
from the experiment that much easier.

Maybe after doing the second life labs we were more excited about the normal
labs because they were different. I think that adding a little variety to the lab
made it more exciting for a lot of people. It gets pretty dull when you do
relatively the same thing every day.

I think that the Second Life students better appreciated the hands-on lab
environment after participating in the virtual lab environment. I think that this is
because in the virtual lab experiment, I almost felt as if what I was doing, the
experiment, didn’t actually matter or count for anything because it was all in a
virtual environment. I felt like I wasn't actually making anything happen, just
watching something happen on the screen in front of me. When I got back into
the real world lab, I much more appreciated the live face-to-face interaction with
my TA and my lab partner, actually touching and measuring and doing the
experiments manually. I liked the Second Life experiments, but I liked the real
world experiments much better because they were tangible and I felt like I was
actually doing something and getting results instead of just pointing and clicking.

This could be because every student is different. Some like to be hands on and
some don't. Doing a second lab may seem more work for students and they may
not like that. Second lab experiments give me insight on the experiment and may
be more enjoyable for certain students and not others.
Conclusions
The data are still being analyzed for this pilot study. We still have the TA survey, TA focus group, the
student focus group and their written comments to examine. We hope to glean more interesting findings
as we move forward with the study for 3 more semesters.
Fall 2013 ACS CHED CCCE Newsletter
10
References
1. Lamoureux, E. “Teaching Field Research in a Virtual World” In R. Smith (Ed.), 2007 NMC summer
conference proceedings, Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium, 2007, pp. 105-110.
2. Sanchez, Joe “Pedagogical applications of Second Life” Libr. Technol. Rep. 2009, 45(2), 21-28.
3. Feldon, D. F.; Kafai, Y. B. “Mised Methods for Mixed Reality: Understanding Users’ Avatar Activities
in Virtual Worlds” Educ. Technol. Res. Dev. 2008, 56(5-6), 575-593.
4. Edirisingha, P.; Nie, M.; Pluciennik, M.; Young, R. “Socialization of Learning at a Distance in a 3-D
Multi-User Virtual Environment” Brit. J. Educ. Technol. 2009, 40(3), 458-479.
5. Dreher, Carl; Reiners, Torsten; Dreher, Naomi “Virtual Worlds as a Context Suited for Information
Systems Education: Discussion of Pedagogical Experience and Curriculum Design with Reference to
Second Life” J. Info. Sys. Educ. 2009, 20(2), 211-224.
6. Wang, Yuanqiong; Braman, James “Extending the Classroom through Second Life” J. Inform. Sys.
Educ. 2009, 20(2), 235-247.
7. Cobb, Stephanie; Heaney, Rose; Corcoran, Olivia; Henderson-Begg; Stephanie “The Learning Gains
and Student Perceptions of a Second Life Virtual Lab” Biosci. Educ. 2009, 13, 1-9.
8. Hew, Khe Foon; Cheung, Wing Sum “Use of Three-Dimensional (3-D) Immersive Virtual Worlds in
K-12 and Higher Education Settings: A Review of the Research” Brit. J. Educ. Technol. 2010, 41(1),
33-55.
9. Salmon, Gilly; Nie, Ming; Edirisingha, Palitha “Developing a Five-Stage Model of Learning in Second
Life” Educ. Res. 2010, 52(2), 169-182.
10. Delwiche, Aaron “Massively Multiplayer Online Games (MMOs) in the New Media Classroom”
Educ. Technol. Soc. 2006, 9(3), 160-172.
11. Bradley, Jean-Claude; Lang, Andrew S.I.D. “Chemistry in Second Life” Chem. Central J. 2009, 3, 120.
12. Lang, Andrew S.I.D. and Kobilnyk, D. C. “Visualizing Atomic Orbitals Using Second Life” J. Virtual
Worlds Res. 2009, 2(1), 4-8.
13. Merchant, Z., Goetz, E.T., Keeney-Kennicutt, W., Kwok, O., Cifuentes, L., Davis, T.J., The Learner
Characteristics, Features of Desktop 3D Virtual Reality Environments, and College Chemistry
Instruction: A Structural Equation Modeling Analysis, Computers & Education (2012) doi:
10.1016/j.compedu.2012.02.004
14. Merchant, Z., Goetz, E.T., Keeney-Kennicutt, W., Kwok, O., Cifuentes, L., Davis, T.J., (2013)
Exploring 3-D Virtual Reality Technology for Spatial ability and Chemistry Achievement, Journal of
Computer Assisted Learning. 12 JUN 2013, DOI: 10.1111/jcal.12018
15. Keeney-Kennicutt, W.L. & Merchant, Z. “Virtual Worlds and Their Uses in Chemical Education” in
Pedagogic Roles of Animations and Simulations in Chemistry Courses ACS Symposium Series 1142,
Jerry Suits and Kimberly Pacheco (Eds). 2013; New York: Oxford University Press, pp 181-204.
16. Winkelmann, K. “Virtual Worlds and Their Uses in Chemical Education” in Pedagogic Roles of
Animations and Simulations in Chemistry Courses ACS Symposium Series 1142, Jerry Suits and
Kimberly Pacheco (Eds). 2013; New York: Oxford University Press, pp 161-179.
17. 12th Man Island, location of Dr. Keeney-Kennicutt’s VSEPR project in Second Life,
http://maps.secondlife.com/secondlife/12th%20Man/221/235/26, accessed Nov. 12, 2013.
18. Bauer, Christopher F. “Beyond ‘Student Attitudes’: Chemistry Self-Concept Inventory for Assessment
of the Affective Component of Student Learning” J. Chem. Educ. 2005, 82(12), 1864-1870.
19. Chatterjee, Suparna; Williamson, Vickie M.; McCann, Kathleen; Peck, Larry M. “Surveying
Students’ Attitudes and Perceptions toward Guided-Inquiry and Open-Inquiry Laboratories” J.
Chem. Educ. 2009, 86(12), 1427-1432.
Fall 2013 ACS CHED CCCE Newsletter
11