Article

pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc

Development, Implementation, and Assessment of General

Chemistry Lab Experiments Performed in the Virtual World of
Second Life
Kurt Winkelmann,*,† Wendy Keeney-Kennicutt,‡ Debra Fowler,§ and Maria Macik§
†
Department of Chemistry, Florida Institute of Technology, Melbourne, Florida 32901, United States
‡
Department of Chemistry, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas 77843-3255, United States
§
Center for Teaching Excellence, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas 77843-4246, United States
*
S Supporting Information
See https://pubs.acs.org/sharingguidelines for options on how to legitimately share published articles.

ABSTRACT: Virtual worlds are a potential medium for

teaching college-level chemistry laboratory courses. To
determine the feasibility of conducting chemistry experiments
Downloaded via 114.5.108.253 on June 1, 2020 at 03:14:55 (UTC).

in such an environment, undergraduate students performed

two experiments in the immersive virtual world of Second Life
(SL) as part of their regular General Chemistry 2 laboratory
course. The experiments’ development and implementation
are presented with feedback from students and graduate
teaching assistants. Students successfully completed the
experiments and showed learning gains similar to students
performing real world experiments, as shown by pre/postlab quizzes and a laboratory practicum. Student participants held
positive views of their experience in the SL chemistry laboratory. Teaching assistants provided an important perspective about
using the virtual world for laboratory instruction. Overall, results of this pilot study suggest that virtual worlds can be effective for
teaching chemistry experiments. This is the first account of student learning and attitudes after performing college-level chemistry
experiments in the immersive virtual world of SL.
KEYWORDS: First-Year Undergraduate/General, Laboratory Instruction, Computer-Based Learning, Internet/Web-Based Learning,
Laboratory Computing/Interfacing

■ INTRODUCTION
Chemistry faculty wishing to offer online chemistry classes1 are
challenged to design a laboratory component.2−4 Many options
are available. Students can purchase laboratory kits for
experiments to be performed in the home,4,5 attend a hybrid
course with distance learning lectures and on-campus lab
sessions,6 or they can perform computer-based lab simu-
lations.7,8 Virtual worldsvisually rich, three-dimensional,
highly interactive online environmentsoffer another potential
means for students to learn chemistry laboratory skills.9 Virtual
worlds have several positive features. They provide a realistic
laboratory environment for students to conduct experiments on
and off campus. An instructor can join students in the virtual
world laboratory, or students can conduct experiments
independently and repeatedly at any time. Virtual world
experiments could involve expensive instrumentation, excep-
tionally dangerous chemicals, or unusual working conditions
without the added risk or cost, which can make the experiment
potentially more educational and interesting to students.
Second Life (SL), created and operated by Linden Lab, is a
popular virtual world used for education and the most
commonly studied virtual world in education research.10 With
a free account, a user can create an avatar which serves as the
user’s virtual representation or the character that the user plays
© 2017 American Chemical Society and
Division of Chemical Education, Inc.
in SL. A user begins by selecting a basic human avatar then
customizes the appearance as desired, including clothing and
hairstyle. The user sees and hears what the avatar would be
expected to see and hear by viewing from either a first-person
or nearby third-person perspective. Avatars and all virtual
objects obey the physical laws that have been programmed for
the virtual environment. By default, these are generally in
agreement with those in the real world, but the physical laws
can be modified to allow extraordinary behavior such as flying
and teleportation. Users interact with each other in real time
using a microphone headset, mouse, and keyboard.
Educators use SL for teaching many subjects. Developers
have created authentic replicas of historical sites in which
students learn about the past and present through their own
exploration and role playing.11 Students are learning health-
care,12 computer science,13,14 cybersecurity,15,16 physics,17
veterinary medicine,18 and engineering19 in SL. Few SL science
laboratory experiments are available: students can perform a
polymerase chain reaction (PCR) experiment,20 and students at
Received: October 20, 2016
Revised: April 25, 2017
Published: May 19, 2017
849 DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.6b00733
J. Chem. Educ. 2017, 94, 849−858
Journal of Chemical Education
Figure 1. Screenshot of benchtop 1 used for the SL AgCl titration experiment.
Figure 2. Two avatars work with oversized lab equipment to determine the molar mass of butane. An onscreen menu shows possible actions for the
students to perform.
Prince William Sound College can perform biology experiments
in SL.21
Students also learn chemistry in SL. Viewing 3D models of
atomic orbital and molecular shapes in SL improved students’
satisfaction, self-efficacy, and academic performance.22−24 Lang
and Bradley25 describe the visualization of complex biomole-
cules and reaction mechanisms in SL. Second Life provides a
collaborative environment for students to view and share data.
However, chemistry experiments are rare in SL,26 perhaps due
to the extensive programming required to realistically depict
chemical phenomena.
Several studies indicate that students learn as much17,20,27 in
virtual worlds compared to an analogous real world activity. A
meta-analysis of 69 studies of computer-based simulations,
games, and virtual worlds found that virtual worlds are effective
at improving K-12 and college students’ knowledge-, ability-,
and skill-based learning outcomes.28 However, a 2014 review of
850
Article
research methods in 127 studies of virtual worlds found that
most researchers evaluated users’ performance in controlled
experimental settings, not in authentic classroom conditions.10
Therefore, additional studies conducted in a real classroom
environment are needed.
Educational benefits of virtual worlds justify an investigation
of their use in the chemistry teaching laboratory. The authors
developed two laboratory experiments for SL that mimic
experiments taught in a General Chemistry 2 course at Texas
A&M University.29 Effects of the laboratory environment (real
and virtual) on student learning and attitudes about their lab
experience were assessed over a two-year period and will be
reported in future publications. Here, the authors describe
experiment development, implementation, and initial feedback
from students and teaching assistants (TAs) during the pilot
testing of this project.
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.6b00733
J. Chem. Educ. 2017, 94, 849−858
Journal of Chemical Education
Figure 3. A view of the solution volume within a buret as seen by a student.
■ VIRTUAL LABORATORY DESIGN
Both experiments selected for development in SL were
verification experiments currently taught in the lab course,
and each could be completed in one 3 h session with students
working in pairs. Although the authors recognize the
shortcomings of verification experiments, they are the easiest
to design and implement in SL. Most other experiments in the
school’s general chemistry laboratory curriculum were
verification style as well.
In the first selected experiment, students perform three trials
collecting volumes of butane gas released from a lighter over
water to determine its molar mass. This experiment was
selected for the project because it involves the assembly and
handling of several pieces of equipment. The second experi-
ment involved a series of argentometric titrations to determine
the salinity of a solution. A silver nitrate solution of known
concentration is added to an analyte solution containing an
unknown amount of sodium chloride and indicator. This
titration experiment is more challenging than the typical acid−
base titration both conceptually and experimentally. In the
authors’ experience, a titration is a common procedure in
general chemistry, so it is important to determine if students
can perform it in SL. The student’s view of the SL titration
experiment benchtop is shown in Figure 1. Handouts for both
experiments are included in Supporting Information.
Professional programmers with experience working on
educational projects were hired to translate the experiments
into SL and help conduct student training. The KW research
group practiced the experiments and then recorded video and
images while performing the two experiments in a real world
laboratory. The programmers used these videos and images to
design realistic looking chemicals, chemical and physical
phenomena, and labware. Programmers then coded exper-
imental outcomes such as the color change of the titration
indicator, which depended on students’ actions. Content was
created using the Linden Scripting Language.
851
Article
An initial design challenge was to provide a means for
viewing small details such as markings on graduated glassware.
The zoom feature within SL is inadequate for this task. The
programmers overcame this limitation by enlarging objects in
the laboratory environment so that the student’s avatar was
standing on the virtual lab bench surrounded by enormous
versions of the lab equipment. Because users perform tasks
using onscreen menus or clicking with a mouse cursor, avatars
do not actually handle the comically large virtual laboratory
items. Figure 2 shows an example of two avatars determining
the molar mass of butane and the use of an onscreen menu. In
fact, when users view the virtual world from a first-person
perspective, the lab equipment looks normal, as demonstrated
in Figure 1. The oversized lab equipment enabled students to
easily view markings on measurement glassware, as illustrated
in Figure 3.
Several features of the SL experiments ensure that students
have a realistic laboratory experience: (1) Experimental results
depend on the students’ actions, so skipping a procedural step
will change the experiment’s outcome for the worse. For
instance, forgetting to close the door of the analytical balance
when measuring the mass of the butane lighter would result in
an inaccurate mass value. This affects students’ calculation of
the molar mass of butane. The SL experiment does not stop or
fail, but the students’ results are less accurate. (2) Although the
experimental data is determined algorithmically, the computer
code intentionally adds a small random error. This gives more
realistic-looking data. (3) Avatars within the vicinity of the lab
bench can participate in the experiment, so students work
together in SL just as they do in the real lab room. (4) Students
in the SL group must make observations, record data in lab
handouts, perform calculations, and analyze results in the same
manner as students in the real world lab. The computer
program does not perform any calculations for the student.
Additional design features of the virtual environment were
added to improve students’ learning experience. A reset button
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.6b00733
J. Chem. Educ. 2017, 94, 849−858
Journal of Chemical Education
Figure 4. A student views the prelab briefing by the TA in SL along with other avatars.
Figure 5. Real world and SL laboratory facilities.
at every lab station allows students to restart an experiment if
they make a mistake. All equipment is automatically cleaned,
solution dispensers are refilled, and equipment is returned to its
original position. Avatars at a lab station or in a room can only
see and communicate with other avatars also located at that
same location. They can talk to each other using an in-world
text chat feature or through a microphone headset. Figure 4
shows a student wearing a headset while viewing the prelab
presentation by the TA with other avatars sitting in front of his
avatar. A chat dialogue box appears in the lower right corner of
the screen. This isolation eliminates many distractions.
Students can click on a call button located on the virtual lab
bench to ask the TA for help.
Programmers designed the virtual laboratory to duplicate the
real world setting so that it would be familiar to students.
Images recorded in the real and virtual lab rooms are shown in
Figure 5. Programmers designed common laboratory and
852
Article
briefing rooms and laboratory bench space for each lab group.
They also created areas for students to explore, such as a large
lab building with natural and landscaped areas around it.
Although these features were unnecessary for the students’
assignments, they added to the sense of immersion that users
feel when they are controlling their avatars within SL.30 This
feeling of presence is an important component to a successful
and enjoyable virtual learning environment.30,31
Several aspects of the SL experiments were not realistic due
to technical or practical limitations. Use of SL is free, but
Linden Lab charges users who wish to create a permanent
location. Because this fee is based on the area of virtual land
used, the authors chose to create floating, oversized lab
benchtops positioned above the laboratory building. Lab groups
teleported there from the meeting room. The back wall of the
lab bench is transparent in one direction so that instructors can
monitor students from behind the wall without being noticed.
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.6b00733
J. Chem. Educ. 2017, 94, 849−858
Journal of Chemical Education
Figure 6. An instructor’s avatar in the foreground views two avatars performing an experiment from behind the one-way transparent back wall of the
lab bench. The lab bench is the same as the one pictured in Figure 2.
This is illustrated in Figure 6. The oversized lab bench limited
the avatars’ field of view so that they could not see other lab
benches. Incorporating the limitless choices students could
make during an experiment into the computer programming
was impossible. Students accomplished some tasks, such as
dispensing reagents, using onscreen menus. One such menu
appears in Figure 2. Readers are invited to join SL and request
access from author K.W. or W.K.K. to view or use the
laboratory experiments themselves.32
Costs to build and maintain the SL laboratory spaces and
activities were about $25,000. Although this is a high cost for
just two experiments for four lab sections, the cost does not
necessarily scale proportionally if more experiments are added
because some expenses were due to developing the lab building
and its aesthetics. There would be no additional development
costs associated with more lab classes conducting these two
experiments at other times in SL. While developing new SL lab
experiments is more expensive than creating new real world
experiments, the virtual world provides an entire environment
for conducting those experiments, including rooms within the
lab building and its surroundings. Ongoing costs for the SL
experiments are about $1800 each year for renting server space
with Linden Lab. It is anticipated that costs of computer
hardware will decline with time. Developing and testing the
complete virtual laboratory spanned about nine months,
although this duration could have been shortened if necessary.
Training for new users of SL is essential.33 Students in lab
sections which performed the virtual world experiments viewed
an introductory video about the project and tutorials which
showed them how to create a SL account and an avatar. Each
student in the SL group created an avatar before leaving the
first lab session. Students learned the keyboard and mouse
commands for moving within SL and completed a mandatory
SL training session within SL prior to the first SL lab
experiment (collecting butane gas over water). This training
session was conducted synchronously, but students could
perform it at their own computers. Attendance was recorded.
853
Article
During the training session, students attired their avatars with
goggles and a lab coat, viewed the meniscus in a buret and
graduated cylinder, and located the SL laboratory and briefing
rooms. Students were not allowed to perform the experiment
until they completed the training, so an additional training
session was provided after the briefing for the first experiment
for any students who missed the earlier training sessions.
■ IMPLEMENTATION
Two technical issues arose during the SL laboratory experi-
ments. First, some computers in the campus computer lab often
failed to recognize the headsets that were provided to students.
This meant that lab partners could not communicate online
with each other or with the TA. To resolve this problem, lab
partners sat next to each other in the computer lab when
necessary while their avatars interacted in SL. The TA walked
around the computer classroom to speak with students who
had questions. While this diminished the “virtual” aspect of the
laboratory experiment, the authors did not consider the
particular method of audio communication used to be
important for this pilot study.
The SL viewer software requires periodic updates and will
not allow a user to log in until a computer administrator
performs the update. In instances when this would delay class,
author W.K.K. gave each student a flash drive with the updated
SL viewer program on it. The school’s IT office updated the
software on the computers later.
Students in four laboratory sections (∼24 students each)
performed the two SL experiments and eight other experiments
in the real world laboratory, while the control group, consisting
of four lab sections with similar enrollment taught by the same
TAs, performed all ten experiments in the real world lab. The
SL group met in a reserved computer lab at their regularly
scheduled lab time for these two weeks of SL experiments,
while the control group performed the same experiments in the
chemistry lab. Graduate student TAs led all lab sessions, and
author W.K.K. was also present for the two SL lab sessions. All
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.6b00733
J. Chem. Educ. 2017, 94, 849−858
Journal of Chemical Education Article

other aspects of the lab curriculum and lab policies for the two students who completed all assessments were included in the
groups were the same. All students performed the butane gas statistical analysis. All students could access computers, and
and silver nitrate titration experiments during weeks three and some students even had experience with virtual worlds, possibly
four of the semester, respectively. due to other SL education activities conducted by Texas A&M
Each laboratory session began with a five-question multiple faculty.12,18,24
choice quiz that evaluated students’ understanding and Student Learning
familiarity with the experimental procedure. All students
Students in the SL and control groups showed similar
completed the quizzes on paper. Following the quiz, the TA
achievements in the pre- and postexperiment quizzes, as
showed a brief slideshow presentation that summarizes the
shown in Table 1. The chi-square test for homogeneity was
procedure, safety issues, and calculations. For the laboratory
sessions conducted in SL, the slideshow was displayed within
SL. The content of the slideshow was the same as the one given Table 1. Comparison of Pre- and Post-Experiment Quiz
to students in the real world laboratory. The avatar of the TA Scores (Mean ± SD) for SL and Control Groups
was in SL with all of the students’ avatars. At the end of the lab Control
session, students answered the same five-question multiple Assessment SL Group Group
Item Scored (n = 55) (n = 67) Likelihood Ratio
choice quizzes on paper. Each student turned in a lab report
one week after completing each experiment. Lab sections Butane 3.0 ± 1.3 3.4 ± 1.2 2
X (5) = 5.098, p = 0.404
experiment
involved in this study were chosen randomly. Students were prequiz
required to complete the two experiments in their assigned Butane 3.7 ± 1.1 3.8 ± 0.8 X2 (4) = 8.418, p = 0.077
virtual or real world lab environment. Students could, if they experiment
postquiz
requested, switch from the SL group to the control group. The
Gain in butane 0.7 ± 1.3 0.4 ± 1.1 X2 (7) = 14.103, p = 0.049
authors are aware of two students who dropped the lab class quiz score
belonging to the SL group during the first week of the semester Titration 2.0 ± 1.0 2.2 ± 0.9 X2 (5) = 6.639, p = 0.249
and then enrolled in another lab section. experiment
During the week five lab session, two weeks after they prequiz
performed the butane gas experiment, students in sections Titration 3.3 ± 1.0 2.8 ± 0.9 X2 (4) = 8.568, p = 0.073
experiment
taught by the four participating TAs (four sections of the postquiz
control group and the four sections of the SL group) completed Gain in titration 1.3 ± 1.1 0.7 ± 0.9 X2 (5) = 15.747, p = 0.008
a laboratory practicum in which they were presented with real quiz score
tubing, a lighter, a tub of water, and a graduated cylinder.
Students were instructed to assemble the apparatus to collect
gas over water and accurately measure the volume of water in used to test for differences. Likelihood ratios were reported
the graduated cylinder. Students completed the practicum because, in all cases, more than 20% of the cells had expected
individually and received no extra credit for this assignment. values less than 5. Both the control group and SL group showed
All members of the SL group completed surveys to measure significant improvements in their quiz scores after completing
their attitudes with respect to the real and virtual laboratory each experiment with the SL group showing small but
experiments in week eight. This was a semantic differential statistically significantly greater gains for both experiments.
survey based on the format used in the Inquiry Laboratory Similar quiz score gains among the SL and control groups are
Attitude Survey.34 A copy of the survey is included in the consistent with previous findings showing that students learn as
Supporting Information. After analyzing the results of the much in a virtual environment as they do in a real world setting.
survey and lab grades, the authors asked students in the SL For instance, students attending the virtual lectures of an
group follow-up questions based on the project results. aerospace design class scored as well on the course exam as
Students received a small amount of extra credit for providing students in the physical classroom.27 High school students also
these responses (students in the control group were given a learn equally well through interactive chemistry lab simulations7
different, unrelated assignment of equal value). and SL experiments.26 Learning gains made by physics students
Following the completion of the two SL experiments, the investigating the properties of light in SL matched those of
four TAs instructing SL and control group lab sections students performing the same lesson in a real classroom.17
participated in a focus group discussion. Focus groups provided Students in the SL group and the control group performed a
an opportunity for TAs to share their perceptions of the two lab practicum to determine how well they can manipulate the lab
environments. This occurred during each of the four semesters equipment needed to collect butane gas. This occurred two
of the SL experiment implementation. The focus group was led weeks after students performed the butane gas experiment. This
by author M.M. with none of the other authors present.

■
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Because this pilot study was conducted in the fall semester, the
General Chemistry 2 Lab course was off-sequence. Participating
students represented many majors and academic years. A
demographic survey of participating students revealed no
statistically significant differences (p > 0.05) between the
control and SL groups with regard to academic college, age,
year in school, and gender. The ethnic diversity of the two
groups was statistically different. Survey results and the
statistical analysis appear in the Supporting Information. Only
854
activity was chosen as the practicum because it was new to the
students; they had performed a titration in the previous
semester. One at a time, students assembled the lighter, tubing,
tub of water, and graduated cylinder. Each student collected gas
in the cylinder then reported the volume of gas. Author W.K.K.
evaluated students’ correct assembly and accuracy of the gas
volume measurement. The SL group and control group
performed equally well: average practicum scores of the two
respective groups were 4.2 ± 1.0 and 4.1 ± 0.7 on a 5-point
scale with t(98.455) = 0.072, p = 0.943. Some students in the
control group noted that they learned to assemble the
apparatus only by watching their lab partner, demonstrating
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.6b00733
J. Chem. Educ. 2017, 94, 849−858
Journal of Chemical Education
Table 2. Result Distribution of Survey Responses for the SL Group Comparing the Real World and SL Experiments
Agreement with
Left Statement
Left Statement n, %
I like using computers instead of actually handling 18
chemicals to perform lab experiments. 32.7%
Lab experiments in “Second Life” take less time to 39
complete compared to experiments in the “real 70.9%
world.”
I get better grades on “Second Life” lab experiments. 25
45.4%
I would choose to do “Second Life” experiments 20
instead of ″real world″ lab experiments. 36.4%
I learn more by performing “Second Life” lab 9 25
experiments. 16.4%
that not all students take advantage of the available opportunity
to gain hands-on experience using real laboratory equipment.
Students can learn kinesthetic skills in a virtual world if the
real and virtual environments settings are similar.35 Using a
mouse and keyboard does not truly replicate manipulating lab
equipment. Therefore, it is somewhat surprising that students
learned the techniques of assembling pieces of laboratory
equipment and measuring a volume of gas in the virtual SL
environment so well. The immersive, virtual world may be an
effective means for learning kinesthetic skills, but it is possible
that these techniques are so simple that seeing them occur on a
computer screen or in person is sufficient for learning. Given
that many educators feel that learning hands-on laboratory
skills is an important aspect of a student’s chemistry
education,36−38 these preliminary results of kinesthetic skills
development should be investigated in more detail.
Student Attitudes
Students in the SL group completed a semantic differential
survey to compare the two types of lab environments (Table
2). Results are reported as frequencies of students agreeing with
the statement on the left (response values = 1 or 2), remaining
neutral (response value = 3), or agreeing with the statement on
the right (response values = 4 or 5). A chi-square goodness-of-
fit test was conducted to determine whether an equal number
of participants (n = 18) agreed with the statement on the left,
middle, or right. Three of the five statements showed
statistically significant differences between frequencies of
students’ choices and the expected responses. They over-
whelmingly reported that the SL experiments took less time to
complete (X2 (2) = 35.055; p = 2.4 × 10−8). Their judgment of
the SL experiment duration is in disagreement with the views of
the TAs instructing the lab sessions, who noted that the real
world and SL experiments took about the same amount of time
for students to complete. A large portion of the SL group felt
that they received higher grades when completing the SL
experiments (X2 (2) = 12.473; p = 0.002). Despite their
opinion that they received higher grades for the SL experiment
assignments, students felt that they learned more from the real
world experiments (X2 (2) = 7.564; p = 0.023). Students were
statistically evenly split in their opinion of choosing to perform
experiments in the virtual world (X2 (2) = 0.909; p = 0.635) or
whether they preferred doing computer laboratories or
handling chemicals (X2 (2) = 3.309; p = 0.191).
The authors did not have access to this group’s grades for
any of the lab experiments except for quiz scores of the two SL
experiments. It is possible that they did receive lower grades for
their other real world experiments than they did for the SL
Article
Agreement with
Neutral Right Statement
n, % n, % Right Statement
13 24 I actually like handling chemicals instead of using
23.6% 43.7% computers to perform lab experiments.
9 7 Lab experiments in “Second Life” take more time to
16.4% 12.7% complete compared to experiments in the “real
world.”
24 6 I get better grades on “real world” lab experiments.
43.6% 10.9%
15 20 I would choose to do “real world” experiments instead
27.3% 36.4% of “Second Life” lab experiments.
21 I learn more by performing “real world” lab
45.5% 38.1% experiments.
experiments. The perception that some students felt that they
learned less in the virtual world is troubling, but without more
information about the group’s grades, it is difficult to draw any
conclusions. These issues are being examined in more detail
now using data gathered during subsequent implementations of
the SL experiments.
Written feedback provided by 15 students in the SL group
cited the SL experiments as being less stressful and better
organized (all necessary materials were readily available on the
lab bench) than their real world lab experiments. Most students
felt that the virtual environment was novel, fun, and “user
friendly.” A representative response from a student was “The
second life labs were also exciting because they were new and
used technology which is more stimulating.” When asked about
their equal preference for the virtual and real world lab
environments, students most frequently responded that they
enjoyed taking a break from their normal real world
experiments so that they can do something different. Several
noted that the virtual lab experiments helped them appreciate
their real world lab sessions. As one student wrote, “In the end,
after having done several Second Life labs, it was nice to be able
to return to a real lab and be able to see the minor color
changes as a titration goes through, or be able to feel especially
“Sciencey” as one goes through a lab.” While this was not a view
expressed by many students, it is an unexpected and interesting
outcome, suggesting that real and virtual laboratory experi-
ments can complement each other rather than compete for
inclusion in a laboratory curriculum.
Like the students participating in this study, undergraduate
students performing a virtual PCR experiment in SL viewed
their virtual world experience positively, saying that it was easy
to perform and educational. In that study, the SL experiment
helped them prepare for a similar real world lab experiment.20
In that study, students performed either an SL-based activity or
viewed a live demonstration of the PCR procedure as a prelab
exercise. Author K.W. observed similar results when high
school students performed an SL kinetics experiment.26 In the
present study, equal numbers of students liked the SL and real
world experiments. Most believed that the SL experiment
required less time to complete, even if that was not necessarily
the case. In a study of using chemistry lab simulations as
replacements for two real world experiments, high school
students felt that the virtual lab experiments were easier to
perform than their real world versions.7 Those students had no
strong preference for either lab environment, showing equally
favorable attitudes about real experiments and the computer-
based simulations. Overall, these results suggest that student
855 DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.6b00733
J. Chem. Educ. 2017, 94, 849−858
Journal of Chemical Education
attitudes may not be a barrier for introducing virtual world
experiments into the curriculum.
Observations by TAs
In a focus group occurring near the end of the semester, TAs
related that students performing SL experiments appeared
comfortable and relaxed, perhaps because they are more
familiar with a computer lab than a chemistry lab and due to the
lack of lab safety concerns and clothing restrictions. Other
reasons include a lesser pressure for accurate results, which was
felt more in the real world lab, as well as the lack of familiarity
with using real lab equipment. The virtual world was a less
challenging learning atmosphere for students, which may
contribute to the more relaxed environment. Rather than
students making decisions with many possible outcomes in the
real world lab, the act of choosing from a list of options with a
SL menu, “limited their ability to make mistakes,” according to
one TA.
The TAs stated that real world experiments had problems as
well, including limited equipment and space. Specifically for the
butane gas experiment, students in the real lab were required to
share a hood, which resulted in a crowded environment.
Furthermore, limited equipment in the real world lab resulted
in more wait time for the students. Some TAs felt that waiting
gave students time to conduct their calculations and correct
mistakes. Other TAs suggested that because the students had
their own computers in the virtual lab, there was no wait time,
which the students appreciated. According to most of the TAs,
the virtual environment is helpful when real world space and
equipment are limited.
When discussing students’ learning, the TAs emphasized the
importance of accuracy. TAs were present when students were
collecting their data and they could give feedback about the
quality of students’ results. They also graded the lab reports,
with grades based in part on accuracy of results. With the zoom
capability in SL, students were able to obtain a closer view of
the glassware. In the real world lab, students struggled with
getting their lighters wet, working in crowded spaces, and
handling the glassware, all of which limited the accuracy of their
results. Overall, the TAs felt that students collected more
accurate results by performing the experiment in the virtual
world as compared to the real world.
The TAs thought that the virtual environment limited
students’ ability to identify sources of error. Often, students
attributed sources of error to the technology being used rather
than to laboratory sources. Students tended to make mistakes
as they perform these procedures in the real world lab, which
provides more opportunities to practice and refine these skills.
Overall, to the TAs, the virtual world lab appeared more
orderly with fewer students talking than in the real world lab.
Students mainly spoke with their lab partners in the virtual lab,
as opposed to more broadly communicating to other peers in
the real world lab. Students asked more questions and there
was a higher level of interaction in the real world lab. A virtual
world allows for the creation of the lab environment from
scratch, without the common limitations of space and resources
in the real world. While providing individual sets of equipment
and materials makes the students’ work easier to perform, it
diminishes the interactions that the student has with his or her
peers as they manage the shared resources of the laboratory.
These trade-offs should be considered when designing the
virtual world laboratory.
856
Article
The TAs believed that they were more effective at
monitoring student progress in the real world laboratory
because they could easily see how all students were doing and
assess the students’ nonverbal cues. In the virtual world lab,
TAs could not see which menu options the students selected
and, therefore, could not easily notice students’ mistakes.
The TAs felt that they could communicate and teach more
effectively in the real world lab. The TAs explained that when a
student in the control group asked a question, they were able to
provide the answer to the entire class. This was not possible in
the SL laboratory when students communicated with headsets
so the TAs communicated to each student. The TAs suggested
that they initially felt isolated in the computer lab. To alleviate
this feeling, the TAs altered their behavior by walking around
the computer lab to monitor students and answer questions.
The TAs provided suggestions for making the virtual learning
environment more realistic such as providing more oppor-
tunities for students to make mistakes, providing a better means
for TAs to communicate with the entire class in the virtual
world, and creating a database of the actions taken by each
student’s avatars. TAs could review the list of actions to find the
step which students performed incorrectly. They also suggested
that they conclude each SL session with a group discussion on
how the experiment would have operated differently in a real
world lab, emphasizing possible sources of error. All of these
suggestions are technically feasible and will be considered when
the virtual world experiments are updated.
It is important for faculty to seek out the TAs’ views of
laboratory innovations. As the primary instructor in the
laboratory, TAs offer feedback about student behavior and
general attitudes which faculty can use to improve the quality of
the curriculum. Teaching assistants have a vested interest in the
laboratory sessions running smoothly, and many care about
their students’ education. The authors observed this based on
the number of comments and thoughtfulness of TA feedback.
Soliciting their views minimized their anxiety and negative
attitudes about the virtual world experiments. Program
coordinators wishing to introduce SL-type experiments into
the curriculum should be aware that TAs’ expectations of their
role as instructors are based on their prior experiences.40 New
lab environments can cause frustration because TAs are not
performing the role they anticipated. Training also influences
their self-image as educators, and therefore it is important to
highlight the potential differences in the TAs’ role in the real
world and virtual world environments.39,40
■
CONCLUSIONS
This pilot study demonstrates that experiments conducted in a
virtual world have the potential to be a valid substitution for
real world experiments in general chemistry. An analysis of
available, albeit minimal grade and survey data collected during
the first semester of this project shows that students performing
experiments in a virtual world make reasonable learning gains.
Of particular note is that students in the control group and SL
group performed equally well on a laboratory practicum.
Students performing the virtual world experiments held positive
attitudes about virtual experiments. Future implementations of
these experiments will include the collection and analysis of
more data, including more feedback from students to
understand which aspects of the virtual world experiments
were challenging and beneficial.
Additional studies are needed to support and expand upon
these results. The ability of students to learn kinesthetic skills
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.6b00733
J. Chem. Educ. 2017, 94, 849−858
Journal of Chemical Education
via virtual experiments would make the SL learning environ-
ment particularly beneficial for laboratory courses. The
optimum number of virtual experiments in a general chemistry
curriculum is unknown but worth determining. Of concern is
that students in this pilot study felt that they learn less in the
virtual world. Finally, students participating in this study
attended a large, public state university and performed their
virtual world experiments on campus under the supervision of a
lab instructor. Students conducting these experiments in an
asynchronous online course or at a different type of school may
experience different outcomes with regard to their learning and
attitudes, so this is also worth investigating. As technology
related to immersive virtual worlds improves, educators and
programmers can design more realistic and complex laboratory
activities, which education researchers can use to build upon
the results presented here.
Readers interested in touring the SL laboratory or using the
experiments in their classes are welcome to contact author
K.W. or W.K.K.
■
ASSOCIATED CONTENT
*
S Supporting Information
Handouts for both SL experiments, lab quizzes, the
demographic survey and its analysis, and the laboratory
attitudes survey are included in Supporting Information. The
Supporting Information is available on the ACS Publications
website at DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.6b00733.
Introduction handout for gas law experiment (PDF)
Introduction handout for precipitation titration experi-
ment (PDF)
Lab quizzes (PDF; DOCX)
Laboratory preference survey (PDF; DOC)
Demographic survey and analysis (PDF; DOCX)
■
AUTHOR INFORMATION
Corresponding Author
*E-mail: kwinkel@fit.edu.
ORCID
Kurt Winkelmann: 0000-0002-2016-602X
Notes
The authors declare no competing financial interest.
■ ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors acknowledge Xandi Mars and Random Cole for
their work in designing the SL experiments and laboratory
environment. The National Science Foundation TUES
program (Award #1140841) provided funding for this research.
■
REFERENCES
(1) Leontyev, A.; Baranov, D. Massive open online courses in
chemistry: A comparative overview of platforms and features. J. Chem.
Educ. 2013, 90, 1533−1539.
(2) Patterson, M. J. Developing an internet-based chemistry class. J.
Chem. Educ. 2000, 77, 554−555.
(3) Boschmann, E. Teaching chemistry via distance education. J.
Chem. Educ. 2003, 80, 704−708.
(4) Casanova, R. S.; Civelli, J. L.; Kimbrough, D. R.; Heath, B. P.;
Reeves, J. H. Distance learning: a viable alternative to the conventional
lecture-lab format in general chemistry. J. Chem. Educ. 2006, 83, 501−
507.
857
Article
(5) Phipps, L. R. Creating and teaching a web-based, university-level
introductory chemistry course that incorporates laboratory exercises
and active learning pedagogies. J. Chem. Educ. 2013, 90, 568−573.
(6) Dalgarno, B.; Bishop, A. G.; Adlong, W.; Bedgood, D. R., Jr.
Effectiveness of a virtual laboratory as a preparatory resource for
distance education chemistry students. Comput. Educ. 2009, 53, 853−
865.
(7) Pyatt, K.; Sims, R. Virtual and physical experimentation in
inquiry-based science labs: attitudes, performance and access. J. Sci.
Educ. Technol. 2012, 21, 133−147.
(8) Tatli, Z.; Ayas, A. Effect of a virtual chemistry laboratory on
students’ achievement. J. Educ. Technol. Soc. 2013, 16, 159−170.
(9) Winkelmann, K. Virtual Worlds and Their Uses in Chemical
Education. In Pedagogic Roles of Animations and Simulations in
Chemistry Courses, ACS Symposium Series 1142; Suits, J., Sanger,
M., Eds.; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2013; pp
161−179.
(10) Beck, D.; Perkins, R. A. Review of educational research methods
in desktop virtual world environments: Framing the past to provide
future direction. J. Virtual Worlds Res. [Online] 2014, 7. https://
journals.tdl.org/jvwr/index.php/jvwr/article/view/7077 (accessed
April 14, 2017)
(11) Linden Lab Historical role playing communities in Second Life.
http://secondlife.com/destinations/roleplay/historical (accessed April
14, 2017).
(12) Holland, B.; Landry, K.; Mountain, A.; Middlebrooks, M. A.;
Heim, D.; Missildine, K. Weaving the tapestry of learning simulation,
standardized patients, and virtual communities. Nurse Education 2013,
38, 269−272.
(13) Esteves, M.; Fonseca, B.; Morgado, L.; Martins, P. Improving
teaching and learning of computer programming through the use of
the Second Life virtual world. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 2011, 42, 624−637.
(14) Wang, Y.; Braman, J. Extending the classroom through Second
Life. J. Info. Sys. Educ. 2009, 20, 235−247.
(15) Nestler, V.; Moore, E. L.; Huang, K.-Y. C.; Bose, D. In the use of
Second Life® to teach physical security across different teaching
modes. In Information Assurance and Security Education and Training;
Dodge, Jr., R. C., Futcher, L., Eds.; Springer: Berlin, 2013; pp 188−
195.
(16) Ryoo, J.; Techatassanasoontorn, A. A.; Lee, D. Security
education using Second Life. IEEE Security Privacy 2009, 7, 71−74.
(17) Vrellis, I.; Avouris, N.; Mikropoulos, T. A. Learning outcome,
presence and satisfaction from a science activity in Second Life.
Australasian Journal of Educational Technology 2016, 32 (1), 59−77.
(18) Texas A&M University College of Veterinary Medicine and
Biological Sciences. TAMU Veterinary Medicine Class in Second Life.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5VXf5Ky5ms (accessed April
14, 2017).
(19) August, S. E.; Hammers, M. L.; Murphy, D. B.; Neyer, A.;
Gueye, P.; Thames, R. Q. Virtual engineering sciences learning lab:
giving stem education a Second Life. IEEE Trans. Learn. Technol.
[Online] 2016, 9, 18−30.
(20) Cobb, S.; Heaney, R.; Corcoran, O.; Henderson-Begg, S. The
learning gains and student perceptions of a Second Life virtual lab.
Biosci. Educ. 2009, 13, 1−9.
(21) Prince William Sound College. Strategic Goals 2015−2016.
http://pwsc.alaska.edu/download/StrategicGoalsPWSC2015-2016_
SinglePageView.pdf (accessed April 14, 2017).
(22) Keeney-Kennicutt, W. L.; Merchant, Z. H. Using Virtual Worlds
in the General Chemistry Classroom. In Pedagogic Roles of Animations
and Simulations in Chemistry Courses, ACS Symposium Series 1142;
Suits, J., Sanger, M., Eds.; American Chemical Society: Washington,
DC, 2013; pp 181−204.
(23) Merchant, Z.; Goetz, E.; Keeney-Kennicutt, W.; Kwok, O.;
Cifuentes, L.; Davis, T. J. The learner characteristics, features of
desktop 3-D virtual reality environments, and college chemistry
instruction: A structural equation modeling analysis. Comput. Educ.
2012, 59, 551−568.
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.6b00733
J. Chem. Educ. 2017, 94, 849−858
Journal of Chemical Education Article

(24) Merchant, Z.; Goetz, E.; Keeney-Kennicutt, W.; Kwok, O.;

Cifuentes, L.; Davis, T. J. Exploring 3-D virtual reality technology for
spatial ability and chemistry achievement. J. Comput. Assist. Learning
2013, 29, 579−590.
(25) Lang, A. S.; Bradley, J.-C. Chemistry in Second Life. Chem. Cent.
J. 2009, 3, 14. http://ccj.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/1752-
153X-3-14 (accessed April 14, 2017).
(26) Winkelmann, K.; Scott, M.; Wong, D. A study of high school
students’ performance of virtual chemistry laboratory in Second Life. J.
Chem. Educ. 2014, 91, 1432−1438.
(27) Okutsu, M.; DeLaurentis, D.; Brophy, S.; Lambert, J. Teaching
an aerospace engineering design course via virtual worlds: A
comparative assessment of learning outcomes. Comput. Educ. 2013,
60, 288−298.
(28) Merchant, Z.; Goetz, E. T.; Cifuentes, L.; Keeney-Kennicutt, W.;
Davis, T. J. Effectiveness of virtual reality-based instruction on
students’ learning outcomes in K-12 and higher education: A meta-
analysis. Comput. Educ. 2014, 70, 29−40.
(29) CHEM 111/112 Laboratory Manual, General Chemistry of the
Texas Environment, 6th ed.; Hayden McNeil Publishing: Plymouth,
MI, 2016.
(30) Salmon, G. The future for (second) life and learning. Br. J. Educ.
Technol. 2009, 40, 526−538.
(31) Edirisingha, P.; Nie, M.; Pluciennik, M.; Young, R. Socialization
of learning at a distance in a 3-D multi-user virtual environment. Br. J.
Educ. Technol. 2009, 40, 458−479.
(32) Winkelmann, K.; Keeney-Kennicutt, W. Chemistry World.
http://maps.secondlife.com/secondlife/Chemistry%20World/183/
48/26 (accessed April 14, 2017).
(33) Oh, K.; Nussli, N. Teacher training in the use of a three-
dimensional immersive virtual world: building understanding through
first-hand experiences. J. Teach. Learn. Technol. 2014, 3, 33−58.
(34) Chatterjee, S.; Williamson, V. M.; McCann, K.; Peck, L. M.
Surveying students, attitudes and perceptions toward guided-inquiry
and open-inquiry laboratories. J. Chem. Educ. 2009, 86, 1427−1432.
(35) Miles, H. C.; Serban, R. P.; Watt, S. J.; Lawrence, G. P.; John, N.
W. A review of virtual environments for training in ball sports. Comput.
Graph. 2012, 36, 714−726.
(36) Abraham, M. R.; Craolice, M. S.; Graves, A. P.; Aldhamash, A.
H.; Kihega, J. G.; Gal, J. G. P.; Varghese, V. The nature and state of
general chemistry laboratory courses offered by colleges and
universities in the United States. J. Chem. Educ. 1997, 74, 591−594.
(37) American Chemical Society. Importance of Hands-on
Laboratory Science. https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/policy/
publicpolicies/education/computersimulations.html (accessed April
10, 2017).
(38) American Chemical Society Committee on Professional
Training. ACS Guidelines for Bachelor’s Degree Programs; Office of
Professional Training: Washington, DC, 2015.
(39) Sandi-Urena, S.; Gatlin, T. Factors contributing to the
development of graduate student assistant self-image. J. Chem. Educ.
2013, 90, 1303−1309.
(40) Gormally, C. Developing a teacher identity: TAs’ perspectives
about learning to teach inquiry-based biology labs. Int. J. Teach. Learn.
Higher Educ. 2016, 28, 176−192.

858 DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.6b00733

J. Chem. Educ. 2017, 94, 849−858