Assessing Affective Differences between a Virtual General Chemistry Experiment and a Similar Hands-On Experiment
Assessing Affective Differences between a Virtual General Chemistry Experiment and a Similar Hands-On Experiment
复制标题
评估虚拟普通化学实验和类似的动手实验之间的情感差异
DOI：
10.1021/acs.jchemed.9b00561
复制
发表时间：
2019
影响因子：
3
通讯作者：
Jack Barbera
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Cory Hensen;Jack Barbera
到目前为止，很少有一般化学实验室的研究包括情感的措施，尽管呼吁更多的研究方面，这一领域。这种研究的短缺可能部分是由于缺乏情感的措施，已被设计，或在大学实验室设置测试。为了提供在这种环境中使用的措施，几个现有的情感量表进行了调整，以适应这种新的情况。在利用这些尺度的数据研究环境之前，先提供证据证明这些尺度产生的数据的有效性和可靠性。一旦提供了足够的证据，就可以确定在传统的动手实验室（对照组）和在虚拟环境（治疗组）中完成比尔定律实验的学生之间的情感差异。为了评估环境之间的预期差异，选择了焦虑，情感满意度，智力可及性，实验室的有用性，设备可用性和实验室的开放性等量表。考虑到潜在的学生之间的差异，量表的感觉相关的初始兴趣和价值相关的初始兴趣被选中。总体而言，完成虚拟实验的学生在情感满意度，智力可及性，实验室的有用性和设备可用性量表上得分显着较低。然而，有人指出，学生在虚拟环境中的反应显着不同的教学助理（TA）指示的部分。为了测试可能的教师效应，来自虚拟部分的数据由TA分组为“虚拟组A”和“虚拟组B”。与B组相比，A组包含情感满意度量表平均值较低的助教。在控制了教师的影响后，学生在“动手”部分和“虚拟组A”部分的反应之间的差异不再显着，而在“动手”和“虚拟组B”部分的反应之间的显着差异仍然存在。这一结果表明，助教指导的课程可能已经更有影响力的学生的情感结果比环境中进行实验。
To date, few general chemistry laboratory studies have included affective measures despite calls for more research on aspects of this domain. This shortage of studies may be partially due to the scarcity of affective measures that have been designed for, or tested in, the college laboratory setting. To provide measures for use in this environment, several existing affective scales were adapted for this new context. Before data from the scales were utilized to study the environment, evidence was provided for the validity and reliability of the data generated from them. Once sufficient evidence was provided, it was possible to determine affective differences between students completing a Beer’s law experiment in the traditional hands-on laboratory (control group) and a similar experiment in a virtual environment (treatment group). To assess expected differences between environments, scales for anxiety, emotional satisfaction, intellectual accessibility, usefulness of lab, equipment usability, and open-endedness of lab were selected. To account for potential between-student differences, scales for feeling-related initial interest and value-related initial interest were selected. Overall, students who completed the virtual experiment scored significantly lower on the emotional satisfaction, intellectual accessibility, usefulness of lab, and equipment usability scales. However, it was noted that student responses in the virtual environment varied significantly by which teaching assistant (TA) instructed the section. To test for a possible instructor effect, data from the virtual sections were grouped by TA as “Virtual Group A” and “Virtual Group B”. Group A contained the TAs who had sections with lower averages on the emotional satisfaction scale as compared to group B. After controlling for instructor, differences between student responses in the “Hands-On” sections and “Virtual Group A” sections were no longer significant while significant differences remained between the responses in the “Hands-On” and “Virtual Group B” sections. This outcome indicated that the TA instructing the course may have been more influential on students’ affective outcomes than the environment in which the experiment was performed.