Abstract

Virtual laboratories (VLs) are widely used in teaching practical science. Studies in higher education have suggested that VLs provide similar learning outcomes to real laboratories, with enhanced learning when they are both used. However, little is known of students learning experiences, particularly in Further Education (FE).

This small-scale practitioner research project explores the lived experience of FE science students and teachers, through surveys and thematic analysis of semi-structured interviews. Questions focused on the reality of the experience in VLs, and the trust students have in the results of both laboratories. The value of VLs as teaching tools is also examined.

Responses suggest that students trust the results of both the VL and the real laboratory. However, their experiences – Presence, Interaction, Motivation, Control and Consequence – are richer in the real laboratory. The trust that students and teachers have in the both the real and VL appears to derive from two sources. Trust in external authority: governments, universities, institutions, corporations, textbooks, syllabuses, and experts which define an “objective truth”. This is transferred through the education system – through teachers – forming the basis of trust in the VL. Trust in the real laboratory comes from empirical evidence: students believe ‘because they saw it happen with their own eyes’; although they do not always trust their own abilities. This research provides tentative evidence that students who show greater trust in the VL perform better in their exams.

Students feel VLs show ‘the theory behind an experiment’ and allow them to practice skills, through multiple repetitions with instant feedback. They could be considered as embodiments of thought experiments, which able learners to change their concepts. However, VLs do not provide the interactions – developing social, manipulative, and spatial skills – found in the real laboratory. Additionally, practical science shows the characteristics of a signature pedagogy; however, VLs do not seem to meet all the criteria. VLs provide a valuable teaching tool, ‘but can never be a full replacement’.