Abstract
Virtual Labs (vLabs) have been gaining popularity in high school and undergraduate education, but there are few studies looking at their use in graduate‐level courses. In this study, we investigated the use of six Labster vLabs assigned as homework in a graduate‐level in‐person Genomic Methodologies course at the University of Toronto. This course teaches the theory and practice of molecular biology relevant to genetic testing, focusing on computational techniques used to analyze genetic data. The course does not contain a wet‐lab component; therefore, we evaluated whether vLabs could complement the dry‐lab course components to provide a realistic experience of laboratory techniques and improve content understanding. We evaluated the addition of vLabs with one cohort of 14 students using assessment‐informed data, student perception questionnaires, and think‐aloud interviews. We found that engaging with vLabs resulted in a knowledge gain for most (89%) graduate students. Students (85%) found vLabs to be useful to understand the theory behind advanced laboratory concepts; however, many students (54%) were critical of vLabs ability to provide a realistic laboratory experience. We also investigated whether the student experience differs when performing Labster vLabs on a laptop versus a virtual reality headset and found that the headset provided no additional benefits to students. We show that vLabs can be effectively used in graduate‐level courses to provide students with background relevant to laboratory techniques; however, the level of material could be enhanced to provide a more detailed and advanced understanding of the concepts for students with prior knowledge of the topic.
Keywords: genetics, graduate education, molecular biology, virtual laboratory simulation, virtual reality (VR) headset
1. INTRODUCTION
Genomics is a rapidly developing field that has brought many advances to scientific and medical practice. However, changes in the field are outpacing the ability of scientific and medical teaching to adequately prepare clinicians and analytical laboratory personnel. With specialization at a professional level, technicians for clinical wet‐lab work are trained in dedicated programs, and genomic data analysts and clinicians get little to no training in the process of data acquisition that precedes the analysis. Many methods utilize expensive, specialized equipment and reagents, making it technically challenging, pedagogically unrealistic, and often prohibitively costly to teach in a traditional laboratory setting. To address the limitations of traditional laboratory settings, educators have turned to virtual labs (vLabs) as a complementary or alternative means of providing students with hands‐on lab experience.
In post‐secondary undergraduate education, vLabs have been used in multiple disciplines to complement on‐site labs, to simulate resource‐intensive labs, to provide access to lab experiences in the absence of on‐site labs, and to prepare learners for upcoming on‐site lab sessions.1, 2, 3 vLabs have been shown to be effective in promoting student learning when provided as pre‐lab material, with students exhibiting higher gains in research skills and conceptual knowledge when they completed a vLab prior to an on‐site lab compared to traditional pre‐lab work.1, 4 When considering vLabs as a replacement for on‐site labs, a number of studies have found vLabs to be as effective or superior to on‐site labs.4, 5 Other studies, however, report inconclusive results6, 7 suggesting that careful implementation of vLabs is critical to ensure that the vLabs support course pedagogical goals.
vLabs have been proposed to promote active and engaged learning, and to support this, several studies have examined students' perception of vLabs.3, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 Using surveys provided to students after completing vLabs, many undergraduate student respondents indicated that vLabs were motivating, helped them understand relevant knowledge, increased their confidence in lab skills, and were a useful supplement to traditional instructions.3, 8, 9, 12 In some settings, however, particularly in the context of undergraduate medical education, students have been critical of vLabs not simulating a realistic laboratory experience.10, 11
Students generally engage with vLabs on laptops using 2D, screen‐based programs; however, there is growing interest in using virtual reality (VR) headsets for an immersive vLab experience. Proponents of immersive VR argue that it can improve student learning by providing a more engaging experience and by increasing positive affective and cognitive processing. Indeed, when examining student perceptions between performing vLabs on laptop screens versus VR headsets, Makransky and Lilleholt observed higher scores on various aspects of the emotional learning process when participants completed the vLab on a VR headset, with the largest differences observed in student presence and motivation. 13 Others have argued, however, that immersive VR could lead to poor learning outcomes due to increased distraction and cognitive load. For example, when the learning outcomes were compared after students completed a vLab using either a VR headset or laptop monitor, researchers found that students who completed the lab on the VR headset performed significantly worse on knowledge gain tests than students who completed an equivalent vLab on a laptop. 14 Similar results have been reported when comparing traditional biology lessons taught through PowerPoint presentations versus immersive VR lessons. 15 These somewhat conflicting studies suggest that further research is warranted.
School closures and social distancing requirements during the COVID‐19 pandemic boosted the use of vLabs with generally positive results,3, 10, 11, 16, 17, 18 but questions remain as to whether continued use of vLabs is warranted and beneficial to students with a return to in‐person learning. Additionally, although one report describes the successful integration of a vLab in a graduate setting with engineering students, 19 most studies conducted to date have been reported in undergraduate settings, and questions remain as to their effectiveness in graduate education.
In this study, we investigated if the use of vLabs results in improved content understanding in a graduate‐level Genomic Methodologies course. This in‐person course (6 h of contact time/week over 24 weeks) teaches clinical and laboratory professional students how to analyze genomic data and does not contain a wet‐lab component. We therefore aimed to increase students' exposure to genetic laboratory techniques using vLabs and evaluated whether vLabs improved graduate student content understanding of the laboratory techniques. We also assessed the graduate student experience with vLabs from a usability and student satisfaction perspective. Finally, we explored how the student experience differed when performing vLabs on a laptop screen versus a VR headset. We used data from assignments taken before and during the lab, feedback forms, and a think‐aloud investigation to address these questions.
2. METHODS
2.1. Data sources and analysis
All students in the study were enrolled in a 2‐year professional master's degree in Medical Genomics. Students completed six Labster vLabs (Supplementary Table S1) as part of a graduate course in Genomic Methodologies (course description provided in Supplementary Data S1) during the winter and summer semesters in 2019. Fifteen students were enrolled in the course and 14 opted to participate in the study. All data presented is from these 14 students, except for data from the invertebrate model systems vLab, where only 10 students completed the vLab.
Labster (www.labster.com) was chosen because the topics of vLabs in their catalog matched the course content, and because of their ease of integration with the course learning management system. Students accessed the Labster vLabs for free, facilitated by grant funding to study the implementation of vLabs in the course. Students were shown how to run the vLabs in class by the instructors and participated in an on‐site demo of the VR headsets in the library where the headsets were stored for access.
For each vLab, students individually completed a pre‐lab quiz, integrated in‐lab questions, and a post‐lab questionnaire (Figure 1). These were all administered online, and students could perform them anytime during a 1–2 week‐long timeframe. Students had no time limit to complete each individual online component. The pre‐lab quiz was a selection of 5–6 multiple‐choice questions taken from the Labster content questions asked during the vLab. Questions were selected to match the core learning objectives of the lab and were used to assess students' baseline level of understanding of the topic covered in the vLab. Students did not receive solutions after the pre‐lab quiz and were instructed not to look up content prior to the vLab to allow measuring the increase in content understanding. The pre‐lab quiz, as well as access to the vLab, was integrated in the Canvas Learning Management System. The post‐lab questionnaire was a series of up to 12 open‐ended text prompts, multiple answer questions, and rating on 5‐point Likert scale questions assigned via Google Forms (see supplementary data S2 for post‐lab questionnaire).
FIGURE 1.
Overview of the study design, showing the assignment structure in blue. Data was collected before, during and after each vLab for each of the six labs for all 14 students. Three students were observed when working through one of the simulations in a think‐aloud investigation and completed a follow‐up interview (indicated in green).
To compare the differences in pre‐lab and in‐lab quizzes, and pre and post‐lab self‐assessment scores, statistical analysis was performed using a paired Wilcoxon signed rank test. 20 Qualitative responses to open‐ended questions regarding perceived positive and negative aspects for each lab were codified based on the identification of 11 common themes (5 positive and 6 negative), and the total number of times a theme appeared in the responses was tabulated.
The vLabs were assigned over the course of 5 months in 2019, with deadlines to manage the completion of each lab and associated components. The pre‐ and post‐lab questions were graded for completion only (counting as 20% of the assignment grade), and the answers to the questions within the lab were graded for correctness and weighted by 80%. In total, all vLab components were worth 5% of the overall course grade. The content covered in the vLabs was covered in lectures in 5 of the 6 labs offered. One vLab was followed by a wet‐lab experiment (Supplementary Table S1).
2.2. Ethics approval
The study was conducted under ethics protocol #36746 (Integration of virtual reality labs into a graduate level course) at the University of Toronto. Completion of the vLabs and extended anonymous questionnaires was mandatory for all students in the course, but only data from students who provided consent was used for the data evaluation after the conclusion of the course. The study was introduced to students at the start of the course, and a copy of the informed consent form was provided to all students. Consent forms were collected at the end of the course by a researcher who was not a course instructor. Post‐lab questionnaires were distributed and collected by a researcher who was not a course instructor, and data were anonymized prior to being seen by the course instructors.
2.3. vLab delivery mode
For five labs (Supplementary Table S1), students could complete the vLab either using their computer web browser (screen‐based mode) or a virtual reality headset (VR headset mode). To complete vLabs on the VR headset, all students received an on‐site walk‐through and could borrow one of two wireless Lenovo Mirage Solo VR headsets from a campus library and complete the lab while in the library building or by checking a headset out for 24 h.
2.4. Think‐aloud interviews
All students were invited to participate in think‐aloud interviews and were provided with informed consent. Three students opted to participate. Think‐aloud investigations compared to observation alone allow a deeper insight into learners' interactions with an application and their cognitive processes as they complete a task. 21 As the students worked through a vLab, they narrated their thinking and decision‐making, and an investigator transcribed these comments and observations. The think‐aloud lab simulation was followed by an ~30‐min interview about motivation, experience, and evaluation. Questions are provided in the supplementary data S3. The think‐aloud study was administered by a researcher who was not associated with the course.
3. RESULTS
3.1. Actual and perceived learning benefits of vLabs
To assess whether completing vLabs resulted in an increase in content understanding, students were asked 5–6 questions about the lab topic prior to starting each vLab. The average time students took for the pre‐lab questions ranged from 4 to 8 min. These same questions were then presented to students during the vLab simulation. Figure 2a shows the spread of student scores before completing the vLab versus during the vLab for all six vLabs. We found student scores were significantly higher when assessed during the simulation compared to prior to starting (p = 2.431e‐08) demonstrating that the vLabs are effective at teaching new concepts. Across all vLabs, 89% of students scored the same or better on the in‐lab questions compared with pre‐lab questions.
FIGURE 2.
Change in student quiz scores and self‐assessed understanding A) Box plot of student scores on pre‐lab and in‐lab questions. Students were provided with 5–6 questions as a pre‐lab quiz. These same questions were presented to the students during the vLab simulation. Percent of correctly answered questions (pre‐lab and in‐lab) for all 6 vLabs is plotted. B) Box plot of student self‐assessed perceived understanding of methods covered in the 6 vLab simulations before (pre‐lab) and after (post‐lab) completing the vLab. Students assessed their level of understanding on each vLab topic on a scale of 1 (beginner) to 5 (advanced). For both plots, red horizontal line within each box denote median values; the bottom and top of the box indicate the 25th and 75th percentiles respectively, and whiskers (vertical extending lines) indicate the maximum and minimum values within 1.5 times the interquartile range of the 25th and 75th percentiles for each group. Points are individual student quiz scores (2A) and self‐assessed level of understanding (2B).
In the post‐lab questionnaire students were asked to self‐rate their level of understanding of the methodological concepts covered in each vLab on a scale of 1 (beginner) to 5 (advanced) prior to and after completing each vLab. There was a significant increase in students' knowledge self‐assessment scores after completing the vLabs (p = 3.974e‐10) showing that students thought completing the vLabs resulted in a knowledge gain (Figure 2b). In addition, 85% of students agreed that with the statement “I gained relevant knowledge by using the simulation” presented to students at the end of the vLab simulations (Figure 3).
FIGURE 3.
Student responses to standard Labster questions asked at the end of each vLab. Students were asked to select whether they strongly agree, agree, disagree, or strongly disagree with a series of statements (shown on the y‐axis). Combined responses from the 6 vLabs are plotted.
Students most often cited the explanations of the methodological theory and protocol, as well as the simulations and videos, as the most beneficial aspects of the vLabs (Table 1). One student noted in their post‐lab questionnaire for the Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) vLab that they liked “visually seeing how the methods were performed and the reagents being added at each step. This made the concepts much easier to grasp and memorize compared to just simply reading a protocol in class.” Another student noted that “as a visual learner it was very helpful to be able to see the experiment/lab happening in front of me while being able to pause and read each step and understand more if I needed to”.
TABLE 1.
Perceived beneficial and negative aspects of vLabs based on participants' written responses. Qualitative responses were codified based on the identification of 11 extracted themes from student responses to post‐lab questionnaires for all 6 virtual labs. Student free‐form responses allow for mention of multiple themes. Responses, which stated no positive or negative aspects, were also included. Comments were obtained from all students who completed the vLabs. Total number of responses with mention of identified themes are shown.
| Perceived beneficial aspects | ||
|---|---|---|
| Themes | # responses (%) | Student quotes |
| Explanations (theory and protocol) | 37 (41%) |
|
| Simulations/videos | 35 (38%) |
|
| Data Analysis | 6 (7%) |
|
| Pacing/faster than real lab | 2 (2%) |
|
| Fun | 2 (2%) |
|
| Provided no beneficial aspects | 8 (9%) | |
| Perceived negative aspects | ||
|---|---|---|
| Themes | # responses (%) | Student quotes |
| Does not simulate a real lab environment | 25 (32%) |
|
| Technical issues | 22 (28%) |
|
| Repetitive tasks and information | 8 (10%) |
|
| Skipped tasks/steps | 5 (6%) |
|
| Boring/annoying | 5 (6%) |
|
| Confusing questions | 5 (6%) |
|
| Provided no negative aspects | 13 (16%) |
|
Interview data provided similar evidence regarding the overall benefits of vLabs. A student who completed the Viral Gene Therapy vLab explained that while they felt the content level was not advanced, the vLab provided a complete overview of the experimental workflow. The animations in the vLab helped them understand the concepts and visualize the steps involved. For another student, this was their first exposure to the topic, and they appreciated that the vLab brought them up to speed in an efficient manner.
Across all 6 vLabs, 67% of the students found the vLab experience motivating and 69% were pleased with the experience (Figure 3). Interestingly, when we looked at student responses by individual vLabs, we found significant variability in how students rated their motivation and satisfaction with the vLabs (Supplementary Figure S1). Furthermore, when segregating student responses by pre‐lab quiz scores, there was a general trend that students scoring lower on the pre‐lab quiz had higher satisfaction with the vLab experience than students who scored higher on the pre‐lab quiz (Supplementary Figure S2). Potential reasons for these variations are discussed below.
3.2. Perceived benefits of vLabs for developing lab skills
Students were more critical toward the benefits of vLabs for developing lab skills and applying what they learned in the vLabs to real‐world situations. Across all 6 vLabs, 46% of the students felt more confident about their lab skills after completing the vLabs, and 55% felt that they could apply what they learned in the vLabs to real world cases (Figure 3). When examining the breakdown of student responses based on pre‐lab quiz scores, we found that students who scored lower on the pre‐lab quiz felt more confident in their lab skills upon completing the vLab than students who scored higher (Supplemental Figure S2). Looking at the breakdown of student responses by lab, we found some variability depending on the vLab simulation (Supplementary Figure S1). For example, students were less confident in their lab skills and ability to apply their learning to real‐life situations after the invertebrate model systems vLab compared to the other vLabs. Interestingly, although the topic covered in this invertebrate model systems vLab was relevant to the course content, it was not explicitly covered in the course. Conversely, 79% of students felt like they could apply the content of the NGS vLab in a real‐world case, and 57% felt more confident in their lab skills after the simulation.
Interview and post‐lab survey data provided more in‐depth insight into students' concerns about the authenticity of vLabs for building lab skills compared to on‐site labs. When students were asked in the post‐lab questionnaire if there was anything that they disliked about the vLabs, they most often cited that it was not the same as a real‐lab environment (Table 1). After completing the NGS vLab, one student noted “I work in a lab every day and a lot of it [the vLab] wasn't intuitive.” During the think‐aloud, one of the interviewees reflected on the relevance of the Gene Therapy vLab to on‐site labs. For this student, while the experience did not provide much practical knowledge on how to use the lab equipment (e.g., the microscope), it provided an opportunity to review the workflow and mentally prepare for the wet lab. For another student who finished the same lab the experience was like a lab tour where it is not possible to directly handle the equipment, but it is possible to gain an understanding of the lab workflow.
A student who was interviewed while completing the Invertebrate Model Systems vLab appreciated that the lab provided an opportunity to work with a model organism, even though they felt the simulation was not realistic. This student cited that working in a lab inevitably entails making mistakes, and then problem‐solving to find and rectify the mistake. The vLab led them through all the step with little opportunity for deviating from the predesigned protocol. The student explained: “a real lab skill is learning how to deal with measurements and precise pipetting and making sure that everything is like labeled properly and put down in the right place and measured properly and you are using the centrifuge properly. Like those are all really tiny technical skills that can really affect the outcome of the experiment.”
3.3. Usability issues of vLabs
Students encountered several technical issues with the vLabs (Figure 4). During the first vLab simulation (Next Generation Sequencing) 9 out of 14 students reported that the program crashed or froze at points during the vLab. After contacting Labster, we learned that they no longer recommended using the Safari browser for running the vLab simulations. Although we did not record the browser students were using, after notifying students about the updated browser requirements, the number of students reporting technical issues decreased in subsequent vLabs (Figure 4). Notably, however, 7 out of 10 students again reported technical issues while completing the final vLab (Invertebrate Model Systems). In this case, the technical issues were mostly related to the simulation itself, as many students commented on the difficulty using the microscope in the vLab.
FIGURE 4.
Student reported technical issues for each of the 6 vLabs. Students were asked in the post‐lab questionnaire whether they had encountered any technical issues with each of the vLabs. The percent of students who reported technical issues is plotted.
During two think‐aloud interviews, students raised issues regarding the video clips in the Viral Gene Therapy lab. In the first case, the student played a video of a heart. They wanted to check the text associated with the video and realized that the text box covered most of the screen, thus blocking the video. Because there was no “pause” button available, the student stated that the text box caused them to miss some parts of the video. Another interviewee did not have a functioning speaker and wasn't certain if the text provided in the lab pad would completely cover the material that was presented in the video. The student could not confirm within the lab environment if the video and the text covered the same concepts.
3.4. Student choice between screen‐based and VR headset modes
Five vLabs had a VR headset version, and students could choose to access these labs either through their laptops (screen‐based mode) or via a VR headset, which they could check out to use (VR headset mode). Of the six students who started the first vLab offered in VR headset mode, only one student completed the lab in this mode. The other five students started the lab in VR headset mode but switched to screen‐based mode to complete the lab. Three students who switched modes cited feeling dizzy or sick while using the headsets, one cited technical issues, and one found the VR headset tedious and the headset uncomfortable. Students who did not attempt the first vLab offered in VR headset mode often cited the reason for this being that they heard from classmates that they encountered issues with the VR headset mode (Figure 5) the rest of the labs, 13 students opted for screen‐based mode and only one student completed a lab with the VR headset.
FIGURE 5.
Student reported reasons for completing the vLab in screen‐based mode over VR headset mode. Students were asked in the Cytogenetics post‐lab questionnaire why they completed the vLab in the screen‐based mode versus the VR headset mode. (a) The number of students who reported each reason is plotted. (b) Selected student feedback regarding VR headset mode.
Two of the three interviewees had attempted a vLab using a VR headset. One of them stated: “I thought it would be a bit more engaging than working on the laptop. But it was not because of essentially, it was just a really close up screen. And instead of a mouse, you had a clicker.” The other interviewee appreciated that instead of dragging the computer screen to explore the lab, the headset allowed them to look around. In this sense, the headset provided a more realistic lab experience. The third interviewee had not used the VR headset as other classmates had stated little difference between screen‐based and VR headset modes.
3.5. Suitability of vLabs for graduate‐level courses
At the end of the course, students were asked whether they thought vLabs were suitable for graduate‐level courses, and whether vLabs should be integrated into the Genomic Methodologies course in future years. Students were divided in their responses. Of the 10 students who responded, half thought that vLabs were appropriate for graduate‐level courses or that they could be appropriate in certain situations with some modifications (Supplementary Table S2). Conversely, the other half of student respondents did not think they were appropriate for graduate‐level courses. These students cited that the vLab experience was unrealistic and the level of difficulty was too easy for a graduate‐level course (Supplementary Table S2). When asked if the vLabs should continue to be integrated into the Genomic Methodologies course, students again were divided in their responses. 30% of respondents did not think vLabs should be used in the course again, 30% thought they should be used again, and 40% responded that they could possibly be used again if modified (Supplementary Table S2).
4. DISCUSSION
In this study we assessed the use of vLabs in a graduate‐level course, extending vLab literature beyond undergraduate and professional education. By assessing the change in pre‐lab and in‐lab quiz scores as well as students' self‐rated understanding before and after the simulation, our findings show that vLabs can improve content understanding in a graduate course. Graduate students often specified the background theory and the explanatory videos as the most beneficial aspects of the vLabs; however, unlike previous studies investigating vLabs in undergraduate settings,3, 8 we found that many graduate students were critical of vLabs' ability to aid in developing lab skills as they are not equivalent to a “real” lab environment. Compared with undergraduate students, graduate students may have spent more time in on‐site laboratories, may be more familiar with laboratory techniques and may be training for professional laboratory roles. Undergraduates, on the other hand, are typically encountering the vLab content for the first time and may not expect to employ the techniques themselves. As a result, we speculate that these two student populations approach vLabs with different expectations and therefore have differing opinions on the usefulness of vLabs to develop lab skills. When implementing vLabs in courses, to help manage student expectations, we recommend instructors communicate whether the use of vLabs in the course is intended to teach wet lab skills versus to enhance understanding of the processes involved. vLabs should be selected to either reinforce existing knowledge through repetition or introduce new content appropriate for a graduate course.
We observed that the graduate students in our study had a wide range of prior knowledge of the topics covered in the vLabs. This was expected as students enter graduate programs from different undergraduate institutions with various majors, and some may also have professional experience prior to starting graduate school. We also found that the graduate students surveyed were split when asked whether they thought vLabs were appropriate for graduate‐level courses, with half of the student respondents in favor of incorporating vLabs into graduate courses and half opposed. We speculate that students who have encountered the techniques covered in a vLab previously either in the classroom or in the laboratory may express more dissatisfaction with the vLab compared to those who have not encountered the techniques previously. This is supported by the observation that students scoring higher on the pre‐lab quiz (which can serve as a proxy for prior experience) were generally more critical of the vLabs than students scoring lower. More experienced students may find the lab to be a waste of time and believe they are not appropriate for graduate courses because they are already familiar with the technique. In courses where students have a wide range of prior experience, vLabs may be better suited as supplemental material. However, because many vLabs can only be accessed through a paid service, offering them as optional material is challenging. In fact, in the year following this study, students enrolled in the Genomic Methodologies course were given the option to purchase 10 pre‐selected labs that complemented the course content for a cost of CA$49 as supplemental material. Although students in this new cohort initially expressed interest in the labs and specifically inquired about them to the instructors, only one out of 20 students opted to purchase access. This suggests that the cost barrier and the lack of required assignments deterred most students from utilizing the vLabs, which is something that should be carefully considered when introducing vLabs in courses.
Although vLabs, which can be used straight out of the box, are convenient for course integration, we recommend tailoring the content to graduate students, especially if requiring their use. While customizing questions was not possible during our study period, there are now vLab options that include a question editor. 22 Questions at a graduate level should explore analysis and in‐depth interpretations in addition to practically applicable calculations and experimental design. Based on the feedback we received from students that some of the standard questions were confusingly worded, we also recommend collecting student feedback on both the standard and customized questions and editing the formulation of questions based on this feedback.
Although we demoed vLabs for students in class prior to the first assignment, we found that many students encountered technical issues when using the vLabs, and these students were often frustrated and critical of the vLab. Instructors and vLab suppliers must stay on top of the latest technical requirements for running the labs. Although keeping track of technical requirements may sound obvious, they can change rapidly. For example, the browser requirements for the vLabs changed without the instructors' knowledge from the time the course syllabus was released to when the first vLab was assigned, resulting in many students encountering issues when performing the first vLab. Since our study was conducted, Labster has made updates to their platform, making many simulations available in other languages, on tablet devices, and offering an accessibility mode that allows users to access simulations with a screen reader, keyboard navigation, and text size adjustment. 23 These platform changes, along with other updates in computer technology, mean that the specific technical issues our students encountered may no longer apply; however, as anyone who has recently updated their operating system can attest technical glitches still occur even with advances in technology, and we have found that students are particularly sensitive to technical issues impacting their learning experience.
In our study, performing vLabs on a VR headset did not add value to students, and was in fact worse than performing the vLab on a laptop. We note that Labster discontinued offering the VR‐headset mode in 2021. 24 Although Labster no longer offers vLabs through VR headsets, the use of VR headsets is becoming more widely used in many contexts, as a result of which sales of VR headsets are estimated to have quadrupled since our study was conducted in 2019. 25 Several studies have shown the use of VR headsets to be effective to teach undergraduate chemistry students about molecular structure by allowing them to visualize and manipulate molecules in 3D.26, 27, 28, 29 Custom‐developed labs in chemistry and medicine have allowed for specialized training in a variety of areas such as equipment use, surgical technique, and clinical simulation with generally positive results.30, 31, 32 These studies suggest that vLabs optimized for VR headsets or customized for specific student populations may yield more positive results than what we observed. Students who used VR headsets in our study cited technical difficulties and motion sickness as the main reasons for not returning to use the headset. Although our students were initially excited about the possibility to perform vLabs on a headset, these complaints highlight that simply porting a vLab designed primarily for a laptop to a headset is not beneficial for students.
It should be noted that our study was conducted with a small number of graduate students (N = 14) in one master's program. Because graduate courses are often small and specialized, it will be important for future studies to evaluate the effectiveness of vLabs to teach both theory and lab skills with additional graduate students in different programs as there may be differences between programs and student populations. We also note that the study was conducted in 2019 when many students had limited experience with online learning. Future studies, which evaluate student perceptions of vLabs, will shed insight into whether student perceptions of vLabs have shifted with increased exposure to online learning due to the COVID‐19 pandemic. Since our study was conducted, a number of new players have entered the field of vLab development (for example LabXchange, Gizmos, McGraw Hill, as well as academic groups developing custom resources30, 31, 32, 33). With these new players, as well as technical advances in virtual devices, the offerings for vLab education are evolving. However, Labster remains a prominent source for virtual laboratory content at secondary and higher‐level life science education, and the simulations used in this study are still offered by Labster. We found that many students cited the background theory and explanatory videos as the most beneficial aspects of the vLabs. Given that there are many videos, which cover these topics freely available to stream online, future studies to compare vLabs with other video streaming services are warranted.
5. CONCLUSION
We have shown that vLabs can be effective in a graduate‐level course to enhance content understanding. However, if the vLabs are a course requirement, care should be taken to review each vLab to ensure the content is appropriately selected to match the level of the course outcomes. Additionally, instructors should consider customizing questions associated with the vLabs if possible to cover experimental design, data analysis, and data interpretation at a level appropriate for graduate students. Managing expectations is crucial when introducing the activity to ensure students recognize whether the labs are intended to support their learning and understanding or to build wet lab skills. Additionally, because graduate students often have a wide range of prior knowledge and experience with laboratory techniques, instructors should consider providing vLabs as a supplemental activity for students who have not encountered the technique before.
FUNDING INFORMATION
This project received funding from the Instructional Technology Innovation Fund (ITIF) and Digital Learning Innovation – Information Technology Services at the University of Toronto.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT
The authors have no conflicting interests.
PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE MATERIAL FROM OTHER SOURCES
The authors have obtained permission from Labster to include a screenshot from the program in Figure 1. Statement from Labster: “We are delighted to offer you limited rights to use our copyrighted images, including a screenshot from Labster.” (April Ondis, August 25, 2023, via email).
Supporting information
Supplementary Figure S1: Student responses to standard Labster questions asked at the end of each vLab. Students were asked to select whether they strongly agree, agree, disagree or strongly disagree with a series of statements. Responses to each question at the end of the six individual vLabs are plotted.
Supplementary Figure S2: Student responses to standard Labster questions asked at the end of each vLab segregated by student pre‐lab quiz score. Students were asked to select whether they strongly agree, agree, disagree, or strongly disagree with the statements shown above each graph. Responses of strongly agree/agree and strongly disagree / disagree were combined. Quiz scores and responses from the 14 students for all six vLabs are plotted.
Supplementary Data S1: Genomic Methodologies Course Description.
Supplementary Table S1: vLab course integration characteristics.
Supplementary Table S2: Student responses to whether vLabs are appropriate for a graduate level course and whether they should be repeated in future years.
Supplementary Data S2: Post‐lab questionnaire.
Supplementary Data S3: Think‐aloud interview questions.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This project received funding from the Instructional Technology Innovation Fund (ITIF) and Digital Learning Innovation – Information Technology Services at the University of Toronto. We thank Mike Spears for support with hosting the headsets, and Laurie Harrison, Will Heikoop, and the Digital Learning Innovation team for guidance and support.
Carroll JS, Najafi H, Steiner M. Evaluating the effectiveness of virtual laboratory simulations for graduate‐level training in genetic methodologies. Biochem Mol Biol Educ. 2025;53(4):422–432. 10.1002/bmb.21898
Contributor Information
Johanna S. Carroll, Email: johanna.carroll@utoronto.ca.
Martina Steiner, Email: martina.steiner@utoronto.ca.
DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
Data available on request due to privacy/ethical restrictions.
REFERENCES
- 1. Toth EE, Ludvico LR, Morrow BL. Blended inquiry with hands‐on and virtual laboratories: the role of perceptual features during knowledge construction. Interact Learn Environ. 2014;22:614–630. [Google Scholar]
- 2. Zacharia ZC, Constantinou CP. Comparing the influence of physical and virtual manipulatives in the context of the physics by inquiry curriculum: the case of undergraduate students' conceptual understanding of heat and temperature. Am J Phys. 2008;76:425–430. [Google Scholar]
- 3. Yap WH, Teoh ML, Tang YQ, Goh B. Exploring the use of virtual laboratory simulations before, during, and post COVID ‐19 recovery phase: an animal biotechnology case study. Biochem Mol Biol Educ. 2021;49:685–691. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4. Bortnik B, Stozhko N, Pervukhina I, Tchernysheva A, Belysheva G. Effect of virtual analytical chemistry laboratory on enhancing student research skills and practices. Res Learn Technol. 2017;25. 10.25304/rlt.v25.1968 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 5. Darrah M, Humbert R, Finstein J, Simon M, Hopkins J. Are virtual labs as effective as hands‐on labs for undergraduate physics? A comparative study at two major universities. J Sci Educ Technol. 2014;23:803–814. [Google Scholar]
- 6. Chao J, Chiu JL, DeJaegher CJ, Pan EA. Sensor‐augmented virtual labs: using physical interactions with science simulations to promote understanding of gas behavior. J Sci Educ Technol. 2016;25:16–33. [Google Scholar]
- 7. Marks S, White D, Mazdics M. Evaluation of a Virtual Reality Nasal Cavity Education Tool. Wollongong, NSW, Australia: IEEE; 2018. p. 193–198. [Google Scholar]
- 8. Coleman SK, Smith CL. Evaluating the benefits of virtual training for bioscience students. Higher Educ Pedagogies. 2019;4:287–299. [Google Scholar]
- 9. de Vries LE, May M. Virtual laboratory simulation in the education of laboratory technicians–motivation and study intensity. Biochem Mol Biol Educ. 2019;47:257–262. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10. Soraya GV, Astari DE, Natzir R, Yustisia I, Kadir S, Hardjo M, et al. Benefits and challenges in the implementation of virtual laboratory simulations (vlabs) for medical biochemistry in Indonesia. Biochem Molecular Bio Educ. 2022;50:261–272. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11. Ibrahim GH, Morcos GNB, Ghaly WBA, Hassan MT, Hussein UA, Nadim HS. Perception of competence achievement and students' satisfaction using virtual laboratories in medical biochemistry course: lessons from the COVID ‐19 pandemic. Biochem Mol Biol Educ. 2023;51:254–262. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12. Bonde MT, Makransky G, Wandall J, Larsen MV, Morsing M, Jarmer H, et al. Improving biotech education through gamified laboratory simulations. Nat Biotechnol. 2014;32(7):694–697. 10.1038/nbt.2955 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13. Makransky G, Lilleholt L. A structural equation modeling investigation of the emotional value of immersive virtual reality in education. Educ Technol Res Dev. 2018;66:1141–1164. [Google Scholar]
- 14. Makransky G, Terkildsen TS, Mayer RE. Adding immersive virtual reality to a science lab simulation causes more presence but less learning. Learn Instr. 2019;60:225–236. [Google Scholar]
- 15. Parong J, Mayer RE. Cognitive and affective processes for learning science in immersive virtual reality. J Comput Assist Learn. 2021;37:226–241. [Google Scholar]
- 16. Costabile M. Using online simulations to teach biochemistry laboratory content during COVID‐19. Biochem Mol Biol Educ. 2020;48:509–510. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17. Delgado T, Bhark S, Donahue J. Pandemic teaching: creating and teaching cell biology labs online during COVID ‐19. Biochem Mol Biol Educ. 2021;49:32–37. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18. F. Avcı teaching the “acid–base” subject in biochemistry via virtual laboratory during the covid‐19 pandemic. Biochem Molecular Bio Educ. 2022;50:312–318. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19. Torres‐Freyermuth A, Medellín G, Martín GU, Puleo JA. A virtual laboratory for conducting “hands‐on” experiments on water wave mechanics. Cont Shelf Res. 2022;243:104760. [Google Scholar]
- 20. Bhalerao S, Parab S. Choosing statistical test. Int J Ayurveda Res. 2010;1:187. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21. Ericsson KA, Simon HA. Protocol analysis: verbal reports as data. Cambridge: The MIT Press; 1993. [Google Scholar]
- 22. New Simulation Quiz Editor Tool Offers Customization & Personalization. n.d. https://www.labster.com/blog/simulation-quiz-editor-customization-personalization
- 23. Accessibility Support Across the Spectrum. 2025. https://www.labster.com/blog/accessibility-support-across-the-spectrum
- 24. Labster Discontinuing VR Support. 2021. https://help.labster.com/instructors/collections/681646/sections/3094246/articles/4739948-labster-discontinuing-vr-support/
- 25. Statista Volume of the VR headset market worldwide from 2019 to 2029 (in millions). 2024. https://www.statista.com/forecasts/1331896/vr-headset-sales-volume-worldwide
- 26. Peterson CN, Tavana SZ, Akinleye OP, Johnson WH, Berkmen MB. An idea to explore: use of augmented reality for teaching three‐dimensional biomolecular structures. Biochem Mol Biol Educ. 2020;48:276–282. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27. Qin T, Cook M, Courtney M. Exploring chemistry with wireless, PC‐less portable virtual reality laboratories. J Chem Educ. 2021;98:521–529. [Google Scholar]
- 28. Matovu H, Won M, Tasker R, Mocerino M, Treagust DF, Ungu DAK, et al. “It is not just the shape, there is more”: students’ learning of enzyme–substrate interactions with immersive virtual reality. Chem Educ Res Pract. 2025;26:259–270. [Google Scholar]
- 29. Berkmen MB, Balla M, Cavanaugh MT, Smith IN, Flores‐Artica ME, Thornhill AM, et al. An idea to explore: use of the virtual reality app Nanome for teaching three‐dimensional biomolecular structures. Biochem Mol Biol Educ. 2025;53(4):321–329. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30. Taylor M, Abdullah NB, Al‐Dargazelli A, Montaner MB, Kareem F, Locks A, et al. Breaking the access to education barrier: enhancing HPLC learning with virtual reality. J Chem Educ. 2024;101:4093–4101. [Google Scholar]
- 31. Blumstein G, Zukotynski B, Cevallos N, Ishmael C, Zoller S, Burke Z, et al. Randomized trial of a virtual reality tool to teach surgical technique for Tibial shaft fracture intramedullary nailing. J Surg Educ. 2020;77:969–977. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32. Walls R, Nageswaran P, Cowell A, Sehgal T, White T, McVeigh J, et al. Virtual reality as an engaging and enjoyable method for delivering emergency clinical simulation training: a prospective, interventional study of medical undergraduates. BMC Med. 2024;22:222. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33. Garrido A, Berthaut F, Manganoni J. Evaluation of the use of a 360° immersive visit of the organic chemistry practical Laboratory for Pharmacy Students. J Chem Educ. 2024;101:4182–4188. [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Supplementary Materials
Supplementary Figure S1: Student responses to standard Labster questions asked at the end of each vLab. Students were asked to select whether they strongly agree, agree, disagree or strongly disagree with a series of statements. Responses to each question at the end of the six individual vLabs are plotted.
Supplementary Figure S2: Student responses to standard Labster questions asked at the end of each vLab segregated by student pre‐lab quiz score. Students were asked to select whether they strongly agree, agree, disagree, or strongly disagree with the statements shown above each graph. Responses of strongly agree/agree and strongly disagree / disagree were combined. Quiz scores and responses from the 14 students for all six vLabs are plotted.
Supplementary Data S1: Genomic Methodologies Course Description.
Supplementary Table S1: vLab course integration characteristics.
Supplementary Table S2: Student responses to whether vLabs are appropriate for a graduate level course and whether they should be repeated in future years.
Supplementary Data S2: Post‐lab questionnaire.
Supplementary Data S3: Think‐aloud interview questions.
Data Availability Statement
Data available on request due to privacy/ethical restrictions.