Journal ofTurkish Science Education, 2021, Covid-19 Special Issue, 108-124

DOI no:10.36681/tused.2021.75

Examining Pre-Service Teachers’ Views about Online Chemistry

Laboratory Learning Experiences Amid the Covid-19 Pandemic

Sevinç Nihal YEŞİLOĞLU1, Sinem GENÇER2, Funda EKİCİ3, Burcu IŞIK4

1Dr. Res. Asst., Gazi University, Ankara-Turkey, (corresponding author) e-mail: nihalatalay@gazi.edu.tr,
ORCID ID: 0000-0002-0861-6892
2 Dr. Res. Asst., Gazi University, Ankara-Turkey, ORCID ID: 0000-0001-9902-7534

3 Dr. Res. Asst., Gazi University, Ankara-Turkey, ORCID ID: 0000-0001-7534-368X

4 Dr. Res. Asst., Gazi University, Ankara-Turkey, ORCID ID: 0000-0002-1476-1519

ABSTRACT ARTICLE
With the continued spread of the COVID-19 crisis, the universities were closed temporarily INFORMATION
in Turkey just as in the rest of the world. As a result of this, many educators and students Received:
01.02.2021
tried to adapt online education quickly. This research study examined 67 pre-service
Accepted:
teachers' views on online chemistry laboratory learning experiences amid the COVID-19 18.06.2021
pandemic. A data collection tool consisting of seven open-ended questions was used. Data
sources included responses given to open-ended questions about the online chemistry KEYWORDS:
laboratory learning experiences, the applications used for the chemistry experiments (e.g., Pre-service teachers,
simulations, images, and videos), the methods used for assessing online learning, and the Online learning,
system used for the virtual classroom platform. Content analysis was applied to Online chemistry
participants’ responses. Participants’ views about online chemistry laboratories amid the laboratory,
COVID-19 pandemic
COVID-19 pandemic were gathered in five themes: (i) advantages and disadvantages of
online chemistry laboratories, (ii) effects of online chemistry laboratories on learning
outcomes, (iii) views on technological applications used in online chemistry laboratories,
(iv) views on measurement and assessment methods used in online chemistry laboratories,
and (v) views of pre-service teachers on the virtual classroom platform used in online
chemistry laboratories. The findings of the study highlighted that online laboratory
learning has both advantages and disadvantages. The findings also included the strengths
and weaknesses of the system used for the virtual classroom platform. The findings may
provide useful information on how to design a positive online laboratory experience such
as integrating hands-on activities as a part of the online laboratories to overcome the lack
of “learning by doing” and using videos containing more detailed explanations about the
experimental setup.

Introduction

COVID-19 has emerged as a global threat; it has had sudden and unexpected effects on our
individual and social lives. With the COVID-19 pandemic, social relations began to be conducted
remotely and many social lives had to be suspended. Some significant measures have been taken by
countries such as restrictions on travel, reducing mass mobility, remote working, and distance
education. There has been a rapid transition to distance education after the closure of schools, colleges,
and universities. Schools, universities, teachers/instructors, and students have taken responsibility for
remote learning. Efforts in many countries included the use of various digital platforms with

108
 Yeşiloğlu, Gençer, Ekici & Işık, 2021

educational content and educational technology solutions (Moreno & Gortazar, 2020), including
Turkey.
Although distance education and online learning are concepts that have become very much a
part of our lives during the COVID-19 pandemic, have been studied for decades. When the literature is
examined, efforts have been made to clear up the confusion surrounding these concepts (Bates & Bates,
2005; Hodges et al., 2020; Moore et al., 2011). Distance education describes learning activities that take
place when there is a physical separation between the instructor and the learners (Moore et al., 2011).
Communication between the instructor and the learners can be through audio and video
teleconferences, audio and video recordings, written correspondence, or multimedia systems. At
present, the main communication technology is the World Wide Web. Online learning is a form of
distance learning and refers to learning that takes place via computers and the Internet (Carliner, 2004).
There is an assumption that universities can easily adapt to online learning during a pandemic
(Bassett & Arnhold, 2020) since they are no strangers to online education. However, this may not be the
case because there are several particular class types at the tertiary level, including lectures, tutorials,
laboratories, practical workshops, and fieldwork. Online learning during the pandemic may be
particularly challenging for students and educators in practical applications and laboratory-dominated
departments. One of those departments is science education.
The laboratory has always had a central and distinctive place in science education (Clough,
2002; Hofstein & Lunetta, 1982; Nersessian, 1991). Ausubel (1968) stated the importance of the
laboratory with the following words: “The laboratory gives the students appreciation of the spirit and
method of science... promotes problem-solving, analytic and generalization ability... provides students
with some understanding of the nature of science” (p. 345). With the rapid advancements in information
and communication technology, laboratory education environments have changed significantly
(Scanlon et al., 2002). Traditional face-to-face laboratories have moved in to online.
There are two common types of the online laboratory: remote and virtual laboratories (Budai &
Kuczmann, 2018). While in a virtual laboratory, experiments are simulated by using software, the
remote laboratory allows the students to work on real-time experiments via the Internet from a remote
location (Balamuralıthara & Woods, 2007). Remote and virtual labs can be integrated into the learning
management system (LMS) in universities. Since the LMS controls the access of users to a website and
ensures that all teaching resources are offered in the same environment, integration of online labs and
the LMS is advantageous (Ruano et al., 2013). The type of online laboratory examined in the present
study is not a remote lab. However, it is not a virtual lab either because the experiments were not based
entirely on simulations. The online chemistry laboratories subjected in this study were designed owing
to the COVID-19 pandemic. In the laboratory courses, pre-service teachers were provided with data
previously obtained from face-to-face laboratories or simulation programs and videos of experiments
in video-sharing platforms.
In science education literature, many studies are investigating the effectiveness of online
laboratories or comparing traditional face-to-face laboratories with online laboratories in terms of their
advantages and disadvantages (Başer & Durmuş, 2010; Brinson, 2015; Chini et al., 2010; Frederick, 2013;
Nedic et al., 2003). An example is a problem of whether psychomotor skills are developed in online
laboratories. According to Brinson’s (2015) review of the empirical research about learning outcome
achievement in virtual and remote versus traditional laboratories (face-to-face laboratories), there are
few studies to compare the learning outcome in terms of psychomotor skills. Parker and Zimmerman
(2011) found that students who performed microscopy in a live microscopy setting in the traditional lab
significantly better than those who performed it in a virtual lab setting. However, Brinson (2015)
reported that in other studies in terms of psychomotor skills such as setting up of an electrochemical
cell (Hawkins & Phelps, 2013), robotic manipulation (Tzafestas et al., 2006), and the physical building
of circuits (Farrokhnia & Esmailpour, 2010), the students in the online labs were significantly better than
those in the traditional labs. Moreover, Seth and Haron (2016) conducted a literature study on the
development capability of psychomotor skills according to the types of online labs. They claimed that

109
Journal of Turkish Science Education

“a virtual reality laboratory and remote laboratory only uses the "mouse click" and this cannot represent
the required psychomotor development” (p.7).
In chemistry education, laboratory courses are traditionally considered an integral part of
chemistry (Reid & Shah, 2007). In departments of chemistry and chemistry education, in higher
education, for each chemistry course, there is usually a laboratory course; for example, for the organic
chemistry, analytical chemistry, and physical chemistry courses along with the organic chemistry
laboratory, analytical chemistry laboratory, and physical chemistry laboratory courses. Therefore,
chemistry laboratory educators may have had more difficulty in conducting so many laboratory courses
by delivering full content in the rapid transition to online learning (Tran et al., 2020). In the present
study, there are three kinds of online chemistry laboratories: general chemistry laboratory, analytical
chemistry laboratory, and organic chemistry laboratory. In the literature, there are often "online
chemistry labs" studies not involving sub-branches of chemistry. Conducting the study in different
domains of chemistry enriches its scope. In addition, the variety of experiments in the online chemistry
laboratory courses is the strength of the study.
Before the COVID-19 pandemic, the studies on online laboratory courses were mostly
quantitative. For example, when the literature on online biology laboratories is examined (Barbeau et
al., 2013; Hauser, 2013; Johnson, 2002; Riggins; 2014), mostly quantitative studies comparing student
performance in online and face-to-face classes are seen. There are also qualitative studies examining the
quality and efficacy of online laboratory courses (e.g. Rowe et al., 2018). However, still there is a need
for qualitative studies investigating what can be done to develop students' science concepts and skills
through online education (Biel & Brame; 2016; Faulconer & Gruss, 2018; Winborne, 2020). In this regard,
the qualitative nature of the present study is important since it exhibits the pre-service teachers’ views
about online laboratory learning.
In Turkey, distance education in higher education institutions has been widespread since 2009
(Telli & Altun, 2020). There are 123 distance education centers (DECs) in 207 universities in Turkey. In
their descriptive study in 2017, Kirkan and Kalelioğlu examined the overall DEC situation of
universities in Turkey, they found that the most frequently selected programs were computer
programming as an associate degree program and e-MBA in Business Administration as an
undergraduate program Thus, it appears that online learning in science education and chemistry
laboratories in Turkey is less common than in other fields. The present study aimed to examine the
views of pre-service teachers about online chemistry laboratories designed due to the COVID-19
pandemic and the virtual classroom platform used in these laboratories. Therefore, the study fills an
important gap in terms of online learning in science education and chemistry laboratories in Turkey.

Research Question of the Study

The research question of this study is: What are the views of pre-service teachers about online
chemistry laboratories designed due to the COVID-19 pandemic?

Methods

Design of the Study

This was a survey study with a qualitative approach. In surveys, data are collected from
individuals who represent a group whose are asked questions to determine the characteristics, views,
perspectives, and beliefs of the relevant group (Fraenkel et al., 2012). It should be noted that this study
was a qualitative survey study, not a statistical survey study. While in qualitative survey studies "the
diversity of a subject within a given population is examined", in statistical survey studies the purpose
is to show "the numerical distribution of the properties of a subject in a population" (Jansen, 2010). In
qualitative studies, “the number of participants in a sample is usually somewhere between 1 and 20”
(Fraenkel et al., 2012 p.103). The purpose of this qualitative survey study was not to make a statistical
 Yeşiloğlu, Gençer, Ekici & Işık, 2021

generalization but to reveal the diversity of the opinions of the participants in a particular group with
open-ended questions. Considering both the purpose of the study and the sample size, it can be said
that this study has met the requirements of the qualitative survey study.

Participants

The participants were 67 pre-service teachers in the Faculty of Education at a state university in
Ankara, Turkey. They were selected using convenience sampling. In convenience sampling, the sample
group consists of individuals who are easily accessible, available at a given time, and willing to
participate (Cresswell, 2013). In the present study, the participants were selected by convenience
sampling, because of their accessibility. Although convenience sampling appears to be a limitation, the
participants in this study exemplify the profile of pre-service teachers studying at a state university. A
total of 67 pre-service teachers from the Chemistry and Biology Education Departments participated.
Although the pre-service teachers had face-to-face laboratory experiences for one semester, they did not
have any experience of online laboratory courses. Characteristics of the participants are shown in Table
1.

Table 1

Participants’ Characteristics

Department N %
Biology Education 18 27
Chemistry Education 49 73
Total 67 100
Gender
Female 63 94
Male 4 6
Total 67 100
Grade Level
1st grade 34 51
2nd grade 15 22
3rd grade 18 27
Total 67 100
Attended Place
Province 46 69
County 20 30
Town 1 1
Total 67 100
Device Used
Computer 40 60
Smart Phone 8 12
Computer and Smartphone 15 22
Computer, Smart Phone, and Tablet PC 1 1
Face-to-face Laboratory Experience 67 100
Online Chemistry Laboratory Experience - 0

Ethical Considerations

At the beginning of the study, the participants were informed about the research procedure.
They were told a study would be conducted within the scope of online laboratory courses and the
findings of the study would be reported. The participants were informed that participation in the study

111
Journal of Turkish Science Education

was voluntary. In scientific studies, it is important to keep the identities of the participants confidential
following ethical rules (Crow et al., 2006). In the present study, all participants were numbered to keep
their identities confidential. These numbers were used in direct quotations.

Research Procedure

During the first four weeks of the spring semester of 2020, all laboratories in the university were
conducted face-to-face. In the remaining weeks due to the sudden decision to make a transition to online
education, the face-to-face laboratories had to switch quickly to become online laboratories. Online
laboratories and, of course, other courses, started to be conducted with the university’s Learning and
Content Management System (LCMS) and the virtual learning technology license purchased by the
university. The features of the virtual learning technology are sound, image, documentation, and screen
sharing, using the whiteboard, raising hands, chatting with others, and replaying.
The research was conducted in the General Chemistry Laboratory, Analytical Chemistry
Laboratory-II, and Organic Chemistry Laboratory-II courses. General chemistry laboratory courses for
1st-grade pre-service chemistry and biology teachers were conducted with the same content. Analytical
chemistry laboratory course was conducted with 2nd-grade pre-service chemistry teachers and organic
chemistry laboratory course was conducted with 3 rd-grade pre-service chemistry teachers. The
curriculums of those laboratory courses were not changed when they switched to being conducted
online. The General Chemistry and Analytical Chemistry Laboratory-II courses, which take up two
hours a week, were conducted in online education for a total of 60 minutes in two 30-minute sessions
per week. The Organic Chemistry Laboratory-II course took up four hours a week, while the online
education was held for a total of 120 minutes in two sessions of 60 minutes per week. All sessions in the
online laboratory courses were online and took place with the simultaneous participation of students
and laboratory instructors. During these sessions, while the instructors’ cameras and microphones were
on, the students generally participated by writing messages in the chat section of the system. In the first
sessions of the online laboratory courses, theoretical lectures were delivered using PowerPoint
presentations and web applications such as the whiteboard in the online system. In the second session,
videos about experiments were posted on the video-sharing platform. The lecturers introduced the
materials used in the experiments to the participants, who after had watched all the videos or by
stopping videos occasionally. The participants’ predictions and observations were asked when the
videos were stopped. At the end of the videos, the results of the experiments were discussed. In the
second session, instructors and participants used the simulations as well. The list of the experiments is
given in Table 2.

Table 2

Experiments in Online Chemistry Laboratory Courses

General Chemistry Organic Chemistry Laboratory-II Analytical Chemistry Laboratory-

Laboratory Experiments Experiments II Experiments
(For Pre-service (For Pre-service Chemistry (For Pre-service Chemistry
Chemistry and Biology Teachers) Teachers)
Teachers)
 Solutions  Enolate Reactions-I: Haloform  Fundamentals of Volumetric
 Chemical Equilibrium Reaction Analysis- Introduction to
 Acids-Bases  Enolate Reactions-II: Aldol Titration and Types of Titration
 Distillation Condensation  Determination of OH- ion by
 Cannizzaro Reaction Neutralimetric titration
 Detection of Carbon and  Determination of Cl- ion by
Hydrogen Elements in Organic Argentometric titration
Compounds
 Yeşiloğlu, Gençer, Ekici & Işık, 2021

 Saponification Ester Hydrolysis  Redox Titration Fe2+ with

 Synthesis of Aspirin Potassium Permanganate
 Preparation of Bakelite Polymer  Determination of Cu2+ ion by
 Detection of Elements (N, S, Cl) Iodometric Titration
in Organic Compounds  Determination of Ca2+ ion by
Complexometric Titration

The measurement and assessment processes in these online laboratory courses were as follows:
for the General Chemistry and Analytical Chemistry laboratories, assignments were given at the end of
every online class. The assignments for the General Chemistry Laboratory consisted of algorithmic and
cause-and-effect reasoning questions. For Analytical Chemistry Laboratory-II, the assignments
consisted of case-based questions. In the Organic Chemistry Laboratory-II course, pre-experiment
questions and reports of experiments were given as assignments. All these assignments were defined
as homework activities in the system, which used a virtual classroom platform every week. The
laboratory instructors assessed the assignments and scored mid-term examinations. In all laboratory
courses, the final exams were carried out as paper-and-pencil assessments. Paper-and-pencil exams
which were defined as a homework activity by instructor, were answered by participants and after
uploaded to the system.

Data Collection and Analysis

The data collection tool used to obtain the views of the participants about the online chemistry
laboratory courses consisted of seven open-ended questions. For the content validity, two experts
reviewed these questions on chemistry education. The participants were asked to respond to the
questions after the completion of the online laboratory courses. Their written responses to the questions
were received which are given below:
● What are the advantages of an online chemistry laboratory?
● What are the disadvantages of the online chemistry laboratory?
● What does the effect of the online chemistry laboratory on learning outcomes?
● Does the effect of the online chemistry laboratory on learning depend on the subject matter
taught?
● What are your views about the technological applications used in the online chemistry
laboratory?
● What are your views about the measurement and assessment methods used in the online
chemistry laboratory?
● What are your views about the virtual classroom platform used in the online chemistry
laboratory?
The written statements given by the participants to open-ended questions were analyzed using
content analysis. Content analysis can generally be defined as "systematic coding of qualitative or
quantitative data based on specific themes or categories" (Fraenkel et al. 2012). First, all written data
were read and analyzed by two researchers. They then assigned raw codes and categories by
considering the research questions. The code list was renewed as new codes emerged in line with the
data collected from the participants during the coding process. During the analysis of the collected
qualitative data, the inductive method (Strauss & Corbin, 1990) was used in which firstly, a general
conceptual structure was created by two researchers by taking into account the research questions and
extracting existing codes and themes in the literature. During the coding process, some of the previously
extracted codes which were not stated by the participants were removed from the code list. In addition,
the code list was renewed as new codes emerged in line with the data collected from the participants.
In this way, while the predetermined code list directs the content analysis, the data obtained as a result
of analysis an inductive approach were added to the previously created code list, or the old codes were
changed according to the new codes. Participant statements containing 10% of the raw codes and code

113
Journal of Turkish Science Education

samples were subjected to consistency analysis by the other two researchers. Consistency (Miles &
Huberman, 1994) was calculated as 95% by one of the researchers and 90% by the other. A consensus
was reached as a result of discussions with the participation of all four researchers on all coding with
incompatibility. After the codes were finalized, they were gathered under a higher-level concept, and
categories were created. While creating the categories and placing the codes into the appropriate
categories and the research questions were taken into consideration for the internal consistency of the
codes under the emerging category. As the participants gave multiple responses to the questions, they
were included in more than one category. The findings are presented along with the participants’
percentages supported by direct quotations. An example of the code-category list used in the analysis
of the data regarding the opinions of the participants is given in Table 3.

Table 3

Part of the Code-Category List Used in Data Analysis

Participant’s expression Code Category

“We cannot do the experiments practically
ourselves. Since we do not do them ourselves, we
An obstacle to the
only learn in theory. We do not gain laboratory
development of Disadvantages
experience. We do not directly gain the ability to
psychomotor skills
do experiments, we learned indirectly how to do
that experiment through videos”.
“I think the lesson conducted with distance
education is better. Because the course contents
and videos are always in a location that I can Replay capability Advantages
access, we can watch the course again whenever
we want”.
“The laboratory lessons with face-to-face training Negative impact on Psychomotor
also improved our psychomotor skills. Just like learning outcome learning outcomes
setting up an experiment, completing the
Positive impact on Cognitive learning
experiment. But now it does not happen. We only
learning outcome outcomes
learned theoretically”.
“Applications such as simulations, experiment Sufficient
The usefulness of
videos, and whiteboards used in online lessons technological
web applications
helped me a lot in understanding the lesson”. applications

Results

The participants’ views about online chemistry laboratory learning experiences amid the
COVID-19 pandemic were examined in line with the research question; the views of pre-service teachers
about online chemistry laboratories. Participants’ views about online chemistry laboratories amid the
COVID-19 pandemic were gathered in five themes: (i) Advantages and disadvantages of online
chemistry laboratories, (ii) effects of online chemistry laboratories on learning outcomes, (iii) views on
technological applications used in online chemistry laboratories, (iv) views on measurement and
assessment methods used in online chemistry laboratories, and (v) views of pre-service teachers on the
virtual classroom platform used in online chemistry laboratories.

(i) Advantages and Disadvantages of Online Chemistry Laboratories

The theme of advantages and disadvantages of online chemistry laboratories is divided into
two categories, namely advantages and disadvantages. As a result of the analyses, a total of 19 codes
were identified, seven in the advantages category and 12 in the disadvantages category. Analysis of the
 Yeşiloğlu, Gençer, Ekici & Işık, 2021

participants’ views shows that diversity is higher in the category of disadvantages. The percentages of
participants’ views according to each code are given in Table 4.

Table 4

Distribution of Participants’ Views on The Advantages and Disadvantages of Online Chemistry Laboratories

Categories Codes %
Replay capability 34
Theoretical parts of the lecture 28
Use of technology 15
Advantages Time and laboratory material savings 9
Laboratory safety 7
Diversity of experiments 1
Clarity of experiments’ results 1
An obstacle to learning by doing 96
Not understandable / Not instructive 57
An obstacle to permanent learning 43
An obstacle to the development of psychomotor skills 34
An obstacle to the creation of episodes 33
An obstacle to the development of scientific process skills 28
Disadvantages
An obstacle to the identification of chemicals and laboratory materials 18
Lack of communication with the instructor 15
Limited time /Time constraint 10
An obstacle to group work 7
Not entertaining /Not interesting 6
Not student-centred 6

Examination of Table 4 shows that the advantages that participants often mention about online
chemistry laboratories are being able to replay the records of laboratory courses (34%), the theoretical
parts of the lecture (28%), and the use of technology (15%). Based on these results, the participants can
be regarded as satisfied with the online chemistry laboratories because of the replay capability provided
by the virtual classroom platform and the ability to watch the theoretical parts of the lecture over and
over again. In addition, it is seen that the participants mentioned the use of technology as an advantage
due to the use of web applications in the online chemistry laboratory such as simulation, whiteboard,
and video-sharing platform, which are not often employed in face-to-face laboratories. In other words,
the participants consider the capabilities (e.g., re-watching the theoretical parts of the lecture) they did
not have in the face-to-face laboratory as advantages of the online chemistry laboratory. One
participant’s views from among the several responses that considered the opportunity to replay to be
an advantage are given below:
Participant 1: When we miss the experiment in online sessions, it is possible to watch the
experiment again and review it. We would not have such an opportunity in face-to-face education. We
can also watch again other parts of the session we missed when we were online… The positive side is
that we have the opportunity to watch and review the experiment over and over again. (3 rd grade,
Organic Chemistry Laboratory-II)
Examination of Table 4 reveals that the participants generally think that the online-chemistry
laboratories are disadvantageous. The disadvantages that the participants often mention are that they
prevent learning by doing (96%), they are not understandable/not instructive (57%), they prevent
permanent learning (43%), they prevent the development of psychomotor skills (34%) and prevents the

115
Journal of Turkish Science Education

creation of episodes (33%). According to the participants, the most disadvantageous aspect of online
chemistry laboratories is that they prevent learning by practice. Since the participants did not have the
opportunity to do the experiments themselves in online laboratories, they regarded this as a major
disadvantage and an obstacle to the development of psychomotor skills. One participant’s views from
among several responses about the disadvantages of online laboratories in terms of being an obstacle to
learning by doing are given below:
Participant 2: I find the face-to-face laboratory course more satisfactory because we practice by
ourselves and our observation opportunities are more convenient in face-to-face laboratory courses... I
do not think that online learning is a better way of learning because we do not carry out the experiments
one-on-one. Since we cannot observe the experimental results authentically, we cannot get sufficient
visual information. (1st grade, General Chemistry Laboratory)

(ii) The Effects of Online Chemistry Laboratories on Learning

Participants’ views about the effect of online chemistry laboratories on learning were examined
under the following subthemes: learning outcomes and (ii) dependency on the subject matter. The
subtheme of learning outcomes is divided into three categories, namely cognitive, affective, and
psychomotor. The percentages of participants’ views relating to the effect of online chemistry
laboratories on learning outcomes are given in Table 5 below.

Table 5

Distribution of participants’ views on the effects of online chemistry laboratories on learning outcomes

Codes
Categories Positive impact on learning Negative impact on learning
outcome outcome
Cognitive learning outcomes 55 9
Affective learning outcomes 7 10
Psychomotor learning outcomes 0 46

The participants think that the online chemistry laboratories have a mostly positive impact on
learning outcomes in terms of the cognitive domain (55%), but a mostly negative effect in terms of the
psychomotor learning outcomes (46%). Although the participants were asked about the effect of the
online laboratory on cognitive, affective, and psychomotor learning outcomes, most of the participants
did not respond by making such a comparison. For example, the majority of the participants did not
declare their views about the affective learning outcomes. When Table 4 and Table 5 are examined
together, it is seen that none of the participants think that the online chemistry laboratory has a positive
impact on acquiring psychomotor learning outcomes as it prevents learning by doing. On the other
hand, it can be said that most of the participants who have difficulty understanding the theoretical parts
of the lecture in face-to-face laboratories think that the online chemistry laboratory has a positive impact
on cognitive learning outcomes because they can watch the theoretical parts of the lecture again. One
participant’s view about the positive effect of online chemistry laboratories on cognitive learning is
given below.
Participant 3: The lecturing in the online laboratory made a great contribution to improving my
learning of chemistry since I was unable to understand some of the instructor’s statements in the
lecturing part of the face-to-face laboratory (1st grade, General Chemistry Laboratory).
Another subtheme of the participants’ views about the effect of online chemistry laboratories
on learning is the dependency on the subject matter. This subtheme is divided into two categories,
namely depending on the subject matter and not depending on the subject matter. The percentages of
 Yeşiloğlu, Gençer, Ekici & Işık, 2021

participants’ views related to the effect of online chemistry laboratories on learning in terms of the
subject matter are given in Table 6 below.

Table 6

Distribution of participants’ views on the effect of online chemistry laboratories on learning in terms of the subject
matter

Categories Codes %
No explanation 35
Difficulty/Easiness of the subject matter 19
Depends on the subject matter Familiarity with the subject matter 9
The attractiveness of the subject matter 7
Total 70
Does not depend on the subject matter No explanation 21
Total 21

It is seen that participants think that learning mostly depends on the subject (70%) in online
chemistry laboratories. However, it was determined that 35% of these participants stated that learning
depends on the subject matter without any explanation. The participants associated this dependency
most with the difficulty or easiness of the subject matter (19%). Some 21% of the participants stated that
learning was not dependent on the subject matter in online chemistry laboratories without any
explanation. One participant's view about dependency on the subject matter is given below.
Participant 4: Yes, it depends on the subject. While an acid-base experiment is easily understood,
the crystallization experiment is difficult to understand and questions about it are challenging for us.
(2nd grade, Analytical Chemistry Laboratory-II)

(iii) Views on Technological Applications Used in Online Chemistry Laboratories

The theme of views on technological applications, such as simulation and video sharing
platforms, used during online chemistry laboratories is divided into two categories as sufficient and
insufficient. A limited number of codes were found under these categories because most of the
participants did not provide any explanation as to why they found technological applications sufficient
and insufficient. The findings regarding the technological applications used are given in Table 7.

Table 7

Distribution of participants’ views on technological applications used in online chemistry laboratories

Categories Codes %
No explanation 55
Sufficient technological applications The usefulness of web applications 24
Total 79
No explanation 17
Insufficient technological applications Incomprehensible videos of the experiments 4
Total 21

It is seen that the participants mostly think that the technological applications used are sufficient
(79%). Some 24% of these participants find web applications such as simulation, PowerPoint, and
whiteboard particularly useful. One participant’s view about it is given below.

117
Journal of Turkish Science Education

Participant 5: In the online laboratory, our instructors did their best to help us to understand
the subject matter. They let us watch many videos about the experiments for every course, gave us
homework allowing us to use simulations, and shared their lecture notes with us. Attempts were made
to use technological applications as efficiently as possible. (2nd grade, Analytical Chemistry Laboratory-
II).
It is seen that 21% of the participants think that the technological applications are insufficient
and that 4% state that the technological applications are insufficient due to the videos of experiments
are not being understood. One participant’s view about it is as follows:
Participant 6: I cannot say that I fully understood the videos of experiments. I could not fully
understand the videos we watched (3rd grade, Organic Chemistry Laboratory-II).

(iv) Views on Measurement and Assessment Methods Used in Online Chemistry

Laboratories

The theme of views on measurement and assessment methods used during online chemistry
laboratories is divided into two categories, namely suitable and unsuitable. The findings regarding the
measurement and assessment methods used are given in Table 8.

Table 8

Distribution of participants’ views on measurement and assessment methods in online chemistry laboratories

Categories Codes %
- 70
Suitable measurement and assessment methods
Total 70
Inability to avoid cheating in the exams 7
Limited time to complete the exams 7
Unsuitable measurement and assessment methods
Not practice-based exams 7
Total 21

Table 8 shows that most of the participants (70%) think that the measurement and assessment
methods are suitable. However, these participants did not provide any explanation as to why they
found the methods suitable. Some 21% of the participants explain why the measurement and
assessment methods are unsuitable such as the inability to avoid cheating in the exams (7%), limited
time to complete the exams (7%), and no practice-based exams (7%). The views of one participant who
finds the measurement and assessment methods suitable and one who finds them unsuitable are given
below.
Participant 7: Homework and exams were suitable for the online laboratory course. Pre-
experiment questions helped us to understand the experiment more easily. The reports of experiments
we wrote after the experiment made the experiment more permanent for us. (3 rd grade, Organic
Chemistry Laboratory-II)
Participant 8: I think the homework and exams given in this online laboratory course were not
suitable to assess what we learned because the exams were paper-and-pencil tests and not practice-
based. (1st grade, General Chemistry Laboratory)

(v) Views of Pre-Service Teachers on The Virtual Classroom Platform Used in Online
Chemistry Laboratories

The participants’ views about online chemistry laboratories amid the COVID-19 pandemic were
gathered in two categories: (i) positive aspects of the virtual classroom platform and (ii) negative aspects
of the virtual classroom platform. As a result of the analyses, a total of five codes were identified, three
 Yeşiloğlu, Gençer, Ekici & Işık, 2021

in the positive aspects category and two in the negative aspects category. The findings regarding the
virtual classroom platform used in online chemistry laboratory education are given in Table 9.

Table 9

Distribution of participants’ views on the virtual classroom platform used in online education

Categories Codes %
Usefulness 42
Replay capability 34
Positive aspects
Providing communication 14
Total 90
System problems 64
Negative aspects Lack of communication 21
Total 85

Table 9 reveals that the participants have both positive (90%) and negative (85%) views about
the virtual classroom platform. The codes regarding the positive views and the percentage of
participants are as follows: usefulness (42%), replay capability (34%), and providing communication
(14%). An example of one participant’s positive view is as follows:
Participant 9: The virtual classroom platform used in this online laboratory helped us a lot. It
provided us with the opportunity to communicate with our instructors and allowed us to watch the
sessions we could not attend. The virtual classroom platform helped us a lot in understanding the lesson
by providing the opportunity to watch the sessions repeatedly whenever we wanted. (1 st grade, General
Chemistry Laboratory)
On the other hand, the participants pointed out some negative aspects such as system problems
(64%) and lack of communication (21%). Examples of one participant’s negative views are as follows:
Participant 10: The sound in the virtual classroom platform cut out most of the time. There were
many problems such as system freeze... It was an educational period that took place without student-
instructor interaction (2nd grade, Analytical Chemistry Laboratory-II).
According to the results about the virtual classroom platform, although the participants
generally find the virtual classroom platform useful, it is seen that they also have systemic problems. In
addition, there are points about the virtual classroom platform they find both positive and negative in
terms of ensuring communication.

Conclusions and Implications

The current situation has imposed many constraints on teaching chemistry laboratories but
technology and the Internet allowed instructors to continue teaching and maintain learning by
employing various online platforms, but what was the situation like for learners? What were their views
about their experience in this new way of teaching and learning? This study analyzed the opinions of
pre-service teachers. Although the pre-service teachers talked about the advantages of online
laboratories, they mostly focused on the disadvantages. The pre-service teachers’ views about the
advantages and disadvantages of online laboratories also revealed the points they care about in face-to-
face laboratory training. For example, they mostly emphasized the lack of “learning by doing” in online
laboratories. “Learning by doing is the process whereby people make sense of their experiences,
especially those experiences in which they actively engage in making things and exploring the world.
It is both a conceptual designation applied to a wide variety of learning situations and a pedagogical
approach in which teachers seek to engage learners in more hands-on, creative modes of learning.”
(Bruce & Bloch, 2012). Likewise, their opinions about the lack of development of “psychomotor skills”

119
Journal of Turkish Science Education

and the absence of “episodes” supported their views about the lack of “learning by doing”. Millar (1998)
mentioned that there is a “memorable episode supply” function to laboratory tasks. That is, there is
some evidence that our memories do not store only ideas and rules but also whole episodes.
On the other hand, pre-service teachers thought that “theoretical lecturing” was given enough
and evaluated it as an advantage.
Another advantage of online laboratories, according to the pre-service teachers, was the
prevention of accidents that may occur and the prevention of waste of chemicals and some materials in
the face-to-face laboratories. It is a well-known fact that teachers often avoid laboratory courses due to
material supply and safety problems (Demir et al., 2011). Online laboratories can be a solution to these
kinds of problems. Many pre-service teachers also emphasized that the effectiveness of an online
laboratory depends on the subject matter in terms of difficulty, familiarity, and interest attraction. The
online laboratory instructors can plan their courses by taking these aspects into account.
The pre-service teachers’ self-reporting about the effect of online laboratories on learning was
examined in three domains: cognitive, affective, and psychomotor. They thought that online
laboratories affected cognitive learning the most. This view is also consistent with their thoughts that
theoretical lecturing is an advantage during online laboratories. Few pre-service teachers thought that
online laboratories had an impact on affective learning. In a recent literature review on remote
laboratories in higher education that examined empirical research on the learning benefits of such
laboratories, it was found that cognitive and affective learning is equal or better in remote laboratories
than in hands-on laboratories (Post et al., 2019). The small number of pre-service teachers who think
that online laboratories had an impact on affective learning may be due to the sudden and forced
transition to the online laboratory during the COVID-19 pandemic. Affective learning is very much
related to attitude and requires adequate and appropriate time for the attitude to develop positively.
Many pre-service teachers thought that online chemistry laboratories have negative impacts on
psychomotor learning outcomes.
Whether psychomotor skills improve in face-to-face laboratories or online laboratories (Seth &
Haron, 2016) is a controversial issue. One of the reasons may be related to what is meant by psychomotor
skills. Does psychomotor skill mean a basic movement such as gripping material in the laboratory, or a
more complex movement that requires more than one process step, such as setting up an experiment?
According to Kasilingam and Chinnavan (2014), psychomotor skills include sequences of motor
activities to a certain degree of accuracy, smoothness, rapidity, or force. In the present study, some of
the pre-service teachers gave the example for the psychomotor skill of “set up and complete an
experiment”. However other pre-service teachers’ understanding of psychomotor skills could have been
examined more thoroughly.
Another issue related to the development of psychomotor skills is its interactive nature with the
cognitive domain. There is a cognitive understanding underlying motor activity. Kasilingam,
Ramalingam, and Chinnavan (2014) claim that psychomotor activities can be observed through videos,
demonstrations, online text descriptions, or with pictures of each step in the sequence since each
psychomotor activity contains a cognitive aspect, for example, simulations can be used to observe the
steps of a motor sequence. However, as for the assessment of psychomotor activities, they suggested
that the student should perform the skill with an instructor if the skill was performed to a set standard.
Additional research can be necessary to examine more carefully the effects of online laboratories on the
psychomotor domain.
Most of the pre-service teachers approved of the measurement and assessment methods used
in online laboratories. The summative and formative assessment processes that were used in their face-
to-face laboratories were also used in their online laboratories. Therefore, they may be thinking that the
measurement and assessment issue in online laboratories is not unqualified. However, some of them
felt that it was easier to cheat in an online class. The studies about “cheating in online education” (Beck,
2014; Watson & Sottile, 2010) reported that online students were no more likely to cheat on exams than
those in face-to-face environments. The students need to acknowledge the mechanisms that can detect
different types of cheating in the online setting, such as a variety of virtual test-taking strategies,
 Yeşiloğlu, Gençer, Ekici & Işık, 2021

plagiarism detection software, authentication technologies to electronically affirm an online student’s

identity, and webcams.
Almost all of the pre-service teachers emphasized that they had positive views about the virtual
classroom platform used in the present study. They thought that the synchronized system was useful
because it provided messaging, document upload, and screen sharing. In addition, they stated that the
ability to watch the course records again was a positive aspect of the system. Although they thought
that disconnection problems may be caused by the LMS (not working due to many online courses at the
same time), it may also be related to Internet connectivity in their locations such as rural areas, or the
devices used to connect, such as smartphones or computers. According to Mohalik and Sahoo (2020),
Internet connection problems were among the major problems experienced by pre-service teachers in
distance education.
The findings provided useful information on how to design and deliver a positive online
laboratory experience. For example, to overcome the lack of “learning by doing” in the online
laboratories, hands-on laboratory activities can be integrated as a part of the online laboratories using
the chemicals and equipment in custom-built, use-at-home laboratory kits or easily accessible and safe
materials at home.
Many studies have examined learners’ views about online laboratories that are designed in
detail (e.g., Brodeur et al, 2015 Brown & Lahoud, 2005; May, 2020; Orduña et al, 2016). The difference
with the online chemistry laboratories mentioned in the present study is that they were designed and
conducted hurriedly due to the COVID-19 pandemic. According to the findings of the present study,
the participants are not completely satisfied with these online laboratories. The laboratory instructors
used the videos in online video-sharing platforms for the experiments because they don’t have videos
of themselves conducting the experiments. Some of the participants stated that the experiments in these
videos are not understandable. It appears that they may not understand how to set up the experiments
due to the ready-made experiment setups in the videos. Therefore, it is recommended that videos
containing more detailed explanations about the experimental setup, the equipment, and materials
used, the procedure, and the results of the experiment should be filmed by the laboratory instructors.
Thus, videos of experiments filmed in this way for online laboratories will be more useful for learners.
Laboratories play a crucial role in chemistry teaching. Therefore, it is crucial to provide pre-
service teachers with laboratory experience in online education amid the COVID-19 pandemic. The
present study enabled us to look at the positive and negative points of this process through the eyes of
pre-service teachers with online laboratory experience. For this reason, the findings herein will help
teacher educators to obtain an in-depth understanding of the many impacts the online laboratory
experience has on pre-service teachers.
After the COVID-19 experience, it appears that online laboratories will become more common
and that the technologies used will be more diverse in the future. Moreover, learning and content
management systems will become more common and specific for chemistry laboratories. Therefore,
feedback or views of learners who will use them are important to improve the quality of online teaching
in the future (Qiang et al., 2020). In addition, it is important to share online learning experiences in crisis
that develop suddenly such as the COVID-19 pandemic in terms of the measures that should be taken
now for future criseis. Considering these reasons and the status of distance education and online
learning in Turkey, it is thought that the study will contribute to the literature.

References

Ausubel, D. P. (1968). Educational psychology. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
Balamuralıthara, B., & Woods, P. C. (2007). Virtual Laboratories in engineering education: the
simulation lab and remote lab. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 17, 108-118.
Barbeau, M. L., Johnson, M., Gibson, C., & Rogers, K. A. (2013). The development and assessment of an
online microscopic anatomy laboratory course. Anatomical Sciences Education, 6(4), 246-256.
Bassett, R., M., & Arnhold, N. (2020, April 30). COVID-19’s immense impact on equity in tertiary

121
Journal of Turkish Science Education

education. Retrieved from https://blogs.worldbank.org/education/COVID-19s-immense-

impact-equity-tertiary-education
Başer, M. & Durmuş, S. (2010). The effectiveness of computer-supported versus real laboratory inquiry
learning environments on the understanding of direct current electricity among pre-service
elementary school teachers. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 6(1),
47-61.
Bates, A. W., & Bates, T. (2005). Technology, e-learning, and distance education. Psychology Press.
Beck, V. (2014). Testing a model to predict online cheating—Much ado about nothing. Active Learning in
Higher Education, 15(1), 65-75.
Brinson, J. R. (2015). Learning outcome achievement in non-traditional (virtual and remote) versus
traditional (hands-on) laboratories: A review of the empirical research. Computers & Education,
87, 218-237.
Biel, R., & Brame, C. J. (2016). Traditional versus online biology courses: Connecting course design and
student learning in an online setting. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, 17(3), 417.
Brodeur, Marcus; Minocha, Shailey; Kolb, Ulrich and Braithwaite, Nicholas (2015). Designing online
laboratories for optimal effectiveness: undergraduate priorities for authenticity, sociability and
metafunctionality. In: 15th International Conference on Technology, Policy and Innovation, 17-19 Jun
2015, The Open University, Milton Keynes.
Brown, S. A., & Lahoud, H. A. (2005, October). An examination of innovative online lab technologies.
In Proceedings of the 6th conference on Information technology education (pp. 65-70).
Bruce B.C., & Bloch N. (2012). Learning by Doing. In Seel N.M. (eds) Encyclopedia of the Sciences of
Learning. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-1428-6_544.
Budai, T., & Kuczmann, M. (2018). Towards a modern, integrated virtual laboratory system. Acta
Polytechnica Hungarica, 15(3), 191-204.
Carliner, S. (2004). An overview of online learning (2nd ed.). Human Resource Development Press.
Chini, J. J., Carmichael, A., Rebello, N. S., Gire, E., & Puntambekar, S. (2010). Comparing students'
performance with physical and virtual manipulatives in a simple machines curriculum. In
Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (AERA): Understanding Complex
Ecologies in a Changing World. Denver, Colorado, USA.
Clough, M. P. (2002). Using the laboratory to enhance student learning. In R. W. Bybee (Ed.), Learning
science and the science of learning, 2002 NSTA yearbook (pp. 85-97).
Creswell, J. W. (2013). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage
publications. Crow, G., Wiles, R., Heath, S., & Charles, V. (2006). Research ethics and data
quality: The implications of informed consent. International Journal of Social Research Methodology,
9(2), 83-95.
Demir, S., Böyük, U., & Koç, A. (2011). Fen ve teknoloji dersi öğretmenlerinin laboratuvar şartları ve
kullanımına ilişkin görüşleri ile teknolojik yenilikleri izleme eğilimleri. Mersin Üniversitesi
Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 7(2), 66-79.
Farrokhnia, M. R., & Esmailpour, A. (2010). A study on the impact of real, virtual, and comprehensive
experimenting on students' conceptual understanding of DC electric circuits and their skills in
undergraduate electricity laboratory Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 5474-5482.
Faulconer, E., & Gruss, A. (2018). A review to weigh the pros and cons of online, remote, and distance
science laboratory experiences. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning,
19(2), 156-168.
Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2012). How to design and evaluate research in education (8th
ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Frederick, M. J. M. (2013). Comparison of student outcomes between computer-based simulated and
hands-on lab environments. International Journal of University Teaching and Faculty Development,
4(1), 1-8.
Hauser, L. K. (2013). An examination of the predictive relationship between mode of instruction and
student success in introductory biology [Doctoral dissertation, Old Dominion
 Yeşiloğlu, Gençer, Ekici & Işık, 2021

University].https://commons.vccs.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1070&context=inquiry.
Hawkins I., & Phelps, A. J. (2013). Virtual laboratory vs. traditional laboratory: which is more effective
for teaching electrochemistry? Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 14(4), 516-523.
Hodges C., Moore S., Lockee B., Trust T., & Bond A. (2020). The difference between emergency remote
teaching and online learning. Retrieved from https://er.educause.edu/articles/2020/3/the-
difference-between-emergency-remote-teaching-and-online-learning.
Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. N. (1982). The role of the laboratory in science teaching: Neglected aspects
of research. Review of educational research, 52(2), 201-217.
Johnson, M. (2002). Introductory biology online. Journal of College Science Teaching, 31(5), 312.
Jansen, H. (2010). The logic of qualitative survey research and its position in the field of social research
methods. In Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research (Vol. 11, No. 2).
Kasilingam, G., Ramalingam, M., & Chinnavan, E. (2014). Assessment of Learning Domains to Improve
Student’s Learning in Higher Education. Journal of Young Pharmacists, 6, 27-33.
Kirkan, B., & Kalelioğlu, F. (2017). Türkiye’de uzaktan eğitim merkezlerinin durumu: Betimsel bir
çalışma. Journal of Instructional Technologies & Teacher Education, 6(3), 88-98.
May, D. (2020). Cross Reality Spaces in Engineering Education – Online Laboratories for Supporting
International Student Collaboration in Merging Realities. International Association of Online
Engineering. Retrieved July 27, 2021 from https://www.learntechlib.org/p/218004/.
Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. (2nd Edition).
California: SAGE Publications.
Millar, R. (1998). Rhetoric and reality: What practical work in science education is really for? In J. J.
Wellington (Eds.), Practical work in schools science: Which way now? (pp. 16-33). London:
Routledge.
Mohalik, R., & Sahoo, S. (2020). e-Readiness and perception of student teachers’ towards online learning
in the midst of COVID-19 pandemic (August 4, 2020). Available at SSRN:
https://ssrn.com/abstract=3666914 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3666914
Moore, J. L., Deane, C.D., & Galyen, K.. (2011). e-Learning, online learning, and distance learning
environments: Are they the same? Internet and Higher Education. 14(2), 129-135.
Moreno, J., M., & Gortazar, L. (2020, April 08). Schools’ readiness for digital learning in the eyes of
principals. An analysis from PISA 2018 and its implications for the COVID19 (Coronavirus)
crisis response. Retrieved From https://blogs.worldbank.org/education/schools-readiness-
digital-learning-eyes-principals-analysis-pisa-2018-and-its.
Nedic, Z., Machotka, J., & Nafalski, A. (2003). Remote laboratories versus virtual and real laboratories.
Proceedings of the 2003 33rd annual frontiers in education conference, Boulder, CO (Vol. 1, pp. T3E.1-
T3E.6). IEEE.
Nersessian, N. J. (1991). Conceptual change in science and in science education. In M. R. Matthews (Ed.),
History, Philosophy, and Science Teaching, (pp. 133–148). OISE Press.
Parker, N. T., & Zimmerman, L. (2011). Comparison of microbiological laboratory skills of students with
online versus traditional preparatory laboratory experiences. Proceedings of the 18th Annual
American Society for Microbiology Conference for Undergraduate Educators, John Hopkins
University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Orduña, P., Rodriguez-Gil, L., Garcia-Zubia, J., Dziabenko, O., Angulo, I., Hernandez, U., & Azcuenaga,
E. (2016, February). Classifying online laboratories: Reality, simulation, user perception and
potential overlaps. In 2016 13th International Conference on Remote Engineering and Virtual
Instrumentation (REV) (pp. 224-230). IEEE
Post, L. S., Guo, P., Saab, N., & Admiraal, W. (2019). Effects of remote labs on cognitive, behavioral, and
affective learning outcomes in higher education. Computers & Education, 140, 103596.
Qiang, Z., Obando, A. G., Chen, Y., & Ye, C. (2020). Revisiting distance learning resources for
undergraduate research and lab activities during COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Chemical
Education, 97(9), 3446-3449.
Reid, N., & Shah, I. (2007). The role of laboratory work in university chemistry. Chemistry Education:

123
Journal of Turkish Science Education

Research and Practice, 8(2), 172-185.

Riggins, M. E. (2014). Online versus face-to-face biology: A comparison of student transactional
distance, approach to learning, and knowledge outcomes [Doctoral dissertation, University of
Southern Mississippi]. https://aquila.usm.edu/dissertations/19/
Rowe, R. J., Koban, L., Davidoff, A. J., & Thompson, K. H. (2018). Efficacy of online laboratory science
courses. Journal of Formative Design in Learning, 2(1), 56-67.
Ruano-Ruano, I., Gómez-Ortega, J., Gámez-García, J., & Estevez-Estévez, E. (2013). Integration of online
laboratories-LMS via SCORM. In 2013 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and
Cybernetics (pp.3163-3167). IEEE
Scanlon, E., Morris, E., Di Paolo, T., & Cooper, M. (2002). Contemporary approaches to learning science:
Technologically-mediated practical work. Studies in Science Education, 38, 73-114.
Seth, A., & Haron, H. N. (2016). Online Laboratory for Psychomotor Development in Open Distance
Learning Environment. Proceedings of the International Conference on Science, Engineering,
Management and Social Sciences (ICSEMSS 2016).
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research (Vol. 15). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Telli, S. G., & Altun, D. (2020). Coronavirüs ve çevrimiçi (online) eğitimin önlenemeyen yükselişi.
Üniversite Araştırmaları Dergisi, 3(1), 25-34.
Tran, K., Beshir, A., & Vaze, A. (2020). A tale of two lab courses: An account and reflection on the
teaching challenges experienced by organic and analytical chemistry laboratories during the
COVID-19 period. Journal of Chemical Education, 97(9), 3079-3084.
Tzafestas, C. S., Palaiologou, N., & Alifragis, M. (2006). Virtual and remote robotic laboratory:
Comparative experimental evaluation. IEEE Transactions on Education, 49(3), 360-369.
Voelcker-Rehage, C. (2008). Motor-skill learning in older adults—a review of studies on age-related
differences. European Review of Aging and Physical Activity, 5, 5-16.
Watson, G. R., & Sottile, J. (2010). Cheating in the digital age: Do Students cheat more in online courses?
Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 13(9). Retrieved from
http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/spring131/watson131.html.
Winborne, M. (2020). Comparison of retention rates between traditional on-ground and online biology
laboratory courses in the community college setting [Doctoral dissertation, University of
SouthernstMississippi].https://aquila.usm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2932&context=disse
rtation.