Top

Journal of Science Education and Technology

Published in:

09-10-2020

Virtual Laboratories in Undergraduate Science and Engineering Courses: a Systematic Review, 2009–2019

Authors: Shalaunda M. Reeves, Kent J. Crippen

Published in: Journal of Science Education and Technology | Issue 1/2021

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config

AI-assisted search

Off

Abstract

Current technology has the capacity for affording a virtual experience that challenges the notion of a teaching laboratory for undergraduate science and engineering students. Though the potential of virtual laboratories (V-Labs) has been extolled and investigated in a number of areas, this research has not been synthesized for the context of undergraduate science and engineering education. This study involved a systematic review and synthesis of 25 peer-reviewed empirical research papers published between 2009 and 2019 that focused on V-Labs. The results reveal a dearth of varied theoretical and methodological approaches where studies have principally been evaluative and narrowly focused on individual changes in content knowledge. The majority of studies fell within the general domain of science and involved a single 2D experience using software that was acquired from a range of outside vendors. The perspective largely assumed V-Labs to be a teaching approach, providing instruction without any human-to-human interaction. Positive outcomes were attributed, based more on novelty than design, to improved student motivation. Studies exploring individual experiences, the role of personal characteristics or environments that afforded social learning, including interactions with faculty or teaching assistants were noticeably missing.

previous article Computer-Based Classification of Preservice Physics Teachers’ Written Reflections

next article A Comparison of the Effects of Two Different Online Homework Systems on Levels of Knowledge Retention in General Chemistry Students

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Achuthan, K., Francis, S. P., & Diwakar, S. (2017). Augmented reflective learning and knowledge retention perceived among students in classrooms involving virtual laboratories. Education and Information Technologies, 22(6), 2825–2855. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-017-9626-x.CrossRef

Akhavian, R., & Behzadan, A. H. (2015). Construction activity recognition for simulation input modeling using machine learning classifiers. In Proceedings - Winter Simulation Conference (Vol. 2015-January, pp. 3296–3307). Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc.. https://doi.org/10.1109/WSC.2014.7020164.

Alexander, P. (2003). The development of expertise: the journey from acclimation to proficiency. Educational Research, 32(8), 10–14.CrossRef

Ángel, S. A. (2015). Real and virtual bioreactor laboratory sessions by STSE-CLIL WebQuest. Education for Chemical Engineers, 13, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ece.2015.06.004.CrossRef

Baker, R. S., Clarke-Midura, J., & Ocumpaugh, J. (2016). Towards general models of effective science inquiry in virtual performance assessments. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 32(3), 267–280. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12128.

Bernhard, J. (2018). What matters for students’ learning in the laboratory? Do not neglect the role of experimental equipment! Instructional Science, 46(6), 819–846. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-018-9469-x.

Basey, J. M., Mendelow, T. N., & Ramos, C. N. (2000). Current trends of community college lab curricula in biology: an analysis of inquiry, technology, and content. Journal of Biological Education, 34(2), 80–86. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2000.9655690.CrossRef

Bauerle, C., DePass, A., Lynn, D., O’Connor, C., Singer, S., Withers, M., et al. (2011). In C. A. Brewer & D. Smith (Eds.), Vision and change in undergraduate biology education: a call to action. American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) Retrieved from https://live-visionandchange.pantheonsite.io/reports/.

Bortnik, B., Stozhko, N., Pervukhina, I., Tchernysheva, A., & Belysheva, G. (2017). Effect of virtual analytical chemistry laboratory on enhancing student research skills and practices. Research in Learning Technology, 25. https://doi.org/10.25304/rlt.v25.1968.

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 and Education, 87, 218–237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.07.003.CrossRef

Brinson, J. R. (2017). A further characterization of empirical research related to learning outcome achievement in remote and virtual science labs. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 26(5), 546–560. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-017-9699-8.CrossRef

Bussey, T. J., Orgill, M., & Crippen, K. J. (2013). Variation theory: A theory of learning and a useful theoretical framework for chemical education research. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 14(1), 9–22. https://doi.org/10.1039/c2rp20145c.

Chemers, M. M., Zurbriggen, E. L., Syed, M., Goza, B. K., & Bearman, S. (2011). The role of efficacy and identity in science career commitment among underrepresented minority students. Journal of Social Issues, 67(3), 469–491. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2011.01710.x.CrossRef

Cheong, K. H., & Koh, J. M. (2018). Integrated virtual laboratory in engineering mathematics education: Fourier theory. IEEE Access, 6, 58231–58243. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2018.2873815.CrossRef

Chini, J. J., Madsen, A., Gire, E., Rebello, N. S., & Puntambekar, S. (2012). Exploration of factors that affect the comparative effectiveness of physical and virtual manipulatives in an undergraduate laboratory. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.8.010113.

Cobb, S., Heaney, R., Corcoran, O., & Henderson-Begg, S. (2009). The learning gains and student perceptions of a second life virtual lab. Bioscience Education, 13(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.3108/beej.13.5.CrossRef

(Committee) Steering Committee on Preparing the Engineering and Technical Workforce for Adaptability and Resilience to Change, National Academy of Engineering, & National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2018). Adaptability of the US engineering and technical workforce: proceedings of a workshop. (K. P. Jarboe & S. Olson, Eds.). Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/25016

Cummings, J. J., & Bailenson, J. N. (2016). How immersive is enough? A meta-analysis of the effect of immersive technology on user presence. Media Psychology, 19(2), 272–309. https://doi.org/10.1080/15213269.2015.1015740.CrossRef

Dalgarno, B., Bishop, A. G., Adlong, W., & Bedgood, D. R. (2009). Effectiveness of a virtual laboratory as a preparatory resource for distance education chemistry students. Computers and Education, 53(3), 853–865. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.05.005.CrossRef

Darrah, M., Humbert, R., Finstein, J., Simon, M., & Hopkins, J. (2014). Are virtual labs as effective as hands-on labs for undergraduate physics? A comparative study at two major universities. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 23(6), 803–814. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-014-9513-9.CrossRef

de Jong, T., Linn, M. C., & Zacharia, Z. C. (2013). Physical and virtual laboratories in science and engineering education. Science, 340(6130), 305–308. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1230579.CrossRef

de Jong, T., Sotiriou, S., & Gillet, D. (2014). Innovations in STEM education: the go-lab federation of online labs. Smart Learning Environments, 1(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-014-0003-6.

Driscoll, M. (2005). Psychology of learning for instruction. Boston: Pearson.

Dyrberg, N. R., Treusch, A. H., & Wiegand, C. (2017). Virtual laboratories in science education: students’ motivation and experiences in two tertiary biology courses. Journal of Biological Education, 51(4), 358–374. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2016.1257498.CrossRef

Ekmekci, A., & Gulacar, O. (2015). A case study for comparing the effectiveness of a computer simulation and a hands-on activity on learning electric circuits. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 11(4), 765–775. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2015.1438a.CrossRef

Fang, N., & Tajvidi, M. (2018). The effects of computer simulation and animation (CSA) on students’ cognitive processes: A comparative case study in an undergraduate engineering course. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 34(1), 71–83. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12215.

Feng, Z., González, V. A., Amor, R., Lovreglio, R., & Cabrera-Guerrero, G. (2018). Immersive virtual reality serious games for evacuation training and research: a systematic literature review. Computers and Education, 127, 252–266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.09.002.CrossRef

Fogarty, L., Strimling, P., & Laland, K. N. (2011). The evolution of teaching. Source: Evolution, 65.

Gardner, G. E., & Jones, M. G. (2011). Pedagogical preparation of the science graduate teaching assistant: challenges and implications. Science Education, 20(2), 31–41.

Gao, Z., Liu, S., Ji, M., & Liang, L. (2011). Virtual hydraulic experiments in courseware: 2D virtual circuits and 3D virtual equipments. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 19(2), 315–326. https://doi.org/10.1002/cae.20313.

Gobaw, G. F. (2016). Analysis of undergraduate biology laboratory manuals. International Journal of Biology Education, 5(1). https://doi.org/10.20876/ijobed.99404.

Goudsouzian, L. K., Riola, P., Ruggles, K., Gupta, P., & Mondoux, M. A. (2018). Integrating cell and molecular biology concepts: comparing learning gains and self-efficacy in corresponding live and virtual undergraduate laboratory experiences. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 46(4), 361–372. https://doi.org/10.1002/bmb.21133.CrossRef

Gunn, T., Jones, L., Bridge, P., Rowntree, P., & Nissen, L. (2018). The use of virtual reality simulation to improve technical skill in the undergraduate medical imaging student. Interactive Learning Environments, 26(5), 613–620. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2017.1374981.CrossRef

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. https://doi.org/10.1039/c3rp00070b.CrossRef

Healey, M., & Jenkins, A. (2009). Developing undergraduate research and inquiry. In AdvanceHE Retrieved from https://www.advance-he.ac.uk/knowledge-hub/developing-undergraduate-research-and-inquiry.

Hofstein, A. (2004). The laboratory in chemistry education: thirty years of experience with developments, implementation, and research. Chemical Education Research and Practice, 5(3), 247–264. https://doi.org/10.1039/B4RP90027H.CrossRef

Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. N. (2004). The laboratory in science education: foundations for the twenty-first century. Science Education, 88(1), 28–54. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10106.CrossRef

Holden, J.P., Lander, E. (2012) Report to the president: engage to excel: producing one million additional college graduates with degrees in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Executive Office of the President President’s Council of Advisors on Science and technology.

Jensen, L., & Konradsen, F. (2017). A review of the use of virtual reality head-mounted displays in education and training. Education and Information Technologies, 23(4), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-017-9676-0.CrossRef

Jones, N. (2018). Simulated labs are booming. Nature, 562(7725), S5–S7. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-06831-1.CrossRef

Kang, J., Lindgren, R., & Planey, J. (2018). Exploring emergent features of student interaction within an embodied science learning simulation. Multimodal Technologies and Interaction, 2(3). https://doi.org/10.3390/mti2030039.

Kempton, C. E., Weber, K. S., & Johnson, S. M. (2017). Method to increase undergraduate laboratory student confidence in performing independent research. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, 18(1), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1128/jmbe.v18i1.1230.CrossRef

Kester, L., Kirschner, P. A., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Baumer, A. (2001). Just-in-time information presentation and the acquisition of complex cognitive skills. Computers in Human Behavior, 17(4), 373–391. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0747-5632(01)00011-5.CrossRef

Khan, K. S., Kunz, R., Kleijnen, J., & Antes, G. (2003). Five steps to conducting a systematic review. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 96). Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nib.gov/entrez/query/(3), 118–121.CrossRef

Koh, C., Tan, H., Kim Tan, C., Fang, L., Fong, F., Kan, D., Lye, S., & Wee, M. (2010). Investigating the effect of 3D simulation-based learning on the motivation and performance of engineering students. Journal of Engineering Education, 99(3), 237–251. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2010.tb01059.x.CrossRef

Krippendorff, K. (2012). Content analysis: an introduction to its methodology. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications, Inc..

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications, Inc..CrossRef

Ma, J., & Nickerson, J. V. (2006). Hands-on, simulated, and remote laboratories: a comparative literature review. ACM Computing Surveys, 38(3), 1. https://doi.org/10.1145/1132960.1132961.CrossRef

Makransky, G., & Lilleholt, L. (2018). A structural equation modeling investigation of the emotional value of immersive virtual reality in education. Educational Technology Research and Development, 66(5), 1141–1164. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-018-9581-2.CrossRef

Makransky, G., Mayer, R., Nøremølle, A., Cordoba, A. L., Wandall, J., & Bonde, M. (2020). Investigating the feasibility of using assessment and explanatory feedback in desktop virtual reality simulations. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(1), 293–317. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-019-09690-3.CrossRef

Makransky, G., Mayer, R. E., Veitch, N., Hood, M., Christensen, K. B., & Gadegaard, H. (2019). Equivalence of using a desktop virtual reality science simulation at home and in class. PLoS ONE, 14(4), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0214944.

Makransky, G., Terkildsen, T. S., & Mayer, R. E. (2017). Adding immersive virtual reality to a science lab simulation causes more presence but less learning. Learning and Instruction, 60, 225–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2017.12.007CrossRef

Makransky, G., Thisgaard, M. W., & Gadegaard, H. (2016). Virtual simulations as preparation for lab exercises: assessing learning of key laboratory skills in microbiology and improvement of essential non-cognitive skills. PLoS One, 11(6), e0155895. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0155895.CrossRef

Martín-Gutiérrez, J., Mora, C. E., Añorbe-Díaz, B., & González-Marrero, A. (2017). Virtual technologies trends in education. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 13(2), 469–486. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2017.00626a.CrossRef

Mavromanolakis, G., Lazoudis, A., & Sotiriou, S. A. (2014). Diffusion of inquiry-based science teaching methods and practices across Europe: experience and outcomes from the “pathway”, a project supported by the 7th Framework Programme of the European Commission. In 2014 IEEE 14th International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (pp. 734–736). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICALT.2014.214.

Mayer, R. E. (2014). The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning, second edition. The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning. 2nd Edition: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139547369.CrossRef

Michel, N., Cater, J. J., & Varela, O. (2009). Active versus passive teaching styles: an empirical study of student learning outcomes. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 20(4), 397–418. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.20025.CrossRef

Mikropoulos, T. A., & Natsis, A. (2011). Educational virtual environments: a ten-year review of empirical research (1999-2009). Computers and Education, 56(3), 769–780. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.10.020.CrossRef

Nolen, S. B., & Koretsky, M. D. (2018). Affordances of virtual and physical laboratory projects for instructional design: impacts on student engagement. IEEE Transactions on Education, 61(3), 226–233. https://doi.org/10.1109/TE.2018.2791445.CrossRef

(NRC) National Research Council. (2006). America’s lab report: investigations in high school science. National Academies Press.

(NRC) National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC, USA: National Academy Press.

Ogbuanya, T. C., & Onele, N. O. (2018). Investigating the effectiveness of desktop virtual reality for teaching and learning of electrical/electronics technology in universities. Computers in the Schools, 35(3), 226–248. https://doi.org/10.1080/07380569.2018.1492283.CrossRef

Olympiou, G., & Zacharia, Z. C. (2012). Blending physical and virtual manipulatives: an effort to improve students’ conceptual understanding through science laboratory experimentation. Science Education, 96(1), 21–47. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20463.CrossRef

Petticrew, M., & Roberts, H. (2006). Systematic reviews in the social sciences: a practical guide. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Polly, P., Marcus, N., Maguire, D., Belinson, Z., & Velan, G. M. (2014). Evaluation of an adaptive virtual laboratory environment using Western blotting for diagnosis of disease. BMC Medical Education, 14(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6920-14-222.

Potkonjak, V., Gardner, M., Callaghan, V., Mattila, P., Guetl, C., Petrović, V. M., & Jovanović, K. (2016). Virtual laboratories for education in science, technology, and engineering: a review. Computers and Education, 95, 309–327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.02.002.CrossRef

Reid, N., & Shah, I. (2007). The role of laboratory work in university chemistry. Chemical Education Research and Practice, 8(2), 172–185. https://doi.org/10.1039/B5RP90026C.CrossRef

Reyes-Aviles, F., & Aviles-Cruz, C. (2018). Handheld augmented reality system for resistive electric circuits understanding for undergraduate students. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 26(3), 602–616. https://doi.org/10.1002/cae.21912.CrossRef

Riva, G., Davide, F., & Ijsselsteijn, W. A. (2003). Being there: The experience of presence in mediated environments. In Being There: Concepts, Effects and Measurements of User Presence in Synthetic Environments (Vol. 5). Amsterdam: IOS Press.

Rush, S., Acton, L., Tolley, K., Marks-Maran, D., & Burke, L. (2010). Using simulation in a vocational programme: does the method support the theory? Journal of Vocational Education and Training, 62(4), 467–479. https://doi.org/10.1080/13636820.2010.523478.CrossRef

Ryker, K. D., & McConnell, D. A. (2017). Assessing inquiry in physical geology laboratory manuals. Journal of Geoscience Education, 65(1), 35–47. https://doi.org/10.5408/14-036.1.CrossRef

Schott, C., & Marshall, S. (2018). Virtual reality and situated experiential education: a conceptualization and exploratory trial. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 34(6), 843–852. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12293.CrossRef

Secomb, J., Mckenna, L., & Smith, C. (2012). The effectiveness of simulation activities on the cognitive abilities of undergraduate third-year nursing students: a randomised control trial. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 21(23–24), 3475–3484. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2702.2012.04257.x.CrossRef

Singer, S. R., Hilton, M. L., & Schweingruber, H. A. (2005). America’s lab report: Investigations in High School Science. America’s Lab Report: Investigations in High School Science. https://doi.org/10.17226/11311.

Stains, M., & Vickrey, T. (2017). Fidelity of implementation: an overlooked yet critical construct to establish effectiveness of evidence-based instructional practices. CBE Life Sciences Education, 16(1), rm1. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-03-0113.CrossRef

Tatli, Z., & Ayas, A. (2013). Effect of a virtual chemistry laboratory on students ’ achievement. Educational Technology & Society, 16(1), 159–170 Retrieved from http://www.ifets.info/journals/16_1/14.pdf.

Tetour, Y., Boehringer, D., & Richter, T. (2011). Integration of virtual and remote experiments into undergraduate engineering courses.

Toth, E. E. (2016). Analyzing “real-world” anomalous data after experimentation with a virtual laboratory. Educational Technology Research and Development, 64(1), 157–173. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-015-9408-3.CrossRef

Ural, E. (2016). The effect of guided-inquiry laboratory experiments on science education students’ chemistry laboratory attitudes, anxiety and achievement. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 4(4), 217–227. https://doi.org/10.11114/jets.v4i4.1395.CrossRef

Uribe, M. D. R., Magana, A. J., Bahk, J. H., & Shakouri, A. (2016). Computational simulations as virtual laboratories for online engineering education: a case study in the field of thermoelectricity. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 24(3), 428–442.CrossRef

Vrellis, I., Avouris, N., & Mikropoulos, T. A. (2016). Learning outcome, presence and satisfaction from a science activity in second life. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology.

Wan, T., Geraets, A. A., Doty, C. M., Saitta, E. K. H., & Chini, J. J. (2020). Characterizing science graduate teaching assistants’ instructional practices in reformed laboratories and tutorials. International Journal of STEM Education, 7(1), 30. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-00229-0.CrossRef

Wells, J. D., Campbell, D. E., Valacich, J. S., & Featherman, M. (2010). The effect of perceived novelty on the adoption of information technology innovations: a risk/reward perspective. Decision Sciences, 41(4), 813–843. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.2010.00292.x.CrossRef

Williams, D. (2010). The mapping principle, and a research framework for virtual worlds. Communication Theory, 20(4), 451–470. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2010.01371.x.CrossRef

Zhu, H., Yang, Z., Xiong, Y., Wang, Y., & Kang, L. (2018). Virtual emulation laboratories for teaching offshore oil and gas engineering. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 26(5), 1603–1613. https://doi.org/10.1002/cae.21977.CrossRef

Title: Virtual Laboratories in Undergraduate Science and Engineering Courses: a Systematic Review, 2009–2019
Authors: Shalaunda M. Reeves
Kent J. Crippen
Publication date: 09-10-2020
Publisher: Springer Netherlands
Published in: Journal of Science Education and Technology / Issue 1/2021
Print ISSN: 1059-0145
Electronic ISSN: 1573-1839
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-020-09866-0

Springer Professional

Abstract

Please log in to get access to your license.

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Technik"

Other articles of this Issue 1/2021

Working Together: Integrating Computational Modeling Approaches to Investigate Complex Phenomena

An Outdoor Project-Based Learning Program: Strategic Support and the Roles of Students with Visual Impairments Interested in STEM

A Combined Strategy of Additive Manufacturing to Support Multidisciplinary Education in Arts, Biology, and Engineering

Comparing Learning Outcomes and Satisfaction of an Online Algebra-Based Physics Course with a Face-to-Face Course

Zooming in Time—Exploring Students’ Interpretations of a Dynamic Tree of Life

Computer-Based Classification of Preservice Physics Teachers’ Written Reflections

Premium Partners