Abstract-This paper describes the instructional design, implementation, and assessment of a virtual laboratory based on a numerical simulation of a chemical vapor deposition (CVD) process, the virtual CVD laboratory. The virtual CVD laboratory provides a capstone experience in which students synthesize engineering science and statistics principles and have the opportunity to apply experimental design in the context similar to that of a practicing engineer in industry with a wider design space than is typically seen in the undergraduate laboratory. The simulation of the reactor is based on fundamental principles of mass transfer and chemical reaction, obscured by added "noise." The software application contains a 3-D student client that simulates a cleanroom environment, an instructor Web interface with integrated assessment tools, and a database server. As opposed to being constructed as a direct one-to-one replacement, this virtual laboratory is intended to complement the physical laboratories in the curriculum so that certain specific elements of student learning can be enhanced. Implementation in four classes is described. Assessment demonstrates students are using an iterative experimental design process reflective of practicing engineers and correlates success in this project to higher order thinking skills. Student surveys indicate that students perceived the virtual CVD laboratory as the most effective learning medium used, even above physical laboratories.

Background This study compares students' perceptions of key cognitive processes and specific content afforded by an industrially situated virtual laboratory project and two physical laboratory projects. Purpose(Hypothesis) 1. How do students' perceptions of the nature of cognition, experimental design, and ambiguity compare across selected virtual and physical laboratory experiences? 2. In what ways do students perceive the virtual and physical laboratories as an authentic experience that is reflective of real‐life engineering? Design/Method Three, free‐response survey questions were quantitatively and qualitatively analyzed. Content analysis was used to establish categories to group the responses, and the coding process had an interrater reliability of 0.90. Results Student responses showed statistically significant increases in categories of Experimental Design, Critical Thinking, and Ambiguity in the virtual laboratories and in Lab Protocol and Specific Content in the physical laboratories. Additionally, more overall High Cognition statements were observed in the virtual laboratory. Student perceptions of ambiguity shifted from ambiguity in the instruction to an ambiguity in the experimental process itself, and many students were able to suspend disbelief in the virtual laboratories and demonstrated psychological presence, leading to the potential for a rich learning experience. Conclusion The industrially situated virtual laboratories reported in this paper provide affordances for substantially different student thinking about their thinking than the physical laboratories in the same course. This conclusion does not suggest that the differences are a direct result of the medium of the laboratory (virtual vs. physical) but rather the opportunities that the instructional design of each type of laboratory affords.

Peer instruction is an active-learning pedagogy in which students answer short, conceptually based questions that are interspersed during instruction. A key element is the group discussion that occurs among students between their initial and final answers. This study analyzes student responses during a modified form of peer instruction in two chemical thermodynamics classes. It seeks to understand the changes in student thinking that result from group discussion. In addition to selecting multiple-choice answers, students are asked to write a short explanation of their choice and rate their confidence in their answer. The written explanations have been coded based on the depth and accuracy of the concepts applied. Two cohorts are studied. For Cohort A, initial results of the entire class are shown to the entire class before group discussion, whereas for Cohort B, they are not. After group discussion, the majority of students select the consensus answer, whether it is right or wrong, and whether they see intermediate results. However, display of intermediate results substantially impacts student confidence. A statistically significant number of students who initially had correct answers and did not change had a higher value code assigned to their explanations after group discussion.