Teaching of Psychology

http://top.sagepub.com/

Sniffing Out Efficacy: Sniffy Lite, a Virtual Animal Lab

Sandy S. Venneman and Laura Ruth Knowles
Teaching of Psychology 2005 32: 66
DOI: 10.1207/s15328023top3201_13

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://top.sagepub.com/content/32/1/66

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Society for the Teaching of Psychology

Additional services and information for Teaching of Psychology can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://top.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://top.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

>> Version of Record - Jan 1, 2005

What is This?

Downloaded from top.sagepub.com at East Carolina University on June 6, 2014

Buzhardt, J., & Semb, G. B. (2002). Item-by-item versus end-of-test Visser, J. A. (2000). Faculty work in developing and teaching
feedback in a computer-based PSI course. Journal of Behavioral Ed- Web-based distance courses: A case study of time and effort.
ucation, 11, 89–104. American Journal of Distance Education, 14, 21–32.
DiBiase, D. (2000). Is distance teaching more work or less work? The Wilson, S. P., & Harris, A. (2002). Evaluation of The Psychology
American Journal of Distance Education, 14, 6–20. Place: A Web-based instructional tool for psychology courses.
Green, S. B., Salkind, N. J., & Akey, T. M. (2000). Using SPSS for Teaching of Psychology, 29, 165–168.
Windows: Analyzing and understanding data (2nd ed.). Upper Sad- Yaskin, D., & Everhart, D. (2003). Blackboard learning system (Re-
dle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. lease 6). Retrieved March 30, 2004, from www.blackboard.
Keller, F. S. (1968). “Goodbye, teacher …” Journal of Applied Behav- com/docs/wp/LSR6WP.pdf
ior Analysis, 1, 79–89.
Levin, H. M., Glass, G. V., & Meister, G. R. (1987).
Cost-effectiveness of computer-assisted instruction. Evaluation
Review, 11, 50–72.
Note
Russell, T. (1999). The no significant difference phenomenon. Raleigh:
North Carolina State University. Send correspondence to Jay Buzhardt, Juniper Gardens Children’s
Semb, G. B. (2000). An introduction to child behavior and development Project, 650 Minnesota Avenue, Kansas City, KS 66101; e-mail:
(3rd ed.). Lenexa, KS: Transmedia Technology. [email protected].

Sniffing Out Efficacy: Sniffy Lite, a Virtual Animal Lab

Sandy S. Venneman Laura Ruth Knowles

Departments of Psychology and Biology University of Houston–Victoria
University of Houston–Victoria

We investigated the benefits of using a virtual laboratory, Sniffy Indeed, 78% of “America’s best colleges” that offer ani-
Lite CD–ROM (Alloway, Wilson, Graham, & Krames, 2000), mal-based instruction do learning experiments
as a supplemental teaching tool to present schedules of reinforce- (Cunningham, 2003). However, decreased funding has led to
ment in operant conditioning. Our results suggest that using the vir- a decline in the use of animals for research (Plous, 1996) and
tual laboratory significantly enhanced understanding. Students demonstrations (Snyder, 2003). A virtual laboratory may be
who used the virtual laboratory earned a mean score of 76% on the an economical alternative to buying and maintaining animals
measure of comprehension, whereas control group participants and special equipment. Motivated by budget constraints, my
who studied an equivalent period of time as the virtual laboratory coauthor and I examined the possibility of using a virtual lab-
assignments earned 63%, as did those who received no interven- oratory to address the performance decline I noted.
tion. Increased student comprehension supports the efficacy of this Researchers have assessed the ability of virtual laborato-
low-cost learning tool. ries to simulate live laboratories (Graf, 1995; Graham,
Alloway, & Krames, 1994; Lane, 1999; McGraw, Tew, &
Williams, 2000). However, they have not assessed learning
Following my move from a larger, well-funded institution, outcomes. Other researchers have also noted a lack of re-
to a smaller university, I (first author) noted my students’ search on the efficacy of these programs. In her 2002 presi-
scores dropping a full letter grade on the undergraduate princi- dential address to the Society for Computers in Psychology,
ples of learning exam measuring understanding of the behav- Ransdell (2002) called for formal evaluation of instructional
ioral consequences of schedules of reinforcement in operant effectiveness. She stated, “Specifically, software should be
conditioning. Even after multiple examples, many of my stu- evaluated in terms of known learning outcomes, using appro-
dents struggled with the concept that an organism reinforced priate control groups,” and “The teacher’s instructional
for every response (continuous reinforcement) responds less method should be fully described and held constant between
often than the same organism reinforced less (partial rein- comparisons” (p. 145).
forcement). My students are not unique in their confusion. I chose the economical (approximately $20) software pro-
Textbook authors also have misconceptions (Sheldon, 2002). gram and accompanying book titled Sniffy Lite (Alloway,
Because my current students’ performances were comparable Wilson, Graham, & Krames, 2000) to supplement my princi-
to my past students’ performances on other concepts, I con- ples of learning class. The more expensive Pro Version simu-
cluded our lack of an animal laboratory might be responsible. lates a wide variety of learning phenomena, typically covered

66 Teaching of Psychology

Downloaded from top.sagepub.com at East Carolina University on June 6, 2014

in an in-depth course, whereas Sniffy Lite demonstrates more ercises 8 to 12 to work with schedules of reinforcement. A cu-
basic phenomena of operant and classical conditioning and is mulative record, autoformatted with student name, served as
intended for basic courses or as a supplement. Sniffy Lite a record of assignment completion (see Figure 1).
works with both Windows and Macintosh systems (Alloway After I collected the first two semesters of data, the second
et al., 2000). Because the software simulates many elemen- author collaborated to improve the study by collecting data
tary principles of operant conditioning, students can experi- from a second control group and communicating results. We
ence behavioral changes under different schedules of examined the equivalency of groups prior to intervention by
reinforcement, as prior students had with a live laboratory. comparing scores on Exam 1. After the intervention we com-
They could also use their own computers. I hypothesized that pared group scores on Exam 2 that covered schedules of rein-
student understanding of schedules of reinforcement would forcement. Questions devoted to schedules of reinforcement
increase if they used the virtual laboratory, compared to in- comprised 52% of a 122-point exam. The exams included
creasing study time on schedules an equivalent amount or re- multiple-choice, definitions, fill-in-the-blank, short answer,
ceiving no intervention. and essay questions.

Results
Method
Prior to intervention, examination scores were equivalent
Participants across groups, F(2, 167) = 1.98, p = .14, γ2 = .02: Experi-
mental Group, M = 76, SD = 16; Control Group 1 (extra
One hundred seventy undergraduates enrolled in an up- study), M = 79, SD = 10; Control Group 2 (no interven-
per division learning course at a small university participated. tion), M = 80, SD = 11. Exam 2 scores differed significantly
I excluded 3 participants from the analysis for failing to per- between groups, F(2, 167) = 7.73, p = .0006, showing a large
form the assignments and 4 for not participating in the con- effect size, γ2 = .08. A Scheffé post hoc test showed that the
trol groups. The mean age and standard deviation in years, experimental group (M = 76, SD = 20) outperformed both
women:men (W:M), and ethnicity of participants follows: Control Group 1 (extra study; M = 62, SD = 22) and Con-
experimental group M = 30, SD = 10, W:M = 62:2, Black = trol Group 2 (no intervention; M = 63, SD = 21), which
3, Hispanic = 15, other = 2, White = 44; control group 1 were equivalent, by a full letter grade.
(extra study) M = 31, SD = 9, W:M = 45:5, Black = 2, His-
panic = 14, other = 1, White = 33; control group 2 (no in- Student Perceptions
tervention) M = 32, SD = 9, W:M = 55:1, Black = 3,
Hispanic = 14, other = 2, White = 37. The age, gender, and
Nine students (14%) who used the virtual laboratory ex-
ethnic composition of participants did not significantly differ
pressed opinions on the end-of-semester course evaluation.
based on group membership.
Of these, 5 commented positively and 4 had negative re-
marks. Two of the negative comments were about the addi-
Procedures tional cost of purchasing the software and manual, one noted
difficulty understanding the program, and two believed it
I collected data from two sections each semester over held no benefit. Positive comments included expressions of
three semesters. I gave all groups comparable classroom in- increased understanding, enjoyment, and interest in real-life
struction. Of these six sections, four sections performed addi- situations, and “like” or “love” of Sniffy.
tional work on schedules of reinforcement on their own. Two
sections, designated as the experimental group (n = 64), did Discussion
homework from Sniffy Lite. Two sections, designated as the
extra study control group (n = 50), spent 2 extra hr beyond
the time they normally devoted to exam preparation studying The experimental group was equivalent to the control
only schedules of reinforcement. The additional 2 hr of study groups on Exam 1, but after using the virtual laboratory the ex-
was equivalent to the time required to complete the virtual perimental group outperformed the controls when tested on
laboratory assignments. They received 3 extra credit points their understanding of schedules of reinforcement on Exam 2.
after self-reporting participation. The final two sections, the Graf (1995) concluded that the virtual laboratory is an accept-
no intervention control group (n = 56), received only class-
room instruction. Both sections taught in a single semester
participated in the same experimental or control condition.
Across sections or semesters the instructor used identical lec-
ture notes, supplemental materials, and assignments. Be-
cause I had taught this course 13 times at the same
institution, difference in teaching style between semesters
should have been minimal.
Figure 1. Cumulative record output for the fixed-ratio (FR)
Students in the experimental group performed Exercises 1 portion of Assignment 2. The rat was trained on four different
to 3—magazine training, shaping, and cumulative re- FR schedules.Screen shot used with permission of Wadsworth
cords—to become familiar with training procedures and Ex- Publishing.

Vol. 32, No. 1, 2005 67

Downloaded from top.sagepub.com at East Carolina University on June 6, 2014

able representation of a live laboratory. Our results suggest Cunningham, F. (2003). Animal use, student choice, and nonanimal
that the virtual laboratory Sniffy Lite is also an effective learn- alternatives at “America’s best” undergraduate colleges. Teaching
ing tool, priced less than a live rat from a laboratory supplier. of Psychology, 30, 288–296.
The participants in the experimental group spent addi- Graf, A. (1995). Three nice labs, no real rats: A review of three oper-
ant laboratory simulations. Behavior Analyst, 18, 301–306.
tional time on the concept of schedules of reinforcement, Graham, J., Alloway, T., & Krames, L. (1994). Sniffy, the virtual rat:
confounding conclusions concerning efficacy. We added the Simulated operant conditioning. Behavior Research Methods, In-
extra study control group to assess the impact of time alone. struments & Computers, 26, 134–141.
However, because we relied on student integrity in reporting, Lane, D. M. (1999). The Rice virtual lab in statistics. Behavioral Re-
it is uncertain whether participants in this group devoted ex- search Methods, Instruments & Computers, 31, 24–33.
tra time. Therefore, some of the effect may be due to the ad- McGraw, K. O., Tew, M. D., & Williams, J. E. (2000). The integrity
ditional time the experimental group spent working with of Web-delivered experiments: Can you trust the data? Psychologi-
schedules of reinforcement. cal Science, 11, 502–506.
A strength of our quasi-experiment is strong external valid- Plous, S. (1996). Attitudes toward the use of animals in psychologi-
ity provided by use of intact classes, examinations, and proce- cal research and education: Results from a national survey of psy-
chologists. American Psychologist, 51, 1167–1180.
dures. Previous publications describing the Sniffy virtual Ransdell, S. (2002). Presidential address: Teaching psychology as a
laboratories were software testing performed by the reviewer laboratory science in the age of the Internet. Behavior Research
(Graf, 1995) or students rating their preferences among differ- Methods, Instruments & Computers, 34, 145–150.
ent software programs in a group laboratory setting (Graham et Sheldon, J. P. (2002). Operant conditioning in introductory psychol-
al., 1994). Our study, on the other hand, demonstrated the ef- ogy textbooks and their companion Web sites. Teaching of Psychol-
ficacy of the virtual laboratory, Sniffy Lite. ogy, 29, 281–285.
Our results indicate that Sniffy Lite is an effective method Snyder, M. R. (2003). Why use Sniffy Pro? In P. Chance & D.
to increase understanding of schedules of reinforcement. Be- Chance (Eds.), Instructor’s manual with test bank for Learning and
cause the software offers other learning exercises not exam- Behavior (pp. A24–A29). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson
ined, further investigation of its use as a teaching aid for other Learning.
concepts is warranted.
Note
References
Send correspondence concerning this article to Sandy S.
Alloway, T., Wilson, G., Graham, J., & Krames, L. (2000). Sniffy the Venneman, University of Houston–Victoria, Arts & Sciences, 3007
virtual rat—Lite version. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson North Ben Wilson, Victoria, TX 77901; e-mail: VennemanS@
Learning. uhv.edu.

68 Teaching of Psychology

Downloaded from top.sagepub.com at East Carolina University on June 6, 2014