# Experiment Information System Based on an Online Virtual Laboratory
## 3 Results
### Validation with a Control Group for the Blended Learning Model  
Under the blended learning scheme, students can use the virtual experiment to correct and improve the experimental design continuously through the iterative process, as an example shown in Figure 8. The task sequence is represented by a number, and the second-level subtask under the primary task is connected by the \".\" operator. For example, the subtask under Task 1 is labeled as \"1.1\", and so on. A student group from the control group just completed five runs (Tasks 1.1-1.7) for a specified Task 1 (i.e., the teacher-defined task) and then directly went to the report stage. Instead of giving an experimental report right away (branch from Decision stage directly to Report stage), the students from the experimental group then proposed a new research problem to assess the consistency of the experiment, that is, Task 2 generated along the branch of the outer loop from Decision stage back to Design stage. Task 2 was carried out in ten runs (Tasks 2.1-2.10), with 12 sets of parameters being measured repeatedly in each turn (Tasks 2.1.1-2.1.12, Tasks 2.2.1-2.2.12, etc.). Conclusions were validated in the following proposed tasks, like Task 3 and Task 4, based on the measurement results from the previous tasks, like Task 1 and Task 2, finally generating an experimental report (Task 5) in the end. In view of the teaching process and teaching effect, the blended curriculum required students to have a higher level of participation in before-class preparation and after-class discussions and to do more work in the pre-examination review. However, the requirement for attendance in the classroom is lower. In contrast, students choosing traditional courses were required to spend more time in classroom lectures and experimental exercises in the fixed laboratories (see the first three indicators from below, that is, attendance, activities, and review, in Figure 9). The student groups then conducted three relatively structured unit operation experiments. The test results show that the blended course provided students with all the necessary levels of experimental knowledge. Compared with the traditional course, students obtained more satisfactory results in the knowledge test, with the pass rate increasing from 40-50% to 50-60%, and achieved a higher average mark, 75.3 against 70.5. At the same time, the number of students who dropped the course was less in the blended course (see the last three indicators from below, that is, pass one test, pass three tests, and give up courses, in Figure 9). Figure 8: Experimental steps scheduled by student group who used the loop design process. In terms of teaching materials, the three-dimensional realistic experimental environment gives students a good sensory experience, thereby obtaining higher scores on some factors like graphic interface, user friendly, and visually appealing. Comparing Figure 4 and the orange line in Figure 10a, it can be seen that factors considered in the design stage do get good scores in the implemented virtual laboratory. As for teaching effects, factors with higher scores mostly happen in the blended course project (the orange line), and the overall teaching effect earned more agreements from the participants. The students who completed the open questions in the teaching material questionnaire (Table 7) indicated that the demands of the physical conditions of the virtual experiment are low and easy to meet. They can turn on the computer at any time, to carry out the experimental simulation, verify the classroom teaching content, strengthen the consolidation and understanding of knowledge, and communicate and discuss with the teachers and other classmates conveniently. Teachers think it, indeed, provided a platform for students to train their creative and design thinking, so that students can study actively and think reflectively.