Effective Laboratory Experiences for Distance Learning Science Courses with Self-Contained Laboratory Kits

Transcription

1 1 20th Annual Conference on Distance Teaching and Learning click here -> Effective Laboratory Experiences for Distance Learning Science Courses with Self-Contained Laboratory Kits Peter Jeschofnig, Ph.D. Professor of Science Colorado Mountain College Skepticism over the effectiveness of online and distance education courses is no longer an issue in discussions about distance learning (DL). DL professional journals, conferences, and discussion boards cite numerous studies comparing the effectiveness of distance classes with face-to-face classes. The overwhelming consensus is that a well-designed online class taught by an experienced distance instructor will be as effective and in many cases more effective than an equivalent face-to-face class. One of the many excellent papers on the subject is Mark Kassop s Ten Ways Online Education Matches, or Surpasses, Face-to-Face Learning (Kassop, 2003). The status of DL has also been enhanced by its tremendous popularity among students, faculty, and administrators. Students new to DL most commonly cite scheduling flexibility and commuting issues as their primary attraction to online classes. Later, experienced DL students also remark on the enhanced opportunities for more in-depth learning without the time and personality constrictions of regular classrooms. Instructors appreciate the ease with which mundane recordkeeping can be handled and how that gives them more time for enriching the course materials and thoughtfully responding to student inquiries. In an era of growing enrollments and continuing budget cuts, institutions no longer have funds for constructing new brick and mortar facilities, thus administrators are now delighted that they can safely shift some course offerings online. The popularity of online classes can easily be seen from the growth of online course offerings and enrollments. For example, CCC-Online, a consortium of Colorado community colleges has experienced geometric increases in online enrollment during its six years of existence. CCC-Online registered 109 total enrollments and 336 semester credit hours in its spring 1998 inaugural semester. By the spring of 2004, those figures had increased around 7000% to 7,717 total enrollments and 25,717 semester credit hours. During the same period the number of courses CCC-Online offered increased almost 900% from approximately 40 DL courses in 1998 to almost 400 DL courses in While more and more online courses are offered in more and more subjects, the same is not true for natural and physical science courses. Uncertainty over how to provide effective laboratory experiences is a major obstacle to a proliferation of science course offerings online. Any valid study of science requires serious hands-on experimentation for students to effectively observe and genuinely understand the changes that take place in nature. Such tactile experiences reinforce learning plus engender a greater appreciation for the scientific method in general and the subject matter in particular. These are the primary reasons that educational institutions have long required a laboratory component to be part of accredited, transfer-level science coursework. Change is never easy so it is not surprising that institutions envision fairly limited options when considering DL substitutes for traditional laboratory experiences. Early attempts at offering online science courses were actually hybrid courses where the lectures were online but the students unhappily had to attend campus laboratory sessions. Obviously, only local students can enroll in these hybrid science courses which are still offered by many institutions. CCC-Online primarily serves students in Colorado, but those students are widely disbursed throughout the state. National and international enrollments have also been rapidly growing. I have had DL students in Europe, Africa, Asia, and most recently in the Azores. Since online students tend to live at great distances from their core campuses and since time scheduling flexibility is one of the primary reasons students take online courses, it is unrealistic to expect today s DL students to attend campus based laboratory sessions, especially with convenient and viable options available.

2 2 20th Annual Conference on Distance Teaching and Learning click here -> Before we can agree on the best laboratory experience options for DL, we must first agree on the essential functions of laboratory experimentation. Educational institutions compile lists of rationales and objectives for requiring laboratory components to accompany campus based science courses (Rice University, 2001). These include: Students learn by doing. Experimentation must teach basic laboratory techniques. Experimentation demonstrates and reinforces understanding of the scientific method. Experimentation must teach the ability to adhere to instructions on laboratory safety, to recognize hazardous situations. and to act appropriately. Students must develop scientific manipulative skills in performing quantitative experiments. Students must measure, manipulate, observe, and reason. Students must learn to observe, recognize, and interpret patterns in their laboratory activities. Experimentation should help students learn to manipulate and interpret numerical data. Students need to develop the ability to keep careful records of experimental observations and to communicate with others about these observations and the conclusions drawn from them. Experimentation should teach the ability to work independently; and to work effectively as part of a team. Experimentation should show the relationship between experimental measurement and chemical or scientific theory. It seems only reasonable that we should expect DL laboratory experimentation to achieve similar levels of outcomes of science learning. No lesser standards should be acceptable in considering substitute laboratory experiences for DL science courses. In the relatively short history of online lab science courses, instructors and institutions have used the following methods to fulfill lab requirements: Computer simulations: Online or CD (Model Science Software) Remotely-controlled experiments: Provides simulated access to expensive equipment for modeling complex experiments Kitchen Chemistry: Typically instructor provides instructions and students provide materials found in the home (Anytime Anywhere Chemistry Experience: CU-Denver and the University of N. Carolina) Instructor/Institution Lab kits: Typically instructor designed and the instructor or institution checks out equipment for student use and provides chemicals. Commercial Lab Kits: Individual, fully self-contained lab kits as designed and distributed by At Home Science, Inc. Hybrid: Students are required to complete at least some experiments on campus. This is not considered a viable DL lab solution as previously shown. All of these DL substitutes for traditional science laboratory experiences have advantages and disadvantages. Science instructors at CCC-Online, at Colorado Mountain College, and I have all used these lab substitutes individually and in combination, but we have had the greatest success, as well as greatest levels of student and instructor satisfaction, by using At Home Science s individual, fully self-contained lab kits for at-home experimentation. We agree that simulations are occasionally quite useful, especially in replacing extremely dangerous or hazardous experiments. Yet, simulations cannot begin to replace true lab experience since they are ill-suited for delivering a realistic environment to conduct experiments, to measure results, and to determine error. Simulations tend to be basically passive; to not fully engage students; to restrict students to a narrow investigative path; and to offer no opportunity to explore errors or implications. Most simulations are physically unconvincing and never provide the ambiguous results that normally occur with real instruments.

3 3 20th Annual Conference on Distance Teaching and Learning click here -> Kitchen Chemistry experiments have the advantage of being relatively simple and inexpensive for students to assemble. The required materials are found in most homes and can be easily and cheaply acquired. However, Kitchen Chemistry has no learning advantage over traditional chemistry. Many higher education science instructors believe Kitchen Chemistry is unacceptable as a DL substitute for an accredited laboratory experience; they feel Kitchen Chemistry is overly simplistic and not suitable for college level course work. The concepts of small-scale chemistry, micro-scale chemistry, and green chemistry were precursors to the development of successful chemistry kits for DL courses. In the 1970 s Dr. Hubert Alyea of Princeton University developed a series of small-scale chemistry kits that did not require laboratory facilities and could be used in regular lecture rooms. Since institutions at that time had ample laboratory facilities and online courses were not yet developed, there was little need for kits, so the use of micro-scale techniques for DL applications was not then exploited. Even though home based lab kits were not then needed, small-scale experimentation practices became extensively used in campus labs throughout the US and abroad. This popular concept of small-scale chemistry, as its name implies, simply involves performing traditional campus based laboratory experiments on a smaller scale with smaller quantities of chemicals. We have learned that the scale of a reaction is not as important as the reaction itself; thus small scale reactions provide students with equal scientific observation, consideration, and learning opportunities. At the same time small scale techniques mean lower costs of chemicals and supplies; safer experimentation due to reduced risk from reduced chemical quantities; and less waste for safer and more affordable disposal. The trend toward small-scale experimentation in campus labs brought about the development and publication of lab manuals containing only small-scale experiments. (Stephen Thompson, 1990; Peter Jeschofnig, 1994) Global attitude toward kits: The Open University in the UK has been using home experiment kits (HEK) for their DL classes since early 70 s. The initial kits were very large and created storage problems for students living in fairly small European apartments. The production of the kits also put a significant financial burden on the Open University which spent 1.0 million on kit materials for 8000 students (Fox, 1995). There was also a very high cost associated with shipping, warehousing, and providing replacement parts for the kits. Despite these administrative headaches, the kits were very popular with students. I like placing test tubes in a rack, (etc.)... It makes me feel like I'm doing what a real scientist does... doing 'scientific work' using 'scientific equipment.' were frequent student comments (Fox, 1995). The huge original kits have now been discontinued due to health and safety legislation, but The Open University still believes in kits and is now using small, non-returnable kits. Monash University of Australia has successfully been using science kits for over a decade. They designed a physics kits which cost them $ to assemble and which is loaned/rented to students for a $100 deposit. Kits are shipped to students throughout Australia, Singapore, Malaysia, and the south Pacific (Higgins, Phill, and Wayne Kirstine. 1991). Monash credits the use of lab kits with a much improved retention rate in their science courses. The few problems they experienced revolved around the administrative hassles of tracking and maintaining kit inventories, especially in view of the slow kit return rate with some kits arriving 6 or more months late. I have long had an interest in and been a practitioner of small scale chemistry and felt confident its techniques could be used for safe at home experimentation. In the early 1990 s Colorado Mountain College (CMC) gave me the opportunity to prove this idea when it proposed offering DL chemistry classes without campus-based lab sessions. I met this challenge by modifying the small-scale lab experiments I was then using in my campus laboratory into experiments which could safely be conducted at home while still providing a solid and rich learning experience. To do this I employed a broad spectrum of relatively safe chemicals with long shelf lives; sealed them into convenient thinstem pipets; organized the chemicals into individual experiment bags; and bundled all the basic equipment, chemicals, and supplies inside a kit box which stores these things while students work

4 4 20th Annual Conference on Distance Teaching and Learning click here -> independently at home. When I offered my students alternate labs with computer simulation or kitbased experiments; they overwhelmingly preferred the kit-based experiments. Word of my first semester college level chemistry kit s success soon spread beyond CMC. To keep up with the demand for kits I turned over their production and distribution to At-Home Science. At the requests of other instructors and in conjunction with Dr. Angela Carraway at Meridian Community College, I subsequently developed a second semester chemistry kit. A few years ago I began to also teach physics online and in conjunction with that developed a set of at-home physics experiments for both first and second semester courses. At first, I simply gave students equipment lists from which to collect their own components, but was then bombarded with complaints about how time consuming and difficult it was to find the components. After At Home Science began assembling physics kits as well, I have had no further student complaints. Continuous interactions at conferences and workshops with other DL science educators lead At Home Science to work with professionals in other fields as well as physics and chemistry. They have now also developed several levels of kits in biology plus have micro-biology, organic chemistry, and geology kits in the pipeline. Despite the proven effectiveness, popularity, and user-friendliness of college and university level laboratory kits, some institutions are still reluctant to consider the kit option. Their concerns stem primarily from liability issues associated with student safety and hazardous materials shipping and disposal. Although At Home Science is fully insured to bear any liability burdens, there has never been a report of accident or injury from any of their kits. This is attributed to the basic nature of micro-scale which emphasizes safety and simple chemical disposal methods. Some kits contain over 60 different chemicals, but all kits comply with the Department of Transportation regulations for shipping hazardous materials and can be safely shipped to any location in the world. For all of the above reasons plus my own experiences and feedback from other DL science instructors, I am convinced that an independent science lab kits such as those produced by At Home Science are the option that satisfies academic experimentation objectives better than any other substitute for traditional lab work. References Fox, R. (1995). Teaching practical work at a distance: An evaluation study of an open university home experiment kit. In D. Sewart (Ed.), One world, many voices. Papers of the 17th World Conference of the ICDE. UK Open University, pp Higgins, P., & Kirstine, W. (1991). Provision of experimental work in science to distance education students. In R, Atkinson, C. McBeath, & D. Meacham (Eds.), Quality in distance education: ASPESA Forum 91. Papers presented at the Tenth Biennial Forum of the Australian and South Pacific External Studies Association, held at Charles Sturt University, Mitchell Campus, Bathurst, NSW, Australia, July 1991, pp Jeschofnig, P. (1994). A lab manual of micro & small scale experiments for the independent study of general college chemistry Kassop, M. (2003, May/June). Ten ways online education matches, or surpasses, face-to-face learning. The Technology Source. The Michigan Virtual University; Rice University. (2001). Objectives of basic science labs. Thompson, S. (1990). Chemtrak small scale experiments for general chemistry. Addison-Wesley

5 5 20th Annual Conference on Distance Teaching and Learning click here -> Biographical Sketch Peter Jeschofnig, Ph.D., is a professor of science at Colorado Mountain College in Glenwood Springs, CO and also teaches for CCC-OnLine. He has developed and taught chemistry and physics distance learning classes for over 10 years in a variety of formats, from interactive video and hybrid courses to 100% online courses. He spent the academic year as Fulbright professor at the University of Namibia helping with the development of their science courses for online delivery. Address: Colorado Mountain College 3000 County Road 114 Glenwood Springs, Co Pjeschofnig@coloradomtn.edu URL: Phone: