Hands-On Labs for On-Line Science… is it possible to have high quality and safe labs for online courses such as anatomy and physiology, biology, chemistry, geology and physics courses? See http://www.athomescience.com/index.htm. Also a webinar entitled, Effectively Teaching Online Biology with a Hands-On Lab Component, is scheduled for November 6, 2008 1:00 – 2:00 PM EST. See http://www.athomescience.com/Webinar11062008.htm.
Let’s attend the session and then discuss the question of whether it is possible to have high quality and safe labs for online science courses. Has anyone used LabPaq by Hands-On Labs, Inc? If so, do you have an opinion about the product(s)?
Ciao, Bill G…
P.S. You can also go over to http://utterli.com/LifeSciences, http://utterli.com/K12, http://utterli.com/HigherEd or http://utterli.com/K12HigherEd to post an audio or video blog about this.
The LabPaq page says, ” Created by Science Professors Because There’s No Substitute for Hands-On Labs.” That statement is not strictly true. Consider three other approaches that can be added into the mix for online learning besides “kitchen labs.”
1. Investigation of large-scale online scientific databases. The data are real, and the students can do what researchers do.
2. Remote real-time labs as pioneered by MIT’s iLabs and others. This approach provides true data, and students set the parameters and read the data just as though they were there.
3. Prerecorded real experiments. Students use highly interactive software to take their own personal data from real experiments that have been prerecorded for them.
Note that I do not include experiment simulations because simulations cannot provide a valid lab experience. Also note that lab work is about science and not about technical manipulation of equipment.
Of course, students should also have some hands-on experiments to do as well. By mixing in the above types with hands-on, you can reduce the cost and safety issues while considerably expanding the scope of the science.
I wish simply to make the point that you do not have to rely solely on lab kits to provide great science experiences. Lab kits necessarily have limitations as do all online approaches to science. By blending them appropriately, you can overcome all limitations and exceed the learning experience in traditional classrooms.
The only source, at this time, of prerecorded real experiments is the Smart Science(R) core learning system at http://www.smartscience.net. It also integrates hands-on experiments with the virtual ones (albeit real and prerecorded) to create a full learning experience for students. These are not just labs but integrated instructional lab units with questions, vocabulary, scientists, and much, much more.
They provide 150 integrated instruction lab units across all major disciplines and are the primary lab experience for many curricula that have been approved by the College Board’s AP audit across all three AP laboratory sciences.
You’ll find these online labs being used by eight state online schools and by Stanford University and Johns Hopkins University. They’ve also been adopted by Apex Learning and K12.com.
FOOTNOTE
I find it interesting that all three lab kit vendors of which I am aware are headquartered in Colorado. Must be something special about this state.
Harry,
You’ve hit upon several important points (1-4). My comments are preceeded by *
1) Consider three other approaches that can be added into the mix for online learning besides “kitchen labs.”
* The operative word is “added into the mix”. But, this would only be done after taking the “shrink wrapped kits” testing and modifiying to the extent possible in order to provide context to course.
2) Of course, students should also have some hands-on experiments to do as well.
* Absolutely, this MUST be the case. One can do all the TELL’n’ SHOW but the DO must be hands-on in order to develop the necessary dexterity and precision/accuracy necessary in performing so-called “wet labs”.
3) I wish simply to make the point that you do not have to rely solely on lab kits to provide great science experiences. Lab kits necessarily have limitations as do all online approaches to science.
* There is nothing like doing real expriments in order to adjust to the success/fail ratio; in my experience that can run as high as 1:50 – 1:100. I would not limit “limitations” to kits. Think of the canned laboratories we had as undergraduates and even in some cases as graduate students. For a typical three hour laboratory which is usually accompanied with a 30+ minute introduction and 15-30 minute cleanup, I don’t know many “real” experiments can be done in two or less hours. Do you? These simply aren’t real and hence have limitations as well. Canned laboratories merely demonstrate a point, hopefully. Semester- or six to eight week-long projects work much better at achieving the skills and discipline necessary in one’s quest to be a good scientist. But, this approach isn’t practical online. So, yes a blended approach works best and is, in my estimation, absolutely necessary.
4) The only source, at this time, of prerecorded real experiments is the Smart Science(R) core learning system at http://www.smartscience.net/. It also integrates hands-on experiments with the virtual ones (albeit real and prerecorded) to create a full learning experience for students.
* I’ll take you at your word that SmartScience is “only source” of “prerecorded real experiments” at this time. I did review the site and some of the demo slides and like the scenario approach. I would say it should bring a student closer to a “full experience” but still it isn’t the same. I’m sure you would agree. Have you ever used these in a classroom/laboratory setting with students? If so, what was your and students’ experience?
5) FOOTNOTE…won’t bother to repeat since I’m not sure why you thought this was necessary to bring to the front unless you know something more than you eluded to.
* All was good up to this point. Now I’m not sure that you don’t have a vested interest in SmartScience. I did not read any disclaimer on yor part. So, do you or do you not have a vested interest in Smartscience (just to clear he air for readers).
Thank you for taking the time to post your insights and opinions for readers to reflect upon as I have.
Ciao, Bill G…
I am a principal of the company that created the Smart Science® system.
The validity of various approaches has much to do with the goals of the labs. As a chemist, I have much sympathy with the learning of how to use equipment, blow glass, etc. for those taking the same path.
My comments focus on grades 6-12 and non-science-major introductory college courses. These people should really gain a real understanding of science, which requires absolutely no ability to manipulate stopcocks or the other paraphernalia of labs.
Hands-on labs have more opportunities to make mistakes and learn from them. That’s their primary advantage over any sort of virtual lab experience. Prerecorded real experiments have the advantage of doing more science in less time and for less money. I suggest that balancing these two approaches is best. I also insist that simulations should never be the object of a student scientific investigation.
For college science majors, the fraction of virtual labs should be small, possibly even 0%. For the rest of the world, it might be 50% or more depending on the course, its goals, and the availability of lab time.