Science experiments for communities of distance learners



Science experiments for communities of distance learners

David J. Robinson and Stephen J. Swithenby

Centre for Open Learning of Mathematics, Science, Computing and Technology, Science Faculty, The Open University, Milton Keynes MK7 6AA, United Kingdom

Corresponding author:d.j.robinson@open.ac.uk

Abstract

A longstanding challenge for distance educators has been to provide a meaningful experience of science experiments. The difficulty is not only a matter of accessing equipment but also of framing the valuable social and collaborative experience that students enjoy in conventional laboratory settings. In this paper we describe the development of a module that allows individual students working at a distance to collaborate in groups, carry out simple but significant scientific experiments and acquire transferrable and professional experimental skills. Developing suitable experiments appropriate in a global distance learning environment is very different from devising a laboratory-based experiment. We report the results of a pilot with a small group of students, tested against the criteria for successful on-line collaborative experiments we have set for the new module.

Introduction

Experiments and observations are core elements of almost all science degrees. Their importance is enshrined in the values of the scientific community who see engagement with the ‘real world’ as being at the heart of the scientific method and is codified in regulatory frameworks, for example in the UK Quality Assurance Agency’s (QAA) subject benchmark statements for (i) physics, astronomy and astrophysics, and (ii) biosciences which include the following in the lists of required subject skills.

- how to plan, execute and report the results of an experiment or investigation (QAA 2008a)

- the ability to employ a variety of methods of study in investigating, recording and analysing material (QAA 2008b)

These stipulations reflect Nersassian’s comment that ‘hands-on experience is at the heart of science learning’ (Nersassian 1991). However, there are other reasons why science degrees include laboratory and field work. These arenas provide contextually rich opportunities for the acquisition and practice of a wide range of transferable skills. For example, communication, presentation and information technology skills, interpersonal and teamwork skills, and self-management and professional development skills are listed in the QAA’s subject benchmark statement for biosciences (QAA 2008b). In practising these social and collaborative skills, the students are introduced into a practice community that sustains them in their studies (Lave and Wenger 1991). Less formally, Clough (2002) comments that laboratory experiences “make science come alive’.

Universities have struggled increasingly to provide scientifically meaningful laboratory experiences, not only because of the escalation in sophistication and cost of contemporary science but also because of the demands made on student time and the consequent need to create flexible learning opportunities. Tactics to mitigate such problem have included the use of simulations and remotely controlled experiments. Ma and Nickerson (2006) have reviewed this area: they conclude “Perhaps with the proper mix of technologies we can find solutions that meet the economic constraints of laboratories by using simulations and remote labs to reinforce conceptual understanding, while at the same time providing enough open-ended interaction to teach design.”

Distance educators have been forced to confront not only these problems (Scanlon et al 2004, Colwell et al 2002) but also the need to both create effective learning communities and to meet required skills outcomes of collaboration etc. without direct face-to-face contact. The difficulty is not only a matter of accessing equipment but also of framing the valuable social and collaborative experience that students enjoy in conventional laboratory settings. The experience of the distance-taught student must be broader than just designing and carrying out experiments. It should encompass the collection of data sets susceptible to statistical analysis, the combination of sets of results and the discussion of design and outcomes in a group setting.

In this paper we describe an approach that allows individual students working at a distance to collaborate in groups, carry out simple but significant scientific experiments and acquire transferrable and professional experimental skills. The aim has been to both emulate conventional approaches and add value derived from a student body that may be world-wide.

In succeeding sections we will discuss a module that has been designed to exemplify this approach and the experience gained from a small scale pilot. Finally we will consider the constraints and opportunities revealed by the initial planning and development.

The ‘Science Experiments’ module.

The United Kingdom Open University (UKOU) offers undergraduate degrees in both named science disciplines and a more general ‘open’ BSc. The curriculum is modular with courses ranging from 100 hours of study to 600 hours of study. UKOU students, who are mostly adults with a wide range of ages, study part-time at home. Anybody can enrol for any module: admission is open and there is an active focus on widening participation. The UKOU is one of a very limited number of distance teaching universities that offers experimental science degrees that meet required benchmarks. Experimental and observational learning is provided through residential and day schools, and sometimes by the use of elaborate simulations, for examople the Virtual Field Trip (The Open University 2003) and home experiment kits. Newer approaches are reported in this meeting (Hatherly et al 2008).

The ‘open’ admissions policy leads to students with a wide variety of backgrounds entering Level 1 study of science. A significant minority have very limited scientific skills and knowledge and may have problems of access to scheduled face to face learning. They lack opportunity to make ‘science come alive’ with damaging consequences for long term engagment. Furthermore, on a global educational environment where students on a course may be studying anywhere in the world, face-to-face tuition is not possible.

A new module ‘Science Experiments’ is being developed to support such students. It is based around the propositions that; it is possible to engage in meaningful and interesting science experiments at home without specialist equipment, computer based communicatins can enable supportive collaborative working between students and, most importantly, that a course based arond such ideas will enable the delivery of learning outcomes needed for an introductory (foundation) module on science experiments.

The module is designed for 100 hours of study over a period 12 weeks. The learning outcomes, as expressed for students are the following.

Knowledge and Understanding - (1) Understand that detailed planning is necessary for successful and safe experimentation. (2) Identify the general characteristics of experiments that will yield valid scientific conclusions. (3) Understand the role of hypotheses in experiments.

Cognitive skills - (4) Convert scientific questions into hypotheses that can be tested experimentally. (5) Select and design appropriate experiments to test hypotheses. (6) Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of experiments and their design

Key skills - (7) Prepare and present recorded results accurately and in an understandable form. (8) Cooperate effectively with others in a shared project. (9) Organise your course activities effectively.

Project and Planning Skills – (9) Make and record measurements and observations accurately. (10) Reach conclusions that are supported by the experimental results.

The module includes a series of basic science activities (experiments and investigations) that cover a range of disciplines, and use equipment that students have available or could make easily. They are designed to take advantage of group working, e.g. provide sufficient spread of results to use statistical methods for analysis, thus motivating or requiring collaboration. The experiments are, as far as possible, stand-alone, without the need to teach additional science knowledge. The learning resources include a Good Experimenter’s Guide that covers the key experimental and analytical skills.

Students will work in teams of ten, linked using a virtual tutorial room provided by the Elluminate (2008) web-based tools, each team staying together for the whole course. The group will share a common task following the dictum of Whitton (2004) that shared tasks are more effective in community building than overtly social activities.

Assessment includes short interactive computer marked assignments with personalised three-level feedback and submission of a portfolio that includes evidence of both personal experimental work and the use of the data by other members of the group.

In designing this module, there are several design issues or criteria that must be addressed. We have established criteria for the module, based in part on the outcomes of the pilot, reported in the next section. The four criteria are:

1. The module as a whole and the individual activities must facilitate effective learning.

2. The module must involve the student in scientific activities that are scientifically accessible and stimulating.

3. The activities must be culturally appropriate across a wide range of possible students

4. The technologies required must be accessible and robust

Bennett et al (2004) have discussed the difficulty of creating effective online learning in groups of students. They argue that the technological capability must be exploited effectively within an appropriate pedagogy. We may therefore expect considerable challenges in meeting these criteria.

The collaborative task centred design is intended to meet Criterion 1 by promoting the emergence of understanding through dialogue, an approach with constructivist elements within a structured context. Forum mediation and interactive computer based assessment with feedback allow the student considerable autonomy whilst providing opportunity for personal guidance

The final list of experiments is not yet finalised, but a pilot has been carried out using suitable experiments drawn from a course on the human senses.

Pilot experiment

As part of the process of developing the module we have run a pilot experiment with students. The aim of the pilot was to develop a protocol for group participation in experiments.

Nine students were recruited from the overseas cohort of a group studying a course on the human senses as these students were already participating in on-line tutorials. The communication methods used were First Class conferencing (Open Text, 2008) for asynchronous communication and delivery of resources and SKYPE (2008) internet conference calls for synchronous communication. Experiments relating to the course that the students were studying were selected for trial. The experiments were:

a) Perception of words – comparison of the words slit and split

b) Measuring visual processing delays using a pendulum – the Pulfrich effect

c) Measuring the difference between visual perception with interference and visual perception without interference – the Stroop effect

A similar structure was used for each experiment. The organisation of the experiment on the Stroop effect gives an example of the structure of an activity. Students were sent a zipped file of a video podcast that set the scene. In addition they could download and print off two Stroop test cards, one with adjectives printed in any one of six colours (21 words in all) and one with 21 words each of which was the name of a colour but printed in an incongruent colour, providing interference with the visual perception. Two sets of instructions were provided for download, an experimenter’s sheet and a subject’s sheet. Each student was asked to carry out the experiment on at least one subject, record the time taken for the subject to read out the words on the card and to come to a SKYPE conference prepared to discuss the hypothesis they were testing and the results obtained. A group set of data was accumulated in an Excel spreadsheet posted on their First Class conference. Each SKYPE conference was repeated once for students in a different time zone.

Discussion of the experiments in the conference session by the tutor was designed to elicit debate about the hypothesis being tested, the experimental procedures, the precision of measurements, combining of data and the conclusion from the experiment. These are all essential components of scientific experiments and, we believe, are best exemplified by group discussion. This assertion, part of Criterion 1, is one we hope to test in the future.

At the end of the course the nine students who took part were invited to complete a questionnaire. Six of the nine returned them.

Outcomes from the pilot

The number of data points required for experimental results to be meaningful is generally much greater than the manageable size of a group in a synchronous conference call, so each student needs to collect a set of data themselves rather than just one observation or measurement. As a consequence, the experiment(s) chosen for on-line group work must be sufficiently stimulating to motivate independent collection of data sets (Criterion 2).

Where experiments are offered globally there may be a need for alternative version to cope with language differences (Criterion 3). A student carrying out the Stroop experiment commented:

‘(I) didn’t have any English mother tongues to experiment with’

The performance of the technology used to link the student group is still not robust enough for a smooth conference every time. The maximum number of students who were successful in connecting to the conference at the same time was five (Criterion 4) and only one student had no technical problems during the pilot. Technical problems with the video podcasts were also reported by two students.

Although full instructions and a video podcast were provided for experiments, this left scope for discussion of methods, as one student commented:

‘I conducted this one with (a) friend. It was interesting to discover, how two people on the same course with the same instructions and having seen the intro-video still have differing ideas on how to set up and conduct the experiment.’

Conclusions

Developing effective on-line collaborative experiments is challenging, even more so when a core aim is to centre them on ‘hands-on’ experiments that convey the experience of practical science. The pilot experiments that we carried out show that the technology of communication can get in the way of the pedagogy but they also showed that with sufficiently interesting experiments students are motivated to collect data collaboratively and take part in group discussion. There is a definite tension between the size of group that can be handled in a synchronous conference and the size of the data set needed for meaningful conclusions to be drawn from an experiment. So, in addition to being interesting and motivating, experiments must be designed to produce sufficient data from a small group of experimenters – but a small group in a global setting. These design criteria substantially constrain the choice of experiments, but delivering hands-on experiments to distance learners is fundamental to our science programmes.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the support of the Centre for Open Learning of Mathematics, Science, Computing and Technology, advice from colleagues on the ‘Experimental Science’ course team and the Open University students who took part in the pilot study.

References

Bennett R., Chan, L.K. & Polaine, A. (2004). “The future has already happened: dispelling some myths of online education”, The Omnium Project, University of New South Wales, Australia. .au/research/papers, (Accessed December 2008)

Clough, M. P. (2002). Using the laboratory to enhance student learning. In R. W. Bybee (Ed.), Learning Science and the Science of Learning (pp. 85–97). Washington, DC: National Science Teachers Association.

Colwell C., Scanlon E., and Cooper M. (2002). Using remote laboratories to extend access to science and engineering. Computers & Education, 38, 65–76.

Elluminate (2008) “An overview of Elluminate.” , (Accessed December 2008)

Hatherly P., Jordan S.E. and Cayless A. (2008). Interactive Screen Experiments. This volume.

Lave, J., and Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Ma, J and Nickerson J.F. (2006). Hands-On, Simulated, and Remote Laboratories: A Comparative Literature Review.” ACM Computing Surveys, 38(3), Article 7, 24pp.

Nersessian, N. J. (1991). Conceptual change in science and in science education. In M. R. Matthews, (Ed.), History, Philosophy, and Science Teaching (pp 133–148). Toronto, Canada: OISE Press.

Open Text (2008) “The First Class collaboration suite.” , (Accessed December 2008)

QAA (2008a) “UK Quality Assurance Agency Benchmark Statement for Physics, Astronomy and Astrophysics.” , (Accessed December 2008)

QAA (2008b) “UK Quality Assurance Agency Benchmark Statement for Biosciences.” , (Accessed December 2008)

Scanlon, E., Colwell, C., Cooper, M., and Paolo, T. D. (2004) Remote experiments, reversioning and rethinking science learning. Computers and Education. 43, 153–163.

SKYPE (2008) “Internet telephony.” , (Accessed December 2008)

The Open University (2003), Teign Valley Virtual Field Trip, Open University Worldwide, ISBN-13: 978-0-7492-6629-5

Whitton, N. (2005). Designing effective Ice-Breakers for Online Community Building. Research Proceedings of the 12th Association of Learning Technology Conference (ALT-C 2005), 77-84.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download