Forums

I am wondering if anyone knows of well designed studies comparing learning outcomes for f2f versus online classes. There is ample controversy and opinion about the efficacy of online science instruction and I am wondering if there is actual data. The area of virtual labs is of special concern. Has anyone used virtual labs and compared learning outcomes to actual wet labs covering the same topic. I have been asked to look into this and am finding far more opinion than data :) Thanks so much

I too only have opinion to offer, but I'm also really interested in the subject. My class is blended; we do a fair amount of online work. For my part, I don't really view role of virtual labs/sims and wet labs as being the same (I teach chemistry). If the sims are replacing something in my class, its the more traditional textbook approach to concepts, rather than the wet labs. I really like that they gives the students a visual model of the chemistry from a particulate point of view. I try to do these as inquiry. Of course its important to stress that they are models, but the students seem to be able to process the chemistry better with this model. I'm less enamored with the virtual labs, such as the precipitation labs available online through SAS or ChemThink, because I think the wet lab is more appropriate for that. In wet labs students learn important process skills, get to apply what they've learned in class and ultimately how to design and run experiments (how to do science). Of course, not all schools have the facilities and budgets to do a lot of labs. Anyway, like I said, no data, just opinion. Would love to see some data too ..... great topic!

I taught science online for more than a decade and was involved in very early online science courses. My student performances were evaluated by an external set of evaluators with pre- and post- testing over a period of two years and did very well.They were also interviewed online and verbally via selected phone conversations. The data ultimately made its way through DOE and NSF. I do not have access to those data. I was not teaching chemistry so wet labs were not involved and my college/grad students were challenged to actually ask questions and gather data with items available within their homes or schools. I am a bit of a techie teacher so if educators had access to sensors they were encouraged to use them. We did simulations as well as simple string and sticky tape inquiry. There are numerous ways to probe for understanding of content. I have been following the change in the dynamics of top Ivy universities as they make their courses public (such as MIT) and now Princeton. The California state system is considering using more online courses for credit in lieu of F2F. You may be interested in following this shift in paradigm. Here is one site that discusses it: http://techcrunch.com/2013/01/15/how-californias-new-online-education-pilot-will-end-college-as-we-know-it/ This paragraph is insightful. "Online courses aren’t entirely new, but it’s difficult to underestimate just how powerful the California higher education system is. After former University of California President, Richard Atkinson, threatened to drop the SAT from admissions requirements, the College Board rushed to revamp the test for the entire country only a year after the threat. However goes California’s education system, so goes the nation." It will be interesting to see what happens with lab inquiry as this process develops. Does ACS have a position on teaching online courses vs. F2F at this time? Here is a less opinionated look at what is happening with Princeton online course: http://www.nj.com/mercer/index.ssf/2012/11/princeton_university_courses_g.html a recent article on getting the most value out of an online degree http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/19/us-education-courses-online-idUSBRE89I17120121019 and finally, for this post, an interesting NBC news byte: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26458424/ns/business-careers/t/online-colleges-earning-respect-degree/#.UP8xsmemdyE ~patty

With respect to wet labs vs online labs, there are several sites of interest: 1. with requirement in Minnesota in mind and a few interesting tidbits: http://www.asa.qa.mnscu.edu/facultydevelopment/resources/educopp/webseminars/documents/onlinesciencepresent.pdf 2. an interestingproject with Dr. Alan Hunter of Youngstown University who had equipment available for crystallography and developed an outreach online program with high schools via an NSF grant: http://www.as.ysu.edu/~adhunter/CrystEd/main.htm Note how specific and limited, in addition to being exciting, the work is/was in the unit described in the above site. 3. interesting comments from 2011 http://www.onlinecolleges.net/2011/07/14/no-more-formaldehyde-and-other-benefits-of-online-lab-courses/ 4. http://www.smartscience.net/SmartScience/SmartScienceHybrid.html comparison of online vs wet labs describing this issue: The world of science education seems to have been divided by an ongoing fight over whether online labs can substitute for traditional classroom (wet) labs. The purists insist that only wet labs (aka "hands-on" labs) can be used to teach science. The technologists tell us that great advances in technology allow great lab experiences online. Both sides have valid points, which is why this dispute has not been resolved satisfactorily - until now. and so it goes...let's hear other voices and learn your thinking on these blended " Smart Science Labs" thanks for starting this thread, Pam, the future is interesting

Pam, the Department of Education published a large meta-analysis report in 2010 which includes some comparisons about online v. F2F...in essence, not many. My master's thesis was on this topic and is cited in there. We found no significant difference, but it was a smallish study and was an online section in an otherwise F2F class. Here is the link: http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/tech/evidence-based-practices/finalreport.pdf

Thank you, to all of you, for the provocative combination of links. I am deeply uneasy with the online direction of lectures and especially labs. I'm taking my first online course now, to see what it's like. I've always been a good student, but I have to say that I am stumped about how to organize myself for an online class (with E-book). At a minimum, it takes some getting use to.

This is a great thread. I didn't too many recent studies compared wet labs to virtual labs, although the following (written a decade ago) does discuss some of the advantages and disadvantages of such labs. It would be nice to find something more recent given the advances in technology in the last few years. Scheckler, R. K. (2003). Virtual labs: a substitute for traditional labs?. International Journal of Developmental Biology, 47(2/3), 231-236.

Virtual learning in the biological sciences: pitfalls of simply “putting notes on the web” http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360131503001428 Web-Based Virtual Learning Environments: A Research Framework and a Preliminary Assessment of Effectiveness in Basic IT Skills Training http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/3250989?uid=3739256&uid=2&uid=4&sid=21102154994041 In the context of IT, there are no significant differences; but VLE students self-reported that they felt for effective with computers. The Impact of E-Learning in Medical Education http://journals.lww.com/academicmedicine/abstract/2006/03000 /the_impact_of_e_learning_in_medical_education.2.aspx They report that although there are no significant differences in terms of learning, e-learning potentially shifts the learning model to a more student-centered one wherein instructors facilitate learning. They also mention digital resources. Learning effectiveness in a Web-based virtual learning environment: a learner control perspective Shih-Wei Chou,Chien-Hung Liu http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2005.00114.x/abstract?systemMessage=Wiley+Online+Library+will+be+disrupted+on+11+May+from+10%3A00-12%3A00+BST+%2805%3A00-07%3A00+EDT%29+for+essential+maintenance&userIsAuthenticated=false&deniedAccessCustomisedMessage= Research in Taiwan shows that VLE is better than traditional models. Science learning in virtual environments: a descriptive study Jorge Trindade1,Carlos Fiolhais2,Leandro Almeida3 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-8535.00283/abstract Research in Portugal shows that 3D virtual environmental helps in certain aspects of learning Physics and Chemistry I think that students that are already immersed in a digital world will find digital learning more their cup of tea than traditional methods. However, looking at all of our students, we know that not all of them have the same access and skills in technology. I think that is why we are seeing no significant differences in learning when we compare traditional and virtual environments. By the way, I know it is a popular canon in Educational Technology to associate the term digital natives to the younger generation and compare it with teachers who are assumed to be non-natives. But this does not take into account the issue of access in relation to equity. One other thing that should be considered is the past educational experiences of VLE teachers. I think as we move forward, we will see differences in data in terms of the effectivity of VLE. The VLEs are also in their infancy stages. Based on my personal experience, my writing improved tremendously due to emailing. Back in the days of paper, I did not write as much as I do. For me, I find writing on paper slower than typing on a keyboard or tapping on my phone/ipad. As for virtual labs, I do not use those a lot in class, because I think the ones out right now are not as good as f2f ones.

It's hard to compare because often there are other differences in the courses besides one of them being online and the other f2f. However, a number of years back I did have the opportunity to do a fairly controlled experiment, where I taught the same course online as I had taught in a classroom. The two classes had the same textbook, the same assignments, the same exams (with the final exam proctored in both cases), and the same professor. The online students had significantly lower scores. I can think of quite a few reasons why that might be the case. One of these days, I hope to find the time to publish those results. Matt

This is such an interesting thread! I am excited to read some of the research being shared here. It is a bit frightening to me to think the data might show no measurable difference in learning between online science lab courses and wet labs. When I think of the great learning experiences my peers and I have had: in my high school physics class, we went outdoors learning physics as we used surveyor's equipment; or getting up at 5:30 a.m. for my college ornithology course to trek around with my professor who modeled bird calls to bring the real live birds into our views; or my Fresh Water Algae course where we went bog walking on real bogs in Northern Michigan. How could these learning experiences possibly be compared to an online science course? If we have to revert to all online courses in the future because it will most certainly be cheaper, I can't help but feel students will be cheated of great, real life learning experiences. Virtual reality is NOT the real thing! Carolyn

Certainly a very interesting and pertinent thread now given the huge growth in online courses that has occurred over recent years. My feeling is that online science classes and labs represent just one more teaching technique I can put in my educator's tool-bag. And like all my teaching tools, virtual science labs could be effectively used sometimes but certainly not all the time. Despite what the research may say, I am a firm believer that students learn in different ways and I should always try to meet the needs of all the learning styles. Therefore, there are definitely some situations whereby I would only consider using a wet lab but in other cases, I am sure a virtual lesson could be just as effective. A combination of methods can still result in cost-saving and yet not deprive students the thrill of the hands-on experience of performing a real titration (and going past the end-point) or tip-toeing through a stinky bog.

Thanks Arlene for the info as it is the first time I have heard of, or seen, AR used in education. I checked out the links you provided and delved more into Aurasma in a bit more detail via the Youtube web seminars. My conclusion is that it certainly has tremendous potential and is a definite hook for introducing students into such things as math concepts. However, the downside is that teachers obviously require knowledge and training in using these apps which could involve quite a time investment. In addition, this only works if all students have the required technology such a iPads or smartphones to use in class. However, given these requirements, I would love to try it this out in combination with a real-life experience. For example, I could see students doing an outdoor lab in the forest where they need to consider things such as plant identification and ecosystem relationships. Aurasma could then be used to supplement what the students actually see with a video clip providing further information. So students could be required to select a conifer to identify and describe and then using the actual tree as the trigger image, view a short video providing further details about, for example, how the thickness of the cedar bark can protect it even during forest fires. I think such a combination of real and virtual experience outside the classroom could be very powerful. But of course, the time and planning to initially set this all up could be significant. And then there is the issue of having an internet connection "in the woods"....! I am interested to hear from others who have used AR or have even considered it.

Susan What LMS system are you using. Each is very different in its ability to support effective collaboration. I am current using both Blackboard (which I love) and D2L (very limited) I would be happy to talk to you about my experience and how I program the system.

I do not have data, but I have two of my own children who completed high school science classes. They did most of their classes in a traditional setting. However, they each took 2-4 classes through our state's virtual school. They both commented that the virtual school labs were "useless" because they just followed the steps to put the checks in the blocks. In the classroom, the teacher could explain when necessary. I would say that online learning can be done, but it must be carefully constructed.

Your students could meet virtually in a more f2f manner using a Google hangout or the free video meeting feature of Wiggio. While I haven't done any of this with students, it has been useful for other projects I have been involved with.

Online education programs are revolutionizing how people learn. From continuing education courses to PhDs, more people want to get their college education online every year, increasing the variety of institutions offering online degrees and distance learning programs. But humanity is faced with this many years ago, when all sorts of online training was started, such as http://www.ratatype.com or http://www.playgroundsessions.com for example

When it comes to Science, I feel it is best done face to face rather than online. In science, one can easily make mistakes or misunderstand one thing another. I once had a science class online and I did not do as expected until i retook it in person. With experience I can say that any science subjects are better when taken in class.

That would be interesting information, I have considered online teaching as an option after I graduate. I am a student teacher at the moment. I still do not know what I will end up doing, but as you know, that can change over the years anyways. Interesting though to look at the data of things like this.

I've found little well-designed research that compares outcomes head-to-head from almost any two (or more) teaching methods. (I'd be happy to be schooled by readers here.) That's easy to miss, given all the writing promoting this method or that. Of course, much of that writing makes money for the writers.

For instance, I'm only aware of one solid study comparing the outcomes of well-taught guided inquiry and student-centered direct instruction -- and that study concluded that the results are comparable, which is not the politically correct answer.

I suspect that, just as we've always said, the teaching method used matters much less than the teacher using it.