Virtual and experimental lab courses - from classic to new teaching tools in science education
In this MSO-seminar the lectures were held by Lars Nybo (NEXS): Inquiry-based learning in human physiology and Karen Skriver (BIO): From conceptual problems in biochemistry university-level education to virtual labs. The lectures were followed by workshops in two groups: Inquiry based experimental courses and Virtual labs.
Abstracts for lectures
Abstract for lecture by Lars Nybo: Inquiry-based learning in human physiology
The presentation will focus on a recent study was conducted to investigate effects of changing an experimental physiology course for bachelor students from a traditional step-by-step guided structure to an inquiry-based approach. To this aim quantitative and qualitative evaluations of learning outcomes (individual subject-specific tests and group interviews) were performed for an experimental course in cardio-respiratory exercise physiology that one year was conducted with a traditional step-by-step guided manual (TRADITIONAL) and the next year completed with an inquiry-based structure (I-BASED). I-BASED was guided inquiry where the students had to design the experimental protocol and conduct their own study on the basis of certain predefined criteria (i.e. they should evaluate respiratory responses to submaximal and maximal exercise and provide indirect and direct measures of aerobic exercise capacity). The results identified that overall time spent on the experimental course as well as self-evaluated learning outcome were similar across groups. However, I-BASED used more time on preparation (102±5 min) than TRADITIONAL (42±3 min; P < 0.05) and 65±5% of the students in the I-BASED course searched for additional literature before experimentation compared to only 2±1% in TRADITIONAL. Furthermore, I-BASED achieved a higher (P < 0.05) average score in the subject-specific test (45±3%) compared to TRADITIONAL (31±4%). Although the students were unfamiliar with cardio-respiratory exercise physiology and the experimental methods prior to the course, it appears that an inquiry-based approach rather than providing students with step-by-step instructions may benefit learning outcomes of an experimental physiology course.
Abstract for lecture by Karen Skriver: From conceptual problems in biochemistry university-level education to virtual labs
So far, limited attention has been devoted to pedagogical and didactical aspects of biochemistry education at university level. This is despite a number of manifest student challenges, such as switching between the macroscopic and microscopic biochemical world, relating this to a multidisciplinary subject containing elements from biology, chemistry, physics and mathematics.
We will expose some of these challenges in the concrete context of enzymes. Most bachelor programs in biochemistry, biotechnology, biology, and chemistry encompass either a course focusing on enzymes and enzyme kinetics or a broader biochemistry course with these topics as an essential part of the course. Thus, enzymes constitute a key topic in biochemistry education and teaching.
Teaching in enzymes depends on the students´ knowledge and understanding of a number of fundamental topics within chemistry, biology, physics, and mathematics. We investigate different problems of conceptual understanding that students have in this domain, and we experiment with new teaching styles to improve this understanding. This includes development of virtual exercises - not to eliminate hands-on lab experiences in biochemistry, but either as preparation for lab work or as a supplement to theoretical exposition and exercises. Virtual exercises circumvent some of the well-known problems with cookbook exercises by providing a frame for independent experimentation. However as suggested by focus group interviews with students, the role of virtual exercises needs to be properly defined with respect to the learning potential of different aspects of digital media such as animations, quizzes and simulations.
Summaries from workshops
Summary from the workshop: Inquiry-based experimental courses (Lars Nybo)
In the workshop the participants discussed their own courses in small groups and considered the following points.
1) How do your students in general approach the lab course? Are they curios? Motivated for getting hands-on? and do they have minds-on – i.e. are they familiar with the protocol/methods/background for the experiments? What is the instructors responsible of and what are the students responsibilities during the experiments?
2) What are the central concepts (methodological, technical skills and/or academic knowledge/competences) that the students should extract from the lab course – are the Intended Learning Outcomes (ILO) well-defined for you and for the students ? Try to define the 2-3 most important ILO
3) Which part(s) of the scientific content/concepts are usually difficult for the students to understand – try to identify typical mistakes or points they do not pick up from the experimental course. How does the experimental part of the course support/complement the “overall scientific content of the course”? Could the content of the lab course be taught equally efficient with a theoretical approach? Why not!!
4) Consider the methods/techniques – is it essential that the students during the course learn to master the techniques and develop skills to perform the measurement on their own? Is it important they learn to handle the exact equipment or is it certain concepts or general knowledge to the methods and measurements that are important? Does the time and energy used on methodological issues match the ILO defined in 3)?
5) Consider points 2,3, and 4 – could the experimental course be designed with different approaches and still include the ILOs and relevant methods/techniques? (How closed/open are the opportunities to address the subject of interest – are there only one method or many different ways to measure/investigate – or if the method is central - could this method be applied on different matters?). How could the students be involved in the design? Could they be guided to include certain (predefined) techniques or choose amongst different approaches to investigate the problem/subject of interest?
In the round-up after the workshop it was expressed that it seems realistic and attractive with evolution (not revolution) of courses and including elements with “free-choices” without leaving everything open. However, it was a clear concern that for large courses it could be too difficult and time consuming if the experimental set-up should be changed from one group to the next and so on.
Comments from Nybo:
Indeed for the courses we have changed from step-by-step guided to the I-based approach we describe the possibilities and do not leave everything open, but the students can define and change selected elements of the experimental set-up and design – in this manor it does not become unrealistic or to “resource consuming” to conduct different protocols.
Another important point from the summary was the idea that when a certain parameter (e.g. temperature, duration of a reaction, acquired absorbance, allowed variation, number of repeated measures etc.) should be defined by the students, they will pay more attention before and during the experiment – whereas when they just follow a pre-designed guide they don't consider why this parameter/part of the experiment is important.
Balance between addressing scientific questions and technical difficulties with conduction the experiments were discussed – and in line with #4 we recommend that it is closely considered how important the technical skills and/or ability to choose the correct method are. If these are important ILO then stimulate how the students get to work with and understand these aspects – or if less important minimize time and energy used on technical aspects to allow time for focus on the important ILOs.
As a final remark, I can personally only recommend that you do it – much more stimulating both for the students and for the teacher(s) and it is not that difficult when you first get started.
Summary from the workshop: Virtual laboratories (Karen Skriver)
The following was discussed in the workshop:
Media features: The MSO lecture about virtual laboratories gave a presentation of the media features, simulation, animation and virtual reality, used in the Labster enzyme case. It was discussed how different additional media features can be implemented in virtual laboratories, and examples of media feature affordances and constraints were presented. It was concluded that it is not well established what can be regarded a virtual laboratory, for example does a small physics applet count?
Use scenarios: Whereas some participants in the workshop recognize the virtual laboratory only as a supplement to theoretical courses and support for students’ preparation for hands-on exercises other participants envision the virtual laboratory as a substitute for hands-on exercises. The risk of creating a false understanding when transferring to the real world was mentioned. The didactic principles were discussed, for example the use of virtual laboratories in targeting specific conceptual difficulties in learning such as instrument function and energy relationships.
Different scientific topics: The potential use, relevance and advantages of virtual laboratories in different scientific topics and areas such as museums and mathematics were discussed.
Contact
Professor Carl Winsløw, IND Phone: 35320433