You are here:

A Review to Weigh the Pros and Cons of Online, Remote, and Distance Science Laboratory Experiences ARTICLE

, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University - Worldwide Campus ; , Kennesay State University

IRRODL Volume 19, Number 2, ISSN 1492-3831 Publisher: Athabasca University Press

Abstract

The effectiveness of traditional face to face labs versus non-traditional online, remote, or distance labs is difficult to assess due to the lack of continuity in the literature between terminology, standard evaluation metrics, and the use of a wide variety non-traditional laboratory experience for online courses. This narrative review presents a representative view of the existing literature in order to identify the strengths and weaknesses of non-traditional laboratories and to highlight the areas of opportunity for research.Non-traditional labs are increasingly utilized in higher education. The research indicates that these non-traditional approaches to a science laboratory experience are as effective at achieving the learning outcomes as traditional labs. While this is an important parameter, this review outlines further important considerations such as operating and maintenance cost, growth potential, and safety. This comparison identifies several weaknesses in the existing literature. While it is clear that traditional labs aid in the development of practical and procedural skills, there is a lack of research exploring if non-traditional laboratory experiments hinder student success in subsequent traditional labs. Additionally, remote lab kits blur the lines between modality by bringing experiences that are more tactile to students outside of the traditional laboratory environment. Though novel work on non-traditional labs continues to be published, investigations are still needed regarding cost differences, acquisition of procedural skills, preparation for advanced work, and instructor contact time between traditional and non-traditional laboratories.

Citation

Faulconer, E. & Gruss, A. (2018). A Review to Weigh the Pros and Cons of Online, Remote, and Distance Science Laboratory Experiences. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 19(2),. Athabasca University Press. Retrieved November 12, 2018 from .

Keywords

View References & Citations Map

References

  1. Abdel-Salam, T.M., Kauffmann, P.J., & Crossman, G.R. (2007). Are distance laboratories effective tools for technology education? American Journal of Distance Education, 21(2), 77-97.
  2. Allen, M., Mabry, E., Mattrey, M., Bourhis, J., Titsworth, S., & Burrell, N. (2004). Evaluating the
  3. Boyer, R. (2003). Concepts and skills in the biochemistry/molecular biology lab. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 31(2), 102-105.
  4. Brinson, J. (2015). Learning outcome achievement in non-traditional (virtual and remote) versus
  5. Dalgarno, B., Bishop, A.G., Adlong, W., & Bedgood, J., D.R. (2009). Effectiveness of a virtual laboratory
  6. De Jong, T., & Lazonder, A.W. (2014). The guided discovery principle in multimedia learning. In E. Mayer (Ed.), The cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd ed., pp. 371-390). Cambridge:
  7. Esquembre, F. (2015). Facilitating the creation of virtual and remote laboratories for science and engineering education. IFAC-PapersOnLine, 48(29), 49-58.
  8. Feig, A.D. (2010). An online introductory physical geology laboratory: From concept to outcome. Geosphere, 6(6), 942-951.
  9. Frt'ala, T., & Zakova, K. (2014). Virtualization-an answer to secure development of online experiments. IFAC Proceedings Volumes, 47(3), 9738-9743.
  10. Garman, D.E. (2012). Student success in face-to-face and online sections of biology courses at a community college in east Tennessee (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://dc.etsu.edu/etd/1408/
  11. Gould, J. (2014). Online education: The rise of virtual labs. Retrieved from http://blogs.nature.com/naturejobs/2014/09/22/online-education-the-rise-of-virtual-labs/
  12. Hauser, L.K. (2013). An examination of the predictive relationship between mode of instruction and student success in introductory biology (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from https://commons.vccs.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1070&context=inquiry
  13. Herrera, R.S., Marquez, M.A., Mejias, A., Tirado, R., & Andujar, J.M. (2015). Exploring the usability of a remote laboratory for photovoltaic systems. IFAC-PapersOnLine, 48(29), 7-12.
  14. Jaggars, S.S., Edgecombe, N., & Stacey, G.W. (2013). Creating an effective online instructor presence. Columbia University: Community College Research Center. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED542146
  15. Johnson, M. (2002). Introductory biology online: Assessing outcomes of two student populations. Journal of College Science Teaching, 31(5), 312-317. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/42992241
  16. Kennepohl, D., Baran, J., & Currie, R. (2004). Remote instrumentation for the teaching laboratory. Journal of Chemical Education, 81(12), 1814. Doi:10.1021/ed081p1814
  17. Ko, C.C., Chen, B.M., Chen, S.H., Ramakrishnan, V., Chen, R., Hu, S.Y., & Zhuang, Y. (2000). A large-scale web-based virtual oscilloscope laboratory experiment. Engineering Science and Education Journal, 9(2), 69-76.
  18. Kuyatt, B.L., & Baker, J.D. (2014). Human anatomy software use in traditional and online anatomy
  19. Late Nite Labs. (2014). Retrieved from http://latenitelabs.com/
  20. Lowe, D., Berry, C., Murray, S., & Euan, L. (2009). Adapting a remote laboratory architecture to support collaboration and supervision. International Journal of Online Engineering, 5(S1), 51-56.
  21. Patterson, M.J. (2000). Developing and internet-based chemistry class. Journal of Chemical Education, 77(5), 554. Doi:10.1021/ed077p554
  22. Puzziferro, M. (2008). Online technologies self-efficacy and self-regulated learning as predictors of final
  23. Reeves, J., & Kimbrough, D. (2004). Solving the laboratory dilemma in distance learning general chemistry. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 8(3), 47-51. Retrieved from file:///C:/Users/Owner/Downloads/v8n3_reeves_1.pdf
  24. Reuter, R. (2009). Online versus in the classroom: Student success in a hands-on lab class. American Journal of Distance Education, 23, 151-162. Doi:10.1080/08923640903080620
  25. Riggins, M.E. (2014). Online versus face-to-face biology: A comparison of student transactional distance, approach to learning, and knowledge outcomes (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from https://aquila.usm.edu/dissertations/19/
  26. Rivera, C. (2014, November 15). For some students, virtual labs replace hands-on science experiments. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from http://www.latimes.com/local/education/la-me-college-labs20141115-story.html
  27. Rosenzweig, A.H. (2012). Comparing biology grades based on instructional delivery and instructor at a
  28. Shachar, M., & Neumann, Y. (2003). Differences between traditional and distance education academic
  29. Zacharia, Z., & Olympiou, G. (2011). Physical versus virtual manipulative experimentation in physics learning. Learning and Instruction, 21(3), 317-331.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact info@learntechlib.org.

Also Read

Related Collections