Sue Subocz and Ann Reagan, College of Southern Maryland5th Annual Student Success Mid-Atlantic Regional Conference        ...
This presentation Background: Status of STEM online STEM labs online (Approaches and Goals) Student-Centered Simulation...
Status of STEM Online Online instruction growing    More than 10x rate for on-campus (Babson 2011)    31% of undergrads...
STEM Jobs and Degrees Source: “STEM: Good Jobs Now and for the Future”, Langdon, et al., US Dept of  Commerce, Education ...
Status of STEM Online Availability of STEM Online limited    STEM not included as discipline in Sloan survey    Inciden...
Current Approaches Surveys   Extensive literature search   Canadian gov’t-sponsored survey of STEM lab   approaches   ...
Lab Approaches for Online STEM   Simulations/Virtual Labs                     Video Analysis                              ...
NRC Goals for Lab Experiences1. Enhance mastery of subject matter2. Develop scientific reasoning abilities3. Increase unde...
** Note: color ratings are not peer-reviewed
Evolution of Online Physics Lab                   General approach –                      practice labs and then         ...
Evolution of Online Physics Lab PhET:    Available in many     science disciplines    Same general     method for     s...
Tips for Design Know Your Audience    Do they all take the lecture part? What computer skills will they have?     Dial u...
Resources for Simulations andVideo Analysis Physics:                                    Other Sciences:    ActivPhysics...
** Note: color ratings are not peer-reviewed
Hands-on/Heads-on Option Select Ten Experiments/ Cost ≤ $15 ea   Aligned with 1st semester college physics (Alg/Trig)  ...
Equipment Limits Computer and Internet access    Free/Open-source software    PC or Mac    Any browser Probably have ...
Example 1: Free fall Timing via Audacity Timing accurate to 0.1 millisecond “g” repeatedly to ~ 2%
Example 2: Conservation of Energy t2/t1 = v22/v12; gives % energy dissipated Relate PE before and KE after bounce ‘”Fal...
Resonance and Speed of Sound Fourier Analysis of open/closed tube resonance Accuracy sufficient to confirm need for the ...
Projectile Motion Ball rolling or air puck on tilted table Tracker video software    Maps pixels to x-y coordinates   ...
Video “Projectile” Motion Air puck data from Tracker video software (D. Brown, Cabrillo  College) Independent horizontal...
Video “Projectile” Motion Same data plotted in Excel
Chemistry Scheeline & Kelley, Univ of Il Urbana-Champaign $3 equipment+ open-source software + cell phone = spectrophoto...
Other Differential Thermal Analysis of glass transition in    candy-making (Heffner)   Calorimetry, gas laws   Diffract...
Student Trial 2: College Physics Interactive written instructions    Embedded Q&A from video tools and experiment    Gu...
Student Trials 3+ Iteratively incorporate real-time observations and  student feedback    Clarify concepts    Sample da...
Conclusions Online STEM labs are NOT limited by:      Cost      Technical rigor      Accuracy      Equipment Distanc...
References “Going the Distance: Online Education in the United States, 2011”, I. Elaine Allen and Jeff  Seaman, Babson Su...
References C. E. Aguiar and F. Laudares, “Listening to the coefficient of restitution and the gravitational  acceleration...
Making the introductory science lab accessible online apr 2012
Making the introductory science lab accessible online apr 2012
Making the introductory science lab accessible online apr 2012
Making the introductory science lab accessible online apr 2012
Making the introductory science lab accessible online apr 2012
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Making the introductory science lab accessible online apr 2012

1,196 views

Published on

Presentation to the 5th Annual Student Success Mid-Atlantic Regional Conference, Apr 2012; a look at the state and use of simulations and otehr approaches to making science lab content available online.

Published in: Education, Technology
1 Comment
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Making the introductory science lab accessible online apr 2012 through DIRECT link
    COPY & PASTE the LINK
    ---> http://po.st/qyamyH
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,196
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
4
Comments
1
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • STEM-Specific, plus Race to the Top (2009)
  • From Chapter 3 Intro: “America’s Lab Report: Investigations in High School Science”Key PointsThe science learning goals of laboratory experiences include enhancing mastery of science subject matter, developing scientific reasoning abilities, increasing understanding of the complexity and ambiguity of empirical work, developing practical skills, increasing understanding of the nature of science, cultivating interest in science and science learning, and improving teamwork abilities.The research suggests that laboratory experiences will be more likely to achieve these goals if they (1) are designed with clear learning outcomes in mind, (2) are thoughtfully sequenced into the flow of classroom science instruction, (3) integrate learning of science content and process, and (4) incorporate ongoing student reflection and discussion.Computer-based representations and simulations of natural phenomena and large scientific databases are more likely to be effective if they are integrated into a thoughtful sequence of classroom science instruction that also includes laboratory experiences.
  • Making the introductory science lab accessible online apr 2012

    1. 1. Sue Subocz and Ann Reagan, College of Southern Maryland5th Annual Student Success Mid-Atlantic Regional Conference La Plata, MD April 13, 2012
    2. 2. This presentation Background: Status of STEM online STEM labs online (Approaches and Goals) Student-Centered Simulation Labs Student-Centered “Wet labs” “Field tests” with real students Conclusions
    3. 3. Status of STEM Online Online instruction growing  More than 10x rate for on-campus (Babson 2011)  31% of undergrads enrolled in at least one online course  Full degree programs across all disciplines surveyed (Sloan 2005) STEM critical  America COMPETES (2007), Educate to Innovate (2009), American Graduation Initiative (2009), Engage to Excel (2012)  Dept of Commerce Statistics  STEM jobs growth at 3x rate for general job market  STEM workers = higher pay, lower jobless rate  US: 1/3 of first degrees in STEM (China: 53%; Japan: 63%)
    4. 4. STEM Jobs and Degrees Source: “STEM: Good Jobs Now and for the Future”, Langdon, et al., US Dept of Commerce, Education and Statistics Administration, July 2011
    5. 5. Status of STEM Online Availability of STEM Online limited  STEM not included as discipline in Sloan survey  Incidence of online physics course availability ~10% (2010, 2012 surveys)  105 institutions offering online degrees surveyed (unpublished, 2012)  Business, Health, Education, Sociology, Psychology  No Engineering, Physics, Chemistry; limited Math, Biology Perception that “online” = worse  Less than 1/3 Chief Academic Officers report faculty accept legitimacy of online instruction
    6. 6. Current Approaches Surveys  Extensive literature search  Canadian gov’t-sponsored survey of STEM lab approaches  Independent survey of US colleges/universities Four online approaches identified
    7. 7. Lab Approaches for Online STEM Simulations/Virtual Labs Video Analysis In-Class Only, or.. “Hands-On” ApproachesCommercial, Custom, Household Mat’ls Remote labs
    8. 8. NRC Goals for Lab Experiences1. Enhance mastery of subject matter2. Develop scientific reasoning abilities3. Increase understanding of the complexity and ambiguity of empirical work4. Develop practical skills5. Increase understanding of the nature of science6. Cultivate interest in science and science learning7. Improve teamwork abilities“America’s Lab Report: Investigations in High School Science”, report of the National Academies of Science and of Engineering, Institute of Medicine, and the National Research Council, 2005
    9. 9. ** Note: color ratings are not peer-reviewed
    10. 10. Evolution of Online Physics Lab  General approach – practice labs and then final lab for grading  Make predictions  Run trials  Explain differences  Draw conclusions  ActivPhysics : Lab 4 – Simulation 3.6
    11. 11. Evolution of Online Physics Lab PhET:  Available in many science disciplines  Same general method for students – predictions, trials, analysis, conclusio ns PhET Labs 7_8
    12. 12. Tips for Design Know Your Audience  Do they all take the lecture part? What computer skills will they have? Dial up a factor? Will they use Mobile Devices? Know Your Objectives Downloads/online/both Provide clear instructions and templates or consider a text to accompany the lab Link lecture and lab activities For students not in lecture, provide some foundational material (Khan Academy is great) Force errors in the templates Mix things up without adding too many gadgets:  Design Your Own Lab  PhET and ActivPhysics exercises  Discussions  “Wet labs” with every day materials as an alternative  Self-checks and optional materials (iPad apps, etc)
    13. 13. Resources for Simulations andVideo Analysis Physics:  Other Sciences:  ActivPhysics  Online Chem Labs: http://www.onlinechemlabs.com/  PhET  PhET:  Virtual Labs: Cengage http://phet.colorado.edu/en/simula http://www.polyhedronlearning.com/cen tions/category/new gage/index.html  Video Simulations:  MyLabsPlus (Pearson) http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?  Virtual Microscope: p=F3D4B21334F2DD64 http://virtual-  Video Analysis: lab.en.softonic.com/?ab=1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBrxjR DO0Zk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbPc EI8jpcQ
    14. 14. ** Note: color ratings are not peer-reviewed
    15. 15. Hands-on/Heads-on Option Select Ten Experiments/ Cost ≤ $15 ea  Aligned with 1st semester college physics (Alg/Trig)  Technically robust (Honors/AP/college level)  Accurate  Suitable for distance format (at home / off-campus)  Direct, hands-on student involvement  Total cost to student commensurate with textbook NOTE: 10 colleges/universities were identified in the survey phase as using a “kit” approach, with an average cost to the student of $130 per kit
    16. 16. Equipment Limits Computer and Internet access  Free/Open-source software  PC or Mac  Any browser Probably have  Cell phone  Video /still camera  Sound card /Microphone  Measuring tape, scissors, tape, paper, calculator
    17. 17. Example 1: Free fall Timing via Audacity Timing accurate to 0.1 millisecond “g” repeatedly to ~ 2%
    18. 18. Example 2: Conservation of Energy t2/t1 = v22/v12; gives % energy dissipated Relate PE before and KE after bounce ‘”Falsification Lab”
    19. 19. Resonance and Speed of Sound Fourier Analysis of open/closed tube resonance Accuracy sufficient to confirm need for the end correction term
    20. 20. Projectile Motion Ball rolling or air puck on tilted table Tracker video software  Maps pixels to x-y coordinates  Derive x, y position, v, a, p, K, U vs. t
    21. 21. Video “Projectile” Motion Air puck data from Tracker video software (D. Brown, Cabrillo College) Independent horizontal, vertical motions plotted in Tracker
    22. 22. Video “Projectile” Motion Same data plotted in Excel
    23. 23. Chemistry Scheeline & Kelley, Univ of Il Urbana-Champaign $3 equipment+ open-source software + cell phone = spectrophotometer
    24. 24. Other Differential Thermal Analysis of glass transition in candy-making (Heffner) Calorimetry, gas laws Diffraction from gratings and meshes Geometric optics, lenses, and mirrors Index of Refraction / Total Internal Reflection Standing waves on string Plant population / invasive species cataloging (DNR website)
    25. 25. Student Trial 2: College Physics Interactive written instructions  Embedded Q&A from video tools and experiment  Guided student derivations Improved video tools  Animated background information  Video tutorial on software use New approach to trials: In-class rapid prototyping  Students warned: no questions allowed if answered directly in materials  Minimalist (“hands-off”) instructor approach during lab  Observe and record  Identify common mistakes, errors, misconceptions real-time Student feedback solicited for further refinement
    26. 26. Student Trials 3+ Iteratively incorporate real-time observations and student feedback  Clarify concepts  Sample data and calculations Results: Excellent  Improved student preparation (instructor observation)  Improved student confidence (student feedback)  Improved accuracy, consistency of results (lab reports)
    27. 27. Conclusions Online STEM labs are NOT limited by:  Cost  Technical rigor  Accuracy  Equipment Distance STEM labs can be  Student-centered  Accurate  Affordable  Technically-robust The Real Limit: our creativity
    28. 28. References “Going the Distance: Online Education in the United States, 2011”, I. Elaine Allen and Jeff Seaman, Babson Survey Research Group, ISBN 978-0-9840288-1-8, November 2011 “Growing by Degrees: Online Education in the United States, 2005”, I. Elaine Allen and Jeff Seaman, The Sloan Consortium, ISBN 978-0-9766714-2-8, November 2005 “STEM: Good Jobs Now and for the Future”, Langdon, et al., US Dept of Commerce, Education and Statistics Administration, July 2011 A. Reagan, “Development of a Fully Online Undergraduate Physics Laboratory Course”, AAPT Winter Meeting, Jacksonville, FL Jan 2011 A. Reagan, “Online Introductory Physics Labs: Status and Methods”, CS-AAPT Section Meeting, Mar 2012 P. Le Couteur, “Review of Literature on Remote and Web-based Science Labs”, BCCampus Articulation and Transfer of Remote and Web-based Science Lab Curriculum Project, June 6, 2009 http://rwsl.nic.bc.ca/Docs/Review_of_Literature_on_Remote_and_Web- based_Science_Labs.pdf (Mar 2012) Audacity information at http://wiki.audacityteam.org/wiki/About_Audacity (Feb 2012) I. Stensgaard and E. Laegsgaard, “Listening to the coefficient of restitution - revisited”, Am. J. Phys. 69, 136-140 (1981)
    29. 29. References C. E. Aguiar and F. Laudares, “Listening to the coefficient of restitution and the gravitational acceleration of a bouncing ball”, Am J. Phys. 71 (5), 499-501 (May 2003) http://wiki.audacityteam.org/wiki/About_Audacity (Feb 2012) Tracker, developed by D. Brown of Cabrillo College, Aptos, CA, may be downloaded for free at http://www.cabrillo.edu/~dbrown/tracker/; update 2010 A. Scheeline and K. Kelley, “Cell Phone Spectrometer: Learning Spectrophotometry by Building and Characterizing an Instrument”, Nov 18, 2009 (author website) William Heffner, “Differential Thermal Analysis Apparatus for Measuring Glass Transition “, AAPT Winter Meeting, Jacksonville, FL Jan 2011 (plans available on CourseHero.com) Maryland Department of Natural Resources website lists invasive species at http://www.dnr.state.md.us/wildlife/Plants_Wildlife/invintro.asp America’s Lab Report: Investigations in High School Science, S. Singer, M. Hilton, and H. Schweingruber, editors, Committee on High School Science Laboratories: Role and Vision, National Research Council, National Academies Press, ISBN-13: 978-0-309-13934- 2, 2005 (PDF download available at http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11311 ) “Goals of the Introductory Physics Laboratory”, American Association of Physics Teachers (AAPT), The Physics Teacher, 35, 546-548 (1997)

    ×