The Mobile Lab: Teaching Hands-On Science to Military Students

The Mobile Lab: Teaching Hands-On Science to Military Students

Jim Brinson

School of Science, Technology, Engineering & MathAmerican Public University System

American Military University

American Public University



• Founded in 1991 as American Military University (AMU) by James P. Etter, retired Marine Corps Naval Flight Officer and instructor at the U.S. Marine Corps’ Amphibious Warfare School

• Focused curriculum on mobile military learners• Expanded into APU/AMU in 2002• HLC accredited, with +190 associate, bachelor’s, and master’s online

degrees and certificates



• 88% working adults• 74% veterans or active duty Military, Guard, or

Reserves• +300 faculty and staff are veterans

Our Students



• Military students, spouses and dependents, especially those deployed, pose unique challenges

• Cannot participate in traditional, synchronous, F2F classroom events and schedules1,2

√ responsibilities √ schedules √ geography √ technology√ accessibility √ logistics

• Increasingly reliant on online education3

• This requires a subset of online teaching best practices4,5



• The lab experience likely plays the central role in science education6,7,8,9,10,11,12

• How can deployed military students feasibly receive a rigorous and authentic experience?

• How can they use physical manipulatives and equipment to generate their own data, analyze it, draw conclusions, and reflect critically on their work?

So What About Labs?



• Support for military student learning (and retention) should include multiple learning modalities3

• Online classroom not typically “hands-on”• “Hands-on” is a hallmark of science education!

What Does Researchand Best Practice Suggest?



• Should labs be part of all science classes?• What is the purpose of laboratory experiments in

undergraduate science education? What are the broader learning objectives?

• Do our assessments actually assess the purpose and objectives?

• Can these objectives and assessments be delivered at a distance (i.e. via an online course)? If so, how?

Let’s Take a Step Back



• Campus-based labs• Virtual labs• Remote labs• “Kitchen” labs• Lab kits

Distance Lab Options



• Current research suggests it is possible to meet laboratory learning objectives using virtual or remote laboratory methods13

• Blending virtual labs with a traditional hands-on option caters more to the multi-modal needs of military learners

Why a Kit for Military Students?



• eScience Labs custom kitgreen chemicalsglassware/plasticware instrumentationvirtual supplementsPPEHardware

• Ships worldwide

CHEM 134: General Chemistry II with Lab



To overcome challenges…

• financial• logistical• shipping• warehousing/inventory• liability

Why Partner with eScience?



• used in F2F courses• data collection• data analysis• exportable charts, tables,

graphs (wireless)• portable & self-contained

Vernier



• graphing & general data analysis• lab safety and intro to instrumentation• molar mass and freezing point depression• molar mass and vapor density• reaction rates• molar volume of gases• equilibrium constants• preparation of buffer solutions• standardization of a solution• acid-base titrations• titration indicators

Same Labs as I Taught on Campus

• REDOX reactions• electrochemical series• electrochemical cells



…to generate their own data in response to the task presented

Students Follow a Guided Procedure



Guided Procedure, cont’d















The Results



• preserve academic integrity• maintain record of student identity

pictures face hand-written label with

name, student ID, date, lab title, description

videos pan space visible from start to end No editing/splicing

Pictures and Videos



• practical skills• setups• measurements/data• verify products• verify noted observations• answer post-lab questions

Media at Benchmarks



• data charts, tables, graphs• pictures/video/audio benchmarks pronunciation

• calculations• text response• performance reflection identify sources error how to address errors in future

Lab Assessments



• 83% of respondents were military• 84% already had a college degree• 50% had previously used a lab kit• 83% have had a F2F college level science lab class• Regarding preferred lab method: 50% view kits and F2F as being equivalent 17% do not have experience with F2F to evaluate 33% prefer F2F



• 83% found the kit, materials, and equipment easily accessible and “user friendly”

• 83% felt the labs contributed to learning the course objectives

• Positives: convenience, cost, “forced” learning, problem solving

• Negatives: clarity, no extra materials for mistakes



References1Hamrick, F., Rumman, C., & Associates (2013). Called to serve: A handbook on student veterans

and higher education. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.2Collins, R.A., Kang, H., Yelich Biniecki, S., & Favor, J. (2015). Building an accelerated online

graduate program for military officers. Online Learning Journal, 19(1), Retrieved from http://olj.onlinelearningconsortium.org/index.php/olj/article/view/497

3Ford, K., & Vignare, K. (2015). The evolving military learner population: A review of the literature. Online Learning Journal, 19(1), Retrieved from http://olj.onlinelearningconsortium.org/index.php/olj/article/view/503.

4Brown P. A. & Gross, C. (2011). Serving those who have served – managing veteran and military student best practices. The Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 59(1), 45-49. DOI: 10.1080/07377363.2011.547061

5Smucny, D., & Stover, M. (2013). Enhancing teaching and learning for active-duty military students. ASA Footnotes, 41(3), 1-8. Retrieved from http://www.asanet.org/footnotes/marchapril13/military0313.html.

6Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. N. (2004). The laboratory in science education: foundations for the twenty-first century. Science Education, 88(1), 28-54.

7Hofstein, A., & Mamlok-Naaman, R. (2007). The laboratory in science education: the state of the art. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 8(2), 105-107.



References, cont’d8Lunetta, V. N., Hofstein, A., & Clough, M. (2007). Learning and teaching in the school science

laboratory: an analysis of research, theory, and practice. In N. Lederman, & S. Abel (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 393-441). Mahwah, NJ, USA: Lawrence Erlbaum.

9Ma, J., & Nickerson, J. V. (2006). Hands-on, simulated, and remote laboratories: a comparative literature review. ACM Computing Surveys, 38(3), 1-24.

10Satterthwait, D. (2010). Why are ‘hands-on’ science activities so effective for student learning? Teaching Science—The Journal of the Australian Science Teachers Association, 56(2), 7-10.

11Singer, S. R., Hilton, M. L., & Schweingruber, H. A. (Eds.). (2006). America's laboratory report: Investigations in high school science. Washington, DC, USA: National Research Council.

12Tobin, K. (1990). Research on science laboratory activities: In pursuit of better questions and answers to improve learning. School Science and Mathematics, 90(5), 403-418.

13Brinson, J.R. (2015). Learning outcome achievement in non-traditional (virtual and remote) versus traditional (hands-on) laboratories: A review of the empirical research. Computers & Education, 87, 218-237. DOI: 10.1016/j.compedu.2015.07.003.



Contact Information

Jim Brinson

Assistant ProfessorSchool of Science, Technology,Engineering & MathAmerican Public University System(812) [email protected]

Documents

The Mobile Lab: Teaching Hands-On Science to Military Students