Emerging and Persistent Issues in the Delivery of Asynchronous Non-Traditional Undergraduate Physics Experiments

Alec Sithole; Edward T.  Chiyaka; Fidelis  Manyanga; Davison M.  Mupinga

doi:10.51724/ijpce.v12i1.86

Authors

Alec Sithole Missouri Western State University https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0041-3599
Edward T. Chiyaka Kent State University https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0150-8351
Fidelis Manyanga Salem State University
Davison M. Mupinga Kent State University https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7478-1132

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.51724/ijpce.v12i1.86

Keywords:

computer-simulations, distance physics education, home-based physics labs, online learning, remotely-controlled laboratories, asynchronous, virtual labs

Abstract

Remote physics laboratory activities are common tools of use in physics in traditional, online, and distance education to enhance student learning. Although these offerings necessitated by technological advances, spur innovation and improvement in undergraduate physics education, their use as stand-alone substitutes for instructor-guided physical laboratory experiments remain the center of debate and research. This paper discusses the effectiveness of the current pedagogic issues in the delivery and learning of four different types of remote introductory undergraduate physics laboratory activities, the breakthroughs, and the areas that require further investigations. The instructional issues include experiment preparation and design, student engagement, guidance, and safety. This review noted the positive impacts of stand-alone remote physics lab activities on mostly undergraduate non-physics majors, partly due to the limited number of institutions currently conferring complete online/distance physics degrees worldwide. We recommend further studies on the effect on physics students who end up in experimental physics-related careers.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Al-Shamali, F., & Connors, M. (2010). Low cost physics home lab. In Kennepohl, D. & Shaw, L. (Eds.), Teaching Science at a Distance (pp. 131-146). AU Press. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.210.3774&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Atkins, D., Seely Brown, J., & Hammond, A.L. (2007). A review of the open educational resources (OER) movement: Achievements, challenges, and new opportunities. Retrieved https://hewlett.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/ReviewoftheOERMovement.pdf

Akpan, J.P. (2001). Issues associated with inserting computer simulations into biology instruction: A review of the literature. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 2(3).

Badjou, S., and Dahmani, R. (2013). Current status of online Science and Engineering. Education. Journal of Online Engineering Education, 4(1), Article 3.

Bell, R.L., & Smetana, L. (2008). Using computer simulations to enhance science teaching and learning. In R.L.Bell, J. Gess-Newsome, & J. Luft (Eds.), Technology in the secondary science classroom. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press. Pp 23-32.

Bhukuvhani, C., Kusure, L., Munodawafa, V., Sana, A. & Gwizangwe, I. (2010). Pre-service Teachers’ use of improvised and virtual laboratory experimentation in Science teaching. International Journal of Education and Development using ICT, 6(4), 27-38.

Bhukuvhani, C., Mupa, M., Mhinshi, M., and Dziva, D. (2012). Science practical work instructional technologies and open distance learning in science teacher learning: A case in Zimbabwe. International Journal of Education & Development using Information and Communication Technology, 8(2), 17-27.

Bingol, O., & Aydogan, O. (2012). Web based remote controlled electrical motor laboratory used as educational tool. Przeglad Elektrotechniczny, 88, 342-346.

Brodeur, M., Braithwaite, N., Kolb, U., & Minocha, S. (2016). Improving undergraduate engagement with online labs: Student priorities and strategies for virtual and remote investigations. In L.-J. Thoms & R. Girwidz (Eds.), Selected Papers from the 20th International Conference on Multimedia in Physics Teaching and Learning (pp. 27–34). Mulhouse: European Physical Society. Retrieved from https://epub.ub.uni-muenchen.de/28963/1/MPTL2015_Selected_Papers.pdf

Cavus, N. & Ibrahim, D. (2007). Is blended learning the solution to web-based distant engineering education? International Educational Technology (IETC) Conference (7th, Nicosia, Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, May 3-5, 2007. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED500189.pdf

Cooper, M., Donnelly A., & Ferreira J.M. (2002). Remote controlled experiments for teaching over the internet: A comparison of approaches developed in the Pearl Project. Proceedings of the 19th Annual Conference of Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education. Retrieved from http://www.ascilite.org/conferences/auckland02/proceedings/papers/112.pdf

Doolan, D., Tabirca, S., O'Sullivan, C. (2006). Virtual science lab (VSL) an educational tool for demonstrating science experiments. Proceedings of the 5th RoEduNet International Conference, At Sibiu, Romania. Retrieved from http://www.physics.ucc.ie/staff/14%20-%2032_NER_NAT_15.PDF

Faulconer, E. K., & Gruss, A. B. (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).

Gryczka, P., Klementowicz, E., Sharrock, C., Montclare, J.K. (2016). Interactive online physics labs increase high school students’ interest. Journal of Technology and Science Education, 6(3), 166-187.

Harms, U. (2000). Virtual and remote labs in physics education. 2nd European Conference on Physics Teaching Engineering Education, Budapest. Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/62be/5ec4a9060ba2594ce792316c8f52dc3a8797.pdf

Hassan, M. U., & Anwar, M. S. (nd). PhysTrack. Lahore University of Management Sciences (LUMS), Lahore, Pakistan. Retrieved from https://github.com/umartechboy/PhysTrack

Hassan, M. U., & Anwar, M. S. (2017). 'PhysTrack': a Matlab based environment for video tracking of kinematics in the physics laboratory. European Journal of Physics, 38(4), pp. 045007. doi: 10.1088/1361-6404/aa747a.

Hollebeke, N. (nd). Transferability and articulation agreements for online science lab courses. Carolina Distance Learning. Retrieved from http://landing.carolina.com/Global/FileLib/dl-content/dl_articulation_agreement.pdf

Holmes, A., Roberts, S., Snow, E., & Pujana, I. (2010). Using data to teach Geology in college-level online classes. In Workshop, Teaching Geoscience Online - A Workshop for Digital Faculty. Retrieved from http://serc.carleton.edu/NAGTWorkshops/online/platforms.html

Jones, N. (2018). Simulated labs are booming: Blowing up your lab is usually discouraged, but it’s part of the experience when you’re learning online. Nature, 562, S5-S7. doi: 10.1038/d41586-018-06831-1

Keller, H. (2008). Science labs: Virtual versus simulated. THE Journal: Transforming Education Through Technology, Public Sector Media Group. Retrieved from https://thejournal.com/articles/2008/05/05/science-labs-virtual-versus-simulated.aspx

Kennepohl, D. (2001). Using computer simulations to supplement teaching laboratories in chemistry for distance delivery. Journal of Distance Education, 16(2), 58-65.

Khazri, Y., AL Sabri, A., Sabir, B., Toumi, H., Moussetad M., & Fahli, A. (2018). Remote control laboratory experiments in physics using LabVIEW. International Journal of Information Science & Technology, 1(1), 11-16.

Krusberg, Z. (2007). Emerging technologies in physics education. Journal of Science Education & Technology, 16(5), 401-411. doi: 10.1007/s10956-007-9068-0

Lateef, F. (2010). Simulation-based learning: Just like the real thing. Journal of Emergencies, Trauma, and Shock, 3(4), 348-52.

Lynch, T. and Ghergulescu, I. (2017). Review of virtual labs as the emerging technologies for teaching STEM Subjects. Proceedings of the 11th International Technology, Education and Development Conference, March 6-8, 2017, Valencia, Spain. Retrieved from http://www.newtonproject.eu/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/review-of-virtual-labs-as-the-emerging-technologies-for-teaching-stem-subjects-1.pdf

National Research Council (2013). Educating engineers: Preparing 21st century leaders in the context of new modes of learning. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Retrieved from http://www.nap.edu/catalog/18254/educating-engineers-preparing-21st-century-leaders-in-the-context-of-new-modes-of-learning

PhET Interactive Simulations (nd). How PhET simulations are designed, and the research process of refining the simulations to best promote learning. PhET: Research and Development. PhET Interactive Simulations. University of Colorado. Retrieved from https://phet.colorado.edu/en/research#design

Sharma, O.P., Das, M., & Kumari, R. (2009). Critical Issues in Distance Science Lab Practicals: A Study. National Centre for Innovation in Distance Education, Indira Gandhi National Open University. Retrieved from http://www.ignou.ac.in/userfiles/3_%20Critical%20Issues%20in%20Distance%20Science%20Lab%20Practicals.pdf

Sládek, P. Pawera L.& Válek (2011). Remote laboratory–new possibility for school experiments, Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 12(1), 164 -167.

Teese, R.B., Laws, P.W., & Koenig, K. (2016). Interactive video Vignettes. In L.-J. Thoms & R. Girwidz (Eds.), Selected Papers from the 20th International Conference on Multimedia in Physics Teaching and Learning (pp. 11–16). Mulhouse: European Physical Society. Retrieved from https://epub.ub.uni-muenchen.de/28963/1/MPTL2015_Selected_Papers.pdf

Turner, J., & Parisi, A. (2008). Take-home physics experiment kit for on-campus and off-campus students. Teaching Science, 54(2), 20-23.

Tüysüz, C. (2010). The effect of the virtual laboratory on students’ achievement and attitude in chemistry. International Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 2(1), 37–53. http://doi.org/13092707

Weiman, C., & Perkins, K. (2005). Transforming Physics Education. Physics Today, 58(11), 36.

Wolf, T. (2010). Assessing student learning in a virtual laboratory environment. IEEE Transactions on Education, 53(2), 216–222. doi: 10.1109/TE.2008.2012114

Zacharia, Z.C., & Olympiou, G. (2011). Physical versus virtual manipulative experimentation in physics learning. Learning and Instruction, 21, 317-331.

Zwickl, M. B, Finkelstein, N & Lewandowski, H. J. (2013). A framework for incorporating model-based Inquiry into physics laboratory courses” arxiv:1301.4414v1 [physics.ed-ph]. Retrieved From http://www.colorado.edu/physics/educationissues/zwickl/resources/zwickl_framework_for_modelbased_inquiry.pdf