For a student enrolled in a physics degree, there’s little worse than finding out you can’t access the lab. Labs are places to poke and prod physical phenomena, explore ‘what-if’ scenarios, observe, record and communicate. It’s a key time to connect with peers and tutors, and a place where students’ emerging scientific identities are made tangible.
So what do you do when the lab is no longer available to all? Over five semesters, three different subjects and countless interruptions to planned classes, physicist Dr Annette Dowd has been leading lab-based lessons in various combinations of online, face-to-face and hybrid synchronous modes. Below she shares experiences and reflections from two years of testing, failing and succeeding with diverse delivery modes in the physics laboratory.
Inspiration from the scientific community
When labs closed and then only partially re-opened in 2020, the School of Mathematical and Physical Sciences at UTS recognised the challenge of providing meaningful experimental experiences to students who could not come to campus.
Inspiration came initially from a 72-hour remote experiment run on the Australian Synchrotron in Melbourne. Annette was leading the research team from Sydney, with specimens mailed to the experimental facility. Successfully running the experiment involved live communication between the Melbourne scientists and Annette’s team over Zoom, with screen sharing of plots and maps, and exchange of data files.
With limited lab space and social distancing in place for the Spring 2020 semester at UTS, the team decided to try a scaled-down version of the remote synchrotron experiment in the context of an undergraduate optics laboratory.
Experiment 1: partnering up for hybrid success
Before 2020, students carried out lab experiments in pairs; classes were lively and interactive, with much discussion and shared observational activity. In the socially-distanced 2020 lab, students were partnered with a peer as before, but with one student on campus, and the other online at home. Students swapped roles week-to-week, giving as many students as possible the chance to be physically present in the lab if they could.
Students were assigned specific roles in their pairs: those in the lab took the role of ‘experimentalist’, using equipment and generating data, and using their mobile phone cameras to share detailed views of experiments with their partner. Their remote counterparts had the role of ‘theoretician’, joining via video as they plotted experimental and simulated data.
Each student had a unique and vital contribution to the successful completion of the experiment, with no opportunity for passive participation. Despite the restrictions, this remote pairing worked well, creating pleasingly noisy labs and equally pleasing learning outcomes.
Experiment 2: 100% online, but not 100% engaged
In 2021, restrictions were still in full force, and lab classes were held fully online. This meant that a demonstrator was in the lab whilst students were at home carrying out data analysis for the demonstrator. Students were still watching a live experiment and were encouraged to discuss it with the group.
In this case, however, the results were less encouraging. Despite a reasonably small group (15-20 students), the whole-class discussion failed to take off, and students reverted to more passive listening behaviour. When marking the follow-up assessments it became clear the average level of scientific comprehension of these experiments was much lower.
Experiment 3: back in the lab (unless you’re not)
Once restrictions were lifted, students were overjoyed to be back in the lab and engaging with their peers and laboratory environment. Even then, however, sessions were disrupted by frequent requirements for students to isolate and a series of interruptions, from extreme flooding to transport strikes.
In this context, the default delivery mode has been face-to-face in the lab, but with the flexibility to engage remotely if circumstances prevent students from attending in person. Creative approaches have been taken to enable students to conduct experiments from home, although beyond 1st-year subjects there are fewer options as experiments increase in complexity.
Whilst these adjustments have been necessary, academics note that missing time in the lab is not ideal, and can create skills gaps if students are not able to spend enough time hands-on with lab equipment.
The results: working together works best
Whilst none of these experiments has generated an ‘ideal’ result, each one has surfaced important learning points on student experience, engagement and interaction in lab-based classes. Getting familiar with the technology to connect remote and on-campus learners has been one aspect, but developing our students’ and our own capabilities for better communication, collaboration and engagement has been just as important.
Giving students responsibility to explain and include remote students, for example, is an effective learning tool, with benefits for everyone. These developing skills also extend beyond a single laboratory session, preparing students for a globally connected scientific community.
Just as we learn through hands-on experimentation and fast feedback in the lab, we have gathered data on the failures and successes of each mode of delivery. In the process, we have a deeper appreciation for what the laboratory environment brings to learning processes, as well as student identity and belonging.
Are you experimenting with different delivery modes in your own classes? Discover more tips to turn your hybrid nerves into classroom confidence and stories from Visual Communication and Design subjects.
Annette I applaud your honesty in sharing not only what worked well but also what didn’t work so well. There’s a tendency to only talk about or share the perceived ‘wins’, but these will only come about when we test different approaches, and share both the successful and not-so-successful elements.