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.

1. Sue Subocz and Ann Reagan, College of Southern Maryland
5th Annual Student Success Mid-Atlantic Regional Conference
La Plata, MD April 13, 2012

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

4. 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%)

5. 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

6. 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(unpublished, 2012)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

8. 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

9. Lab Approaches for Online STEM
Simulations/Virtual Labs Video Analysis
In-Class
Only, or..
“Hands-On” Approaches
Commercial, Custom, Household Mat’ls
Remote labs

10. NRC Goals for Lab Experiences
1. Enhance mastery of subject matter
2. Develop scientific reasoning abilities
3. Increase understanding of the complexity and ambiguity of
empirical work
4. Develop practical skills
5. Increase understanding of the nature of science
6. Cultivate interest in science and science learning
7. 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

11. ** Note: color ratings are not peer-reviewed

13. 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

14. 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

15. 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)

16. Resources for Simulations and
Video 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

17. ** Note: color ratings are not peer-reviewed

19. 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

20. 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

21. Example 1: Free fall
 Timing via Audacity
 Timing accurate to 0.1 millisecond
 “g” repeatedly to ~ 2%

22. Example 2: Conservation of Energy
 t2/t1 = v22/v12; gives % energy dissipated
 Relate PE before and KE after bounce
 ‘”Falsification Lab”

23. Resonance and Speed of Sound
 Fourier Analysis of open/closed tube resonance
 Accuracy sufficient to confirm need for the end correction term

24. 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

25. Video “Projectile” Motion
 Air puck data from Tracker video software (D. Brown, Cabrillo
College)
 Independent horizontal, vertical motions plotted in Tracker

26. Video “Projectile” Motion
 Same data plotted in Excel

27. Chemistry
 Scheeline & Kelley, Univ of Il Urbana-Champaign
 $3 equipment+ open-source software + cell phone =
spectrophotometer

28. 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)

30. 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

31. 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)

32. 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

33. 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)

34. 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)