Labdog is a novel web technology designed to promote learning in and around the teaching laboratory. During a laboratory session, Labdog offers functionality similar to a Classroom Response System (CRS), e.g. ‘clickers’ or ‘zappers’. Labdog focuses on a different environment: the teaching laboratory – and can therefore be referred to as a Laboratory Response System (LaRS). Results from piloting with students demonstrated that many of them hold misconceptions about the scientific principles relating to their actions in a laboratory setting. Unfortunately, it is rarely feasible to address all of these problems during the laboratory session itself. This paper first outlines the underlying educational theory and advantages that this LaRS approach offers, and then details four principles of good instructional design for using LaRS. Good question design should highlight students’ misconceptions, while allowing adequate time and opportunities to address them.
References:
[1] D. S. Domin, “A content analysis of general chemistry laboratory manuals for evidence of higher-order cognitive tasks,” Journal of Chemical Education, vol. 76, p. 109, 01/1999.
[2] M. R. Abraham, “What can be learned from laboratory activities? revisiting 32 years of research,” Journal of Chemical Education, vol. 88, pp. 1020– 1025, 08/2011.
[3] A. Hofstein, M. Kipnis, and I. Abrahams, “How to learn in and from the chemistry laboratory,” in Teaching Chemistry – A Studybook, pp. 153–182, Springer Nature, 2013.
[4] J. Solomon, “Envisionment in practical work: Helping pupils to imagine concepts while carrying out experiments,” in Practical work in science education: Recent research studies (J. Leach and A. Paulsen, eds.), pp. 60–74, Roskilde/Dordrecht, The Netherlands.: Roskilde University Press/Kluwer., 1999.
[5] P. Black and D. Wiliam, “Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment,” Phi Delta Kappan, vol. 92, pp. 81–90, 09/2010.
[6] B. Cowie and B. Bell, “A model of formative assessment in science education,” Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, vol. 6, pp. 101–116, 03/1999.
[7] I. Abrahams, Practical work in secondary science: A minds-on approach. London: Continuum International Publishing Group, 11/2010.
[8] B. J. Zimmerman, “Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview,” Theory Into Practice, vol. 41, pp. 64–70, 05/2002.
[9] D. J. Nicol and D. Macfarlane-Dick, “Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice,” Studies in Higher Education, vol. 31, pp. 199–218, 04 2006.
[10] I. D. Beatty and W. J. Gerace, “Technology-enhanced formative assessment: A research-based pedagogy for teaching science with classroom response technology,” Journal of Science Education and Technology, vol. 18, pp. 146–162, 01 2009.
[11] J. H. Han and A. Finkelstein, “Understanding the effects of professors’ pedagogical development with clicker assessment and feedback technologies and the impact on students’ engagement and learning in higher education,” Computers & Education, vol. 65, p. 64–76, 07 2013.
[12] J. J. G. van Merrienboer, P. A. Kirschner, and L. Kester, “Taking the load off a learner’s mind: Instructional design for complex learning,” Educational Psychologist, vol. 38, pp. 5–13, 03 2003.
[13] G. M. Novak, “Just-in-time teaching,” New Directions for Teaching and Learning, vol. 2011, pp. 63–73, 12 2011.
Pixel International Conferences
