Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2021.41.5.391

Science Education Experts' Perception of the Remote Laboratory Sessions Provoked by COVID-19  

Lee, Gyeong-Geon (Seoul National University)
Hong, Hun-Gi (Seoul National University)
Publication Information
Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education / v.41, no.5, 2021 , pp. 391-400 More about this Journal
Abstract
This study investigated science education experts' perception of remote laboratory sessions (RLS) provoked by the COVID-19 pandemic. We conducted a total of 10 semi-structured interviews with experts in physics, chemistry, biology, and earth science education. As a result, science education experts primarily understood the RLS concerning pre-service teacher education and reconsidered the aim and goal of conventional laboratory education. On practices of RLS provoked by the COVID-19, they pointed out the learning loss due to deficiency of hands-on experience, decreased interactions between instructor and students, and instructors' increased burden. Meanwhile, they contemplated upon their adaptive implementation of RLS to suggest ways to improve RLS instruction and directions of post-COVID-19 science education. We recommend that RLS should be understood as a complemented version of minds-on teaching rather than a degraded version of hands-on teaching to elicit its full potentials. This study has its own significance providing an in-depth science educational perspective interpreting the RLS phenomena.
Keywords
COVID-19 pandemic; remote laboratory session; science inquiry experiment; E-learning; hands-on; minds-on;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 Erduran, S. (2021). Science education and the pandemic, 1 year on: Emergence of new conceptual tools and re-calibration of existing educational approaches. Science & Education, 30, 201-204.   DOI
2 Glaser, B. G. (1965). The constant comparative method of qualitative analysis. Social Problems, 12(4), 436-445.   DOI
3 Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. N. (2004). The laboratory in science education: Foundations for the twenty-first century. Science Education, 88(1), 28-54.   DOI
4 Kirschner, P. A., Buckingham-Shum, S. J., & Carr, C. S. (Eds.). (2012). Visualizing Argumentation: Software Tools for Collaborative and Educational Sense-making. Springer Science & Business Media.
5 Abrahams, I., & Millar, R. (2008). Does practical work really work? A study of the effectiveness of practical work as a teaching and learning method in school science. International Journal of Science Education, 30(14), 1945-1969.   DOI
6 Baek, J., Jeong, D. H., & Hwang, S. (2014). Issues and effects in developing inquiry-based argumentation task for science teachers: A case of Charles' law experiment. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 34(2), 79-92.   DOI
7 Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2016). E-learning and the Science of Instruction: Proven Guidelines for Consumers and Designers of Multimedia Learning. John Wiley & Sons.
8 Jang, W., Choi, M., & Hong, H. -G. (2020). A case study on the operation of non-face-to-face experimental class at university with COVID-19 Pandemic. Journal of Learner-Centered Curriculum and Instruction, 20(17), 937-966.   DOI
9 Lee, J., Song, H. D., & Hong, A. J. (2019). Exploring factors, and indicators for measuring students' sustainable engagement in e-learning. Sustainability, 11(4), 985.   DOI
10 Lee, G. -G., Jeon, Y. -E., & Hong, H. -G. (2021). The effects of cooperative flipped learning on science achievement and motivation in high school students. International Journal of Science Education, 43(9), 1381-1407.   DOI
11 Lee, J. -H., Yuo, K., Park, J., Yoon, H. -G., Park, H. -H., & Lee, S. -K. (2021). Implications of scientific practices on science education from the actor-network theory perspective: Focusing on the concept of 'circulating reference'. Journal of Research in Curriculum & Instruction, 25(2), 133-150.   DOI
12 Mayer, R. E., Florella, L., & Stull, A. (2020). Five ways to increase the effectiveness of instructional video. Educational Technology Research and Development, 67, 837-852.   DOI
13 Ma, J., & Nickerson (2006). Hands-on, simulated, and remote laboratories: A comparative literature review. ACM Computing Survey, 38(3), 1-24.   DOI
14 Lee, L., & Kim, H. -B. (2021). Exploring science teacher agency as agent of change: The case of distance learning practice due to COVID-19. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 41(3), 237-250.   DOI
15 Bergmann, J., & Sams, A. (2012). Flip your classroom: Reach every student in every class every day. International society for technology in education.
16 Park, M., Lee, J., Lee, G., & Song, J. (2007). Conceptual definition and types of reflective thinking on science teaching: Focus on the pre-service science teachers. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 27(1), 70-83.
17 Richey, R. C., & Klein, J. D. (2007). Design and Development Research: Methods, Strategies, and Issues. Routledge.
18 UNESCO (2021, June 23). Education: From disruption to recovery. Retrieved on June 23rd, 2021 from https://en.unesco.org/covid19/educationresponse
19 Loveys, B. R., & Riggs, K. M. (2019). Flipping the laboratory: Improving student engagement and learning outcomes in second year science courses. International Journal of Science Education, 41(1), 64-79.   DOI
20 Lowe, D., Newcombe, N., & Stumpers, B. (2013). Evaluation of the use of remote laboratories for secondary school science education. Reserach in Science Education, 43(3), 1197-1219.   DOI
21 Verma, G., Campbell, T., & Park, B. -Y. (2020). Science teacher education in the times of the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 31(5), 483-490.   DOI
22 Tho, S. W., Yeung, Y. Y., Wei, R., Chan, K. W., & So, W. W. M. (2017). A systematic review of remote laboratory work in science education with the support of visualizing its structure through the HistCite and CiteSpace software. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 15(7), 1217-1236.   DOI
23 Petillion, R. J., & McNeil, W. S. (2020). Student experiences of emergency remote teaching: Impacts of instructor practice on student learning, engagement, and well-Being. Journal of Chemical Education, 97(9), 2486-2493.   DOI
24 Ray, S., & Srivastava, S., (2020). Virtualization of science education: A lesson from the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Proteins and Proteomics, 11, 77-80.   DOI
25 Reimers, F. M., & Schleicher, A. (2020). A framework to guide an education response to the COVID-19 Pandemic of 2020. OECD. Retrieved on April 14th, 2020 from https://oecd.dam-broadcast.com/pm_7379_126_126988-t63lxosohs.pdf
26 Reiss, M. J. (2020). Science education in the Light of COVID-19. Science & Education, 29(4), 1079-1092.   DOI
27 Blizak, D., Blizak, S., Bouchenak, O., & Yahiaoui, K. (2020). Students' perceptions regarding the abrupt transition to online learning during the COVID-19 pandemic: Case of faculty of chemistry and hydrocarbons at the University of Boumerdes-Algeria. Journal of Chemical Education, 97(9), 2466-2471.   DOI
28 Domin, D. S. (1999). A review of laboratory instruction styles. Journal of Chemical Education, 76(4), 543-547.   DOI
29 Yoo, M. -H., Yoon, H., & Hong, H. -G. (2007). The effect of small-scale chemistry(SSC) lab program on science-majored student's academic self-efficacy and science-related affective domain in high school chemistry I classes. Journal of the Korean Chemical Society, 51(5), 1-16.
30 Siry, C. (2020). Science education during times of crisis: Calling for reflections, responses, and forward thinking from the CSSE community. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 15, 317-322.   DOI
31 Flick, L. B. (1993). The meanings of hands-on science. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 4(1), 1-8.   DOI