Journal of Learning and Teaching
Monitoring Learning within the Laboratory-Based Learning Environment Carla Gallagher, Sport and Exercise Science Abstract Monitoring of student learning is a huge challenge for faculty members teaching within the laboratory environment and can present the teacher with difficult situations. Although the laboratory based environment is designed to encourage more active student participation, it appears that students often find it difficult to establish the link between theoretical knowledge and laboratory based practice, leaving students confused and apathetic. Therefore, a need to monitor learning within this environment is key, as the question; ‘are students really learning?’ is raised. This paper explores various effective methodologies that could be employed in order to monitor learning within the laboratory environment.
Introduction As part of the assessment for a postgraduate certificate in learning and teaching (PGCert), I was asked to reflect upon my teaching and identify an area in which I felt my teaching itself and/or student learning could be enhanced. As it was my first semester of teaching I was given hours to teach on a first year undergraduate module, titled ‘Bioenergetics of the Exercising Human’. My role
learner with a ‘hands on experience’ is known to enrich the learning process by reducing the amount of time spent simply observing and visually learning from the teacher, encouraging active student participation. It has also been suggested that learning by ‘doing’ is not only effective but leads to greater understanding and retention of information (Randall and Burkholder, 1990) due to a direct action-to-reaction response (Feldmann and Hofinger, 1997).
was to teach students key concepts and skills they need within the
Sport and exercise physiology, a discipline of sports medicine
laboratory environment, skills which will be utilised continuously
that involves the study of the body’s response to physical stress
throughout the rest of their Sport and Exercise Science degree.
has employed the use of the laboratory environment for numerous
During my teaching hours it became slowly apparent to me that
years. It allows the learner to engage in activities such as study
although the module is well designed it has one major flaw, within
design, data collection, analysis and interpretation, in order to
the laboratory environment learning progress is poorly monitored.
gain a greater understanding of basic principles used within this
With the exception of two laboratory reports, both of which are
discipline. However, although it is suggested that this environment
summative assessments, one written mid-semester and one at
leads to greater retention of information, often learning is poorly
conclusion of the module, no other assessments take place to
monitored, therefore the teacher is left unaware of the student
monitor student progress. This therefore poses two key questions:
learning process and progress.
how do we know that students are learning from laboratory style methods? And how do we determine whether or not students are making the link between theory and practice? Formatively assessing students can be an important key in the process of monitoring student learning. In this paper the need for monitoring learning and why it is becoming of importance within higher education will be discussed; furthermore methods which can be utilised to enhance this process will be reviewed. Literature Review The laboratory-based environment is designed to encourage diagnostic and communication skills, in addition to providing a team approach to learning (Black and Smith, 2006). Providing the 2012 Series: Paper 3
It has been reported that often students exploring theory through laboratory experiments experience difficulty in integrating their understanding of concepts gained in the lecture with physical phenomena observed in the laboratory (Nakhleh, 1994). Friedler and Tamir (1990) report that students seem to experience four major difficulties in carrying out laboratory work; (1) an inadequate understanding of the basic concepts underlying the lab, (2) an inability to relate their observations to their theoretical knowledge, (3) an inability to order their observations so that irrelevant details are filtered out, and (4) weak links and even gaps in their knowledge which slow down students’ understanding or even mislead them. In addition to the findings of Friedler and Tamir (1990)
Journal of Learning and Teaching other researchers have explored the difficulties faced within the
participation, (2) to provide opportunity for the students to learn
laboratory environment, reporting that those students who have
a topic in greater depth, and (3) to give the students a chance to
difficulty making decisions on how to focus their observations
give a verbal presentation. From this research they found students
(Nakhleh and Krajcik, 1993) and those who routinise procedures
not only accepted the opportunity to review previous laboratory
without gaining corresponding understanding encapsulate gaps
classes but reviews were also valued by most of the students.
within their knowledge structure (Mulder and Vedonk, 1984).
In addition, students felt that they gained experience, benefited
Moreover students often need to establish a purpose of an experiment and understand the teacher’s reasons for carrying out a particular task, in order to conceptualise the information provided. It has been reported that within the laboratory environment students
from the presentation, and most importantly verbal presentations allowed students to understand course content in more depth. As a result, it would appear that presentations can be a useful tool for establishing themes and concepts throughout a semester.
focus too much attention on completion of a task (Hart et al. 2000),
Another benefit arising from the use of verbal presentations is the
focusing relatively little attention on understanding an experiment.
opportunity for peer assessment to take place. Peer assessment
Research examining purposes, uses and, learning from laboratories
is defined as the process through which groups or individuals
have drawn important conclusions. Johnstone and Wham (1982)
rate their peers (Falchikov, 1995) and can take a formative or
noted that laboratory work often cognitively overloads students
summative approach (Dochy et al. 1999). Peer review as part of a
with too much information to recall. Furthermore, Hodson (1990)
formative assessment, the primary function of which is to provide
described laboratory work as often being dull and teacher-
information for learners about their progress, not only helps
directed, and highlighted the fact that students often failed to
develop the students own skills of reflection (Somervell, 1993),
relate the laboratory work to other aspects of their learning. Thus,
but also develops attitudes of responsibility towards other group
it is becoming increasingly apparent from the literature that there
members (Burnett and Cavaye, 1980). Research investigating the
is a need to monitor learning within the laboratory environment
advantages of peer assessment has reported that students are
to ensure that links are being made between theory and practice.
very positive towards the process (Dochy et al., 1999; Orsmond
This paper will explore methodologies that could be employed in
et al. 1996). Keaten and Richardson (1993) also affirmed that
order to monitor learning within this highly active, rich environment.
peer assessment fostered an appreciation for the individuals’
Verbal presentations, peer assessment, formative assessments,
performance within the group and interpersonal relationships
response cards, and concept mapping will all be discussed; these
in the classroom. On the other hand, research by Brindley and
methods should stimulate creativity and actively involve students
Scoffield (1998) reported that students viewed peer assessment
within the learning process.
as a biased process; further to this a number of students doubted
Verbal Presentations and Peer Assessment
the ability of other students to interpret the criteria and assess work. Therefore, it would appear more appropriate for this method
Verbal presentations are a method of information delivery, in which
to be utilised for general feedback and should not necessarily play
an individual or group explains the content of a topic to an audience
a major role in the assessment process.
or learner. In academic environments verbal presentations are often formative, taking many forms, including talks, seminars or research proposals. Nevertheless, within higher education presentations are frequently used as a method of summative assessment as opposed to formative assessment. However, in recent years, it has been suggested that verbal presentations are integrated into the classroom environment as a means of monitoring learning. To engage students more actively within the laboratory environment, Black and Smith (2004), asked students to give reviews for each laboratory in a presentation style. Their research had three main aims; (1) to encourage active student 2012 Series: Paper 3
Overall, verbal presentations are a valuable way to assess and monitor learning throughout a course module. Also, presenting under formative conditions allows students to gain confidence in discussing course material and ideas to a wider audience. Moreover, engaging students in the peer assessment process allows individuals to foster skills of personal judgement (Magin and Helmore, 2001) and gain a greater insight into how grading is obtained by the teacher. Additionally, peer assessment of verbal presentations could highlight to the teacher aspects of module content which students are finding complex.
Journal of Learning and Teaching Formative Assessments
Response Cards
Formative assessment refers to assessment that is specifically
Response cards are cards, signs, or items that are simultaneously
intended to generate feedback on performance to improve
held up by all students in the class to display their responses to
and accelerate learning (Sadler, 1998). In general, within higher
questions or problems presented by the teacher (Heward et al.
education, formative assessment and feedback should be used
1996; Gardner et al. 1994) and can be presented in different forms
to empower students as self-regulated learners (Nicol and
i.e. pre-printed and write-on. Response cards are of invaluable use
Macfarlane-Dick, 2006). In addition to self-regulated learning,
as teachers are able to easily detect the responses of individual
formative assessments enable students to actively monitor their
students and further monitor those students who appear to be
own learning alongside identifying a number of different learning
lower down the learning process on a one-to-one basis. The
processes, for example, setting of and orientation towards learning
response card method also allows the teacher to steer away from
goals, the strategies used to achieve goals, the management of
conventional methods, which only enable one student to answer a
resources, the effort exerted, and reactions to external feedback
proposed question at any one time (Brophy and Evertson, 1976),
(Nicol and Macfarlane-Dick, 2006). From the teachers viewpoint
leading to wider classroom participation (Narayan et al. 1990;
formative assessments are used to provide the learner with
Gardner et al. 1994).
external feedback, for example, praise or constructive criticism. Providing external feedback allows the learner to identify and generate internal feedback, as they monitor their engagement with learning activities, and tasks, and assess progress towards goals e.g. module aims (Butler and Winne, 1995). In support, Black and William (1998) concluded from a review of 250 studies that this generation of feedback consistently resulted in learning and achievement across all content areas, knowledge and skill types, and levels of education. Therefore suggesting that using formative assessments as a tool to provide external feedback is effective.
Furthermore, it is well established that conventional methods often result in more frequent responses by high-achieving students and almost no responses from low achieving students (Maheady, et al. 1991). A study by Gardner and colleagues (1994) reported the frequency of student response was fourteen times higher with response cards compared with hand-raising, suggesting that response cards lead to increased student participation within the learning environment. In addition to increased participation, response cards are also an effective tool for the teacher. As previously mentioned, response cards allow the teacher to gain
On the other hand, research studying the effectiveness of
immediate feedback, and maintain close, continual contact
assessing students using this system have criticised the method
with relevant outcome data they need to make well informed,
for being too controlled by the teacher. Boud (2000) stated if
instructional decisions (Bushell and Baer, 1994). Moreover, Gardner
formative assessment is exclusively in the hands of teachers,
and colleagues (1994) reported response cards to be a valuable
then it is difficult to see how students can become empowered
tool in the teaching of basic scientific concepts and definitions.
and develop the self-regulation skills needed to prepare them for learning outside university and throughout life. Therefore, it is suggested that self-assessment methods are developed within the learning environment (e.g. student generated formative assessment questions). In support of self-assessment methods, Zimmerman and Schunk (2004) reported that learners who are more self-regulated are more effective learners: they are more persistent, resourceful, confidents and higher achievers. In short, it is important that formative assessments are used as
In sum, response cards are an appealing tool for use within higher education. Prevailing evidence would suggest that this method leads to increased active student participation, which makes it an attractive idea for the laboratory environment. Moreover, as science education requires students to retain a multitude of facts and definitions, response cards provide a quick, easy and effective way of monitoring progress within groups of students. Concept Mapping
a tool for monitoring progress of students on an individual basis
Concept mapping is a meta-cognitive tool which visually represents
however, teachers should be aware that this method is more
knowledge as a hierarchical framework of concepts and concept
effective when student self-regulated learning is applied.
relationships (Iuli and Helleden, 2004). More importantly the process of concept mapping makes it necessary for learners to
2012 Series: Paper 3
Journal of Learning and Teaching find matching ‘knots’, core terms and connections between core terms, which accounts for deep understanding of theory (Vohle, 2009). Since their development in the 20th century, concept maps have been widely utilised and are most widely known within
References BLACK, V.H. AND SMITH, P.R. (2006), Increasing active student participation in histology, The Anatomical Record, 2788, pp. 14-17.
science education. Concept mapping has been shown to be useful
BLACK, P. AND WILLIAM, D. (1998), Assessment and classroom
for (1) providing a summary of a person’s existing knowledge,
learning, Assessment in Education, 5, 7-74.
(2) revealing gaps in understanding, (3) designing curricula and instructional materials, (4) assessing student learning, (5) facilitating communication and arriving at shared understandings
BROPHY, J.E. AND EVERTSON, C.M. (1976), Learning from Teaching: A Developmental Approach, Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
among groups of individuals and (6) understanding the processes
BOUD, D. (2000), Sustainable assessment: rethinking assessment
by which scientists construct new knowledge (Iuli, 2004; Mintzes
for the learning society, Studies in Continuing Education, 22,
et al. 1998 and 2000; Novak, 1998; Novak and Gowin, 1984).
pp.151-167.
In the laboratory environment concept mapping should not be
BRINDLEY, C. AND SCOFFIELD, S. (1998), Peer assessment in
underestimated, and can be a useful tool either pre- or post-
undergraduate programmes, Teaching in Higher Education, 3, pp.
laboratory classes. It provides students with an opportunity to
79-90.
reflect on the meaning of experiments which have taken place and on how the observations made in the laboratory relate to the concepts they learn within the class or previous lectures (Nakhleh,
BURNETT, W. AND CAVAYE, G. (1980), Peer assessment by fifth year students of surgery, Assessment in Higher Education, 2, pp. 273-278.
1994). Concept mapping will also enable students to make the link between various concepts. Additionally getting students to
BUSHELL, D. AND BAER, D.M. (1994), Measurably superior
develop a concept map allows the teacher to identify gaps within
instruction means close, continual contact with the relevant
their student’s knowledge and recognise where students are
outcome data: revolutionary!, in Gardner, R., Sainato, D.M.,
finding it difficult to make theoretical links.
Cooper, J.O., Heron, T.E, Heward, W.L., Eshleman, J. and Grossi, T.A (Eds.), Behaviour Analysis in Education: Focus on Measurably
Conclusion It is becoming increasingly important to monitor student learning within the laboratory environment to ensure that students are establishing the link between theoretical knowledge and
Superior Instruction, Monterey, CA. BUTLER, D.L. AND WINNE, P.H. (1995), Feedback and selfregulated learning, a theoretical synthesis, Review of Educational Research, 65, pp. 245-281.
laboratory-based practice. Without continuous monitoring of learning students will continue to encapsulate gaps within their
DOCHY, F., SEGERS, M. AND SLUIJSMANS, D. (1999), The use
knowledge. Verbal presentations and practice examinations
of self-, peer and co-assessment in higher education: a review,
provide an informal opportunity for students to demonstrate their
Studies in Higher Education, 24, pp. 331-350.
understanding of a single topic, at the same time as developing greater communication skills. Additionally, verbal presentations allow the opportunity for peer assessment to take place. Concept
HARRIS, H. AND BRETAG, T. (2003), Reflective and collaborative teaching practice: working towards quality student learning outcomes, Quality in Higher Education, 9, pp. 179-185.
mapping and response cards are also beneficial ways of integrating groups of students, developing teamwork skills as well as allowing
FALCHIKOV, N. (1995), Peer feedback marking: developing peer
the teacher to monitor individual learners. Finally, if we implement
assessment, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 32,
the monitoring of learning within the laboratory environment it is
pp. 175-187.
likely to have many beneficial outcomes; teachers will understand their students and their learning progression and students should become more motivated to learn within this highly demanding environment. 2012 Series: Paper 3
Journal of Learning and Teaching FELDMANN,
L.J.
AND
HOFINGER,
R.J.
(1997),
Active
MINTZES,
J.J.,
WANDERSEE,
J.H.
AND
NOVAK,
J.D.
participation by sophomore students in the design of experiments,
(Eds.)(1998), Teaching Science for Understanding: A Human
paper presented at the Frontiers in Education Conference,
Constructivist View, San Diego: Academic Press.
Pittsburgh, PA.
MINTZES, J.J., WANDERSEE, J.H. AND NOVAK, J.D. (Eds.)
FRIEDLER, Y. AND TAMIR, P. (Eds.) (1990), The student laboratory
(2000), Assessing Science Understanding: A Human Constructivist
and the science curriculum. (Routledge: London).
View, San Diego: Academic Press.
GARDNER, R., HEWARD, W.L. AND GROSSI, T.A. (1994),
MULDER, T. AND VEDONK, A.H. (1984), A behavioural analysis
Effects of response cards on student participation and academic
of the laboratory learning process, redesigning a teaching unit on
achievement: a systematic replication with inner-city students
recrystallization, Journal of Chemical Education, 61, 451-453.
during whole-class science instruction, Journal of Applied Behaviour Analysis, 27, pp. 63-71.
NAKHLEH, M.B. AND KRAJCIK, J.S. (1993), A protocol analysis of the influence of technology on students’ actions, verbal
HART, C., MULHALL, P., BERRY, A., LOUGHRAN, J. AND
commentary, and thought processes during the performance of
GUNSTONE, R. (2000), What is the purpose of this experiment?
acid-base titrations, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30,
Or can students learn something from doing experiments?, Journal
pp. 1149-1168.
of Research in Science Teaching, 37, pp. 655-675.
NAKHLEH, M.B. (1994), Chemical education research in the
HEWARD, W.L., GARDNER, R., CAVANAUGH, R.A., COURSON,
laboratory environment. How can research uncover what students
F.H., GROSSI, T.A. AND BARBETTA, P.M. (1996), Everyone
are learning?, Symposium: What is Research in Chemistry
participates in this class: using response cards to increase active
Education, 71, pp. 201-205.
student participation, Teaching Exceptional Children, 28, pp. 4-10.
NARAYAN, J.S., HEWARD, W.L., GARDNER, R., COURSON,
HODSON, D. (1990), A critical look at practical work in school
F.H. AND OMNESS, C. (1990), Using response cards to increase
science, School Science Review, 71, pp. 33-40.
student participation in an elementary classroom, Journal of
IULI, R.J. AND HELLEDEN, G. (2004), Using concept maps as a
Applied Behaviour Analysis, 23, pp. 483-490.
research tool in science education research, paper presented at
NICOL, D.J. AND MACFARLANE-DICK, D. (2006), Formative
the Proceedings of the First International Conference on Concept
assessment and self-regulated learning: a model and seven
Mapping, Pamplona, Spain.
principles of good feedback practice, Studies in Higher Education,
JOHNSTONE, A.H. AND WHAM, A.J.B. (1982), The demands of practical work, Education in Chemistry, 19, pp. 71-73. KEATEN, J.A. AND RICHARDSON, M.E. (1992), A field investigation of peer assessment as part of the student group
31, pp. 199-218. NOVAK, J.D. (1998), Learning, Creating, and Using Knowledge, Concept Maps as Facilitative Tools in Schools and Corporations, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
grading process, paper presented at the Western Speech
NOVAK, J. D. AND GOWIN, D. B. (1984), Learning How to Learn,
Communication Association Convention, Albuquerque, NM.
New York: Cambridge University Press.
MAGIN, D. AND HELMORE, P. (2001), Peer and teacher
ORSMOND, P., MERRY, S. AND REILING, K. (1996), The
assessments of oral presentation skills: how reliable are they?,
importance of marking criteria in the use of peer assessment,
Studies in Higher Education, 26, pp. 287-298.
Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 21, pp. 239-249.
MAHEADY, L., MALLETTE, B., HARPER, G.F. AND SACA, K.
RANDALL, W.C. AND BURKHOLDER, T. (1990), Hands-on
(1991), Heads together: A peer-mediated option for improving
laboratory experience in teaching-learning physiology, Advances
the academic achievement of heterogeneous learning groups,
in Physiology Education, 259, pp. S4-S7.
Remedial and Special Education, 12, pp. 25-33.
2012 Series: Paper 3
Journal of Learning and Teaching SADLER, D.R. (1998), Formative assessment: revisiting the territory, Assessment in Education, 5, pp.583-593. SOMERVELL, H. (1993), Issues in assessment, enterprise and higher education: the case for self,-peer and collaborative assessment, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 18, pp. 221-233. VOHLE, F.
(2009), Cognitive tools 2.0 in Trainer Education,
International Journal of Sports Science and Coaching, 4, pp. 583-593. ZIMMERMAN, B.J. AND SCHUNK, D.H.
(2001), Self-regulated
Learning and Academic Achievement: Theoretical Perspectives, London, Routledge.
2012 Series: Paper 3