View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Changing the Lab Experience: Using Technology to Deliver Science Instruction in Rural Communities

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Changing the Lab Experience: Using Technology to Deliver Science Instruction in Rural Communities
Language: English
Authors: Edwards, Renée, McKay, Heather, Shea, Patricia
Source: New Directions for Community Colleges. Spr 2021 (193):83-93.
Availability: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 11
Publication Date: 2021
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Descriptors: Technology Integration, Delivery Systems, Science Instruction, Science Laboratories, Networks, Electronic Learning, Rural Areas, Alignment (Education), College Faculty
DOI: 10.1002/cc.20441
ISSN: 0194-3081
Abstract: This case study of an online science laboratory network, the North American Network of Science Labs Online (NANSLO), demonstrates that successful initiatives must fit well within institutions' existing structural and programmatic elements as well as align with institutional goals, course-level programming, and have adequate buy-in at the faculty level.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2020
Accession Number: EJ1278689
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwGEz20TT6tSfz8ip9-vprIZAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDBb8okbIOe1NxzcqRQIBEICBm1n7gQSJC51xO9-AhdPhNp2V9FONWjFW54hM2PMCG8Q_20tCdTC3x0I3Mqg0LliiVW-O_ifvxk1Ro-ELj2VjzJvsURlA8G0m3XBRY5Y4kRdapP_9FgT20NZY_b1ohMpZSM9IVgiLJj2biMb3eNS0P4BhbNgplYv4nYPR2087Ni1cxwIVf28_3Y25o8sAuT0iYqzhUoMK9ej_semU
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0147809162;0yg01mar.21;2020Dec30.02:22;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0147809162-1">Changing the Lab Experience: Using Technology to Deliver Science Instruction in Rural Communities </title> <p>This case study of an online science laboratory network, the North American Network of Science Labs Online (NANSLO), demonstrates that successful initiatives must fit well within institutions' existing structural and programmatic elements as well as align with institutional goals, course‐level programming, and have adequate buy‐in at the faculty level.</p> <p>About 41 million American adults live 25 miles or more from the nearest higher education institution. In many cases, a single community college is the only place for these students to access public higher education (Rosenboom & Blagg, 2018). And 24% of the nation's 124 community college zones are in educational deserts—areas where there is only one or not even a single public institution that is broad‐based, meaning one that admits more than 80% of applicants (Hillman, 2019). Research shows that rural community college students face a multitude of barriers to accessing education on campus in part because of these distances, including reliable transportation and childcare (Bell, Rowan‐Kenyon, & Perna, 2009; Provasnik et al., 2007; Thornton, 2019). Although rural students comprise one fifth of American students, they do not attend college at the same rate as their urban and suburban counterparts. Among students 18 to 24 years old, 27% of rural students enrolled in college as compared to 37% of urban and suburban students (Provasnik et al., 2007). Lower enrollments result in lower graduation rates; 20% of young adults in rural populations had received a bachelor's degree or higher in 2018, compared to 38% of the nonrural population (Department of Agriculture, 2018). Expanding access to science learning via remote opportunities does more than simply enrich learning—it provides rural students with expanded access to higher education. Rural communities also often struggle to recruit and retain an adequate supply of healthcare workers (Skillman, Patterson, Lishner, & Doescher, 2013). Students from rural locations who enter healthcare careers are generally believed to be more likely to practice in rural areas, especially if they have a positive view of their community (Demi, McLaughlin, & Snyder, 2009). Therefore, there is great value to finding new ways to increase the access of the future rural healthcare workforce to postsecondary learning, specifically in science and healthcare fields.</p> <p>One way to increase rural healthcare education access is to provide creative teaching options instead of traditional classroom‐based lab activities. For many instructors, teaching science lab activities online using kit labs—pre‐packaged boxes of equipment and instructions necessary for students to complete a science lab activity on their own—has replaced in‐lab activities. However, as technological integration in education is becoming more commonplace using robotics and web interfacing, online science lab activities are making their way into virtual classrooms nationally. Research indicates that remote laboratories, in which students actually "manipulate sophisticated science equipment located in professional laboratories," provide online students with "adequately realistic and sophisticated laboratory experiences" (Jeschofnig & Jeschofnig, 2011, p. 4). Remote‐access laboratories build real‐world experiences because they "provide access to fully functioning advanced scientific instrumentation that is actually used...in genuine, real‐world science applications and investigations" (p. 54). Research has shown that remote science labs are equivalent to face‐to‐face labs in terms of student outcomes (Carlson & Sullivan, 1999; Corter et al., 2007; Scanlon, Colwell, Cooper, & Paolo, 2004; Sicker, Lookabaugh, Santos, & Barnes, 2005; Sonnenwald, Whitton, & MacLaughlin, 2003).</p> <p>This chapter looks at the implementation of an online science laboratory network—the North American Network of Science Labs Online (NANSLO)—in the Consortium for Healthcare Education Online (CHEO), a project funded by a Round 2 TAACCCT grant. CHEO was an interstate consortium consisting of eight colleges across Colorado, Wyoming, South Dakota, Montana, and Alaska. The colleges included: Pueblo Community College (PCC), Otero Junior College (OJC), Red Rocks Community College (RRCC), Laramie County Community College (LCCC), Lake Area Technical College (LATI), Great Falls College Montana State University (GFC MSU), Flathead Valley Community College (FVCC), and Kodiak College (KoC). NANSLO was a network of laboratories at colleges in the United States and Canada that offered the opportunity for students to conduct science activities remotely using a web interface connected to robotics and high‐end scientific equipment.</p> <p>NANSLO was included as a part of the CHEO grant to provide high‐quality science learning experiences for rural students and to increase access to science courses. The overall goal was to help rural communities fill skills gaps in fields like healthcare. NANSLO was developed in British Columbia, Canada, and was envisioned as a tool for students in rural Canada and Alaska who might not have access to on‐campus science courses. NANSLO created a long‐distance science learning experience for rural students, providing them with a way to complete general education science courses remotely. The network consisted of three laboratory sites referred to as nodes; each node was a physical laboratory equipped with science equipment (the exact equipment varied from site to site) that could be operated over the internet through a web interface and robotics.</p> <p>As part of CHEO, NANSLO was to be used in courses at the participating community colleges in five western states and in the online course platform at the Colorado Community College System (CCCS). The remote laboratories gave students the opportunity to conduct lab activities from a computer. Students would access actual laboratory equipment remotely, using robotics to move through lab activities. Student teams could collaborate virtually and talk to each other over the internet during the activity. They could also watch the equipment as they used it through virtual streaming technologies. The lab work was done in real time and was supported by a live laboratory technician. Prior to tools like NANSLO, remote science classes were conducted with mailed lab kits or required students to visit campus to conduct lab activities. Mailed lab kits have been criticized as not providing a high quality or realistic learning experience, mostly because they can be potentially dangerous (Hallyburton & Lundsford, 2013; Kennepohl & Shaw, 2010), and traveling to campuses can be difficult in rural areas where distance makes commuting a challenge (Provasnik et al., 2007).</p> <p>NANSLO was folded into the CHEO project to give students in online and hybrid allied healthcare programs access to required science courses. The concept of remote lab activities aligned well with the overall focus of the CHEO project to redesign allied healthcare courses and move them to online and hybrid formats. The CHEO grant had multiple goals for the expansion and use of NANSLO. It specified that (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref1">1</reflink>) CHEO partners would collaborate to develop twelve lab activities to be used in allied health and science‐related courses and (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref2">2</reflink>) faculty in the designed/redesigned CHEO programs would incorporate NANSLO lab activities into courses using one of three available nodes. The three nodes included the original node in Courtenay, British Columbia, a node in Denver, Colorado, that had been created prior to the grant and was expanded with grant dollars, and a third node that was to be created in Great Falls, Montana, using TAACCCT funds and added to the NANSLO network. Adding a third node would allow the NANSLO network to serve more students in chemistry, biology, physics, and healthcare.</p> <p>The Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education (WICHE) served as the hub for the network of laboratories and helped facilitate the activities noted above. WICHE also designed and created scheduling software that allowed students to reserve times for their lab activities that fit into their work, school, and home life schedules.</p> <p>The use of NANSLO was not an overall success, as the technology was not a perfect fit for the CHEO allied health program curriculum and technological issues plagued its use at some schools. It also lacked buy‐in at the faculty level at some institutions. The level of success on the CHEO campuses was ultimately a matter of institutional capacity, programmatic fit, and buy‐in. This chapter highlights lessons learned from NANSLO implementation in CHEO and presents promising practices for implementing online learning of science and lab‐centric courses.</p> <p>The sections below examine the implementation of NANSLO at the colleges in the CHEO consortium and their experiences. The lessons learned about implementation of online science innovations from NANSLO prove helpful in understanding how to implement these kinds of changes in a community college setting. Even though NANSLO fit with the overall goal of CHEO—to use online and hybrid course formats to make healthcare certificates and degrees more accessible to rural and adult students—programmatically and organizationally the integration met challenges both within the grant consortium and inside the individual colleges, which ultimately contributed to sustainability issues. A central challenge in implementation was faculty resistance. This resulted in slow and uneven adoption of NANSLO labs at CHEO consortium institutions. A primary finding of this implementation case study is that to be successful, new technology must fit well with structural and programmatic elements as well as align with institutional goals and have adequate buy‐in at the faculty level.</p> <p>Social cognition theory (Kezar, 2018) is a way to understand the challenges of implementing online learning and online learning tools in higher education. Social cognition theory suggests that resistance to change emerges due to a lack of understanding of the change initiative. People need to understand the overall value of the change and how can it be incorporated into the work being done. These challenges are often overcome through an examination of mindsets and organizational learning. In the places where NANSLO was a success, faculty and staff felt the change was needed and important, and they thought of ways to use it. Where NANSLO was not successful, confusion and resistance about the change, its importance, and how to use it, reigned.</p> <hd id="AN0147809162-2">Implementation and Organizational Change</hd> <p>Implementation of NANSLO began with the creation of lab activities for use in science courses at the participating colleges in CHEO. Working groups developed each activity and included faculty from different consortium colleges and the laboratory managers from the three nodes. This work was facilitated by WICHE. The lab activity development was a successful collaboration and resulted in the creation of twenty‐eight new remote lab activities—double the number originally proposed in the grant application. Participating faculty were engaged and excited about the endeavor and voiced optimism and excitement about the use of the nodes and lab activities in their courses. One faculty member spoke about the process of lab development and how faculty were involved in the creative process: "I love the idea that [NANSLO is] like Google: 'You [faculty] think outside the box. You think of the labs. We [NANSLO] will make them.'"</p> <p>At the same time lab activities were being created, there was also work being done on the node network. Expansion and improvements in the Colorado node occurred with the purchase of additional equipment and a move to a new, larger location. After some delays in getting the remote capabilities of the lab in place, the new node in Great Falls, Montana, was completed in the second year of the grant and operational a few weeks before the start of the third year of the grant. Once the lab activities were created and two of the three nodes (CO and MO) were fully operational, education and training took place at all eight CHEO colleges to introduce faculty to the concept of NANSLO and teach them how to use it; this began in year 2 of the grant.</p> <p>Training consisted of node laboratory managers and IT professionals visiting campuses to present information about the nodes, to explain the laboratory equipment available for use, and to discuss how each campus could use the nodes. Laboratory managers introduced faculty to the process and suggested ways to integrate NANSLO activities into their courses. A demonstration of the equipment and experiments occurred, and faculty were able to manipulate the laboratory equipment via the internet, performing some of the lab activities just like students would in a class.</p> <p>Implementation of NANSLO began slowly, but by the third year of the grant most schools were using NANSLO lab activities in at least some of their CHEO‐impacted healthcare and science courses. Once implementation was complete, challenges began to surface, illuminating some of the integration and sustainability issues of NANSLO. Challenges centered on three primary issues: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref3">1</reflink>) a lack of fit between NANSLO goals and allied health curriculum, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref4">2</reflink>) faculty resistance to using online science labs, and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref5">3</reflink>) technical issues. On paper, NANSLO fits well with the intended purpose of CHEO—to design or redesign courses and programs into online and hybrid formats to make healthcare certificates and degrees more accessible to rural and adult students. However, programmatically speaking, the lab network's primary goal—to allow rural students access to general education science courses—was not a perfect fit with CHEO's healthcare curriculum.</p> <p>Most of the allied healthcare courses of focus in the grant were courses in certificate programs and did not include general education science credits as a requirement. As a result, allied health faculty members viewed NANSLO lab activities as better suited for basic science prerequisite courses than for more specialized allied health courses. Conceptualization of lab activities always included allied health courses, but the intent was to create lab activities that had the most demand and best impact across multiple institutions. One theme prevalent in follow‐up interviews was that faculty members seemed inclined to "plug and play" full lab activities rather than pull out elements of NANSLO activities that might better suit their specific needs. If a full lab did not fit into their course plans, they tended to avoid using NANSLO altogether. Therefore, it was not widely adopted.</p> <p>Faculty resistance hindered the adoption of NANSLO in other ways too. The TAACCCT grant required the incorporation of NANSLO into science courses at the consortium colleges, but for some institutions, making the change to online labs was a difficult one. There were typically two reasons for this; both can be attributed to institutions where students were able to access campus and, therefore, in‐person labs. The first was that many faculty members were simply not open to using online lab activities in their courses. Despite research which shows remote science lab activities are equivalent to face‐to‐face lab activities in terms of student outcomes (Carlson & Sullivan, 1999; Corter et al., 2007; Scanlon et al., 2004; Sicker et al., 2005; Sonnenwald, Whitton, & MacLaughlin, 2003), some faculty members felt that science lab activities should be done in a traditional face‐to‐face laboratory setting rather than online. The second objection of many faculty members was the lack of need to offer completely remote courses as they had laboratory equipment on campus. One faculty member commented: "The ... reservation would be, if we can do experiments, if we can have students do experiments in the lab in person with their own hands, why would it be better to do it remotely controlled through NANSLO?" Faculty members did not see an advantage of using online labs when in‐person labs were possible, making it easy to pass on the use of NANSLO.</p> <p>Finally, technical difficulties caused challenges and frustrations and led some faculty members to stop using NANSLO in their classes. The difficulties typically occurred due to some campuses' firewalls interfering with the web interface, making operation of the laboratory equipment challenging. One node manager spoke about this challenge:</p> <p>The biggest problem we've actually had is when people are accessing us [NANSLO] from institutions and there's firewall problems. So, if they have too many rules in place, it will basically ramp our speed down and then the students have a lot of lag.</p> <p>NANSLO was designed to operate in a fully online capacity and to target students in a rural setting, far from campus. In practice, most CHEO students were not in fully online classes or programs and were attempting to access the lab activities from campus libraries or dorm rooms. Here, firewalls were active and inhibited the remote operation of the equipment. Because of these difficulties, some faculty members were not convinced of the value‐add to their classes or students.</p> <p>Faculty members who were already convinced of the benefits of online education and saw it as an effective teaching tool were, in general, more likely to have positive feelings about NANSLO's potential. They more readily saw NANSLO as a supplement or replacement for face‐to‐face or kit lab activities in science courses. These faculty members were also more willing to engage with NANSLO, including preparing for and encouraging students to prepare for and engage with the lab activities. This type of faculty support led to a more positive experience for both faculty and students.</p> <p>Some campuses tended to use the network more than others; in many cases, this was because those campuses had a specific need for remote instruction. For example, Kodiak College in Kodiak, Alaska, used NANSLO regularly throughout the course of the grant. Because Kodiak's student body was 100% rural, very few students were able to come to campus for lab instruction, so NANSLO was a welcome addition. Faculty members at Kodiak were fully engaged with the network and highly motivated to incorporate it into their courses. Faculty at Great Falls College—Montana State University were also engaged, in part because the newest of the NANSLO nodes was located at the college. The node manager located at the college promoted the possibilities of NANSLO laboratory usage to faculty. For example, she set up groups of students in a common area at the college and had them run through some of the lab procedures. This served both to test the equipment and to demonstrate the node's capabilities. Faculty walking past the demonstrations stopped to watch and to talk to the node manager and students. Because faculty members were able to see the lab equipment in action, this sparked interest and excitement, and led to several faculty members integrating NANSLO into their courses. Of note, demonstrations within the college—when using the node located at the same college—were not affected by firewall issues.</p> <p>The implementation of NANSLO in CHEO provides an interesting example of the variances in success of organizational change in community colleges (Kezar, 2018). The institutions that implemented NANSLO with success often had a need, and the faculty and staff were on board with change as leaders or internal change agents (Kezar, 2018). Additionally, these institutions either had existing organizational capacity for change, or such capacity was funded and developed during the grant period as was the case at Great Falls Community College. The success and lack of success on CHEO campuses was really a matter of capacity and buy‐in. Efforts made throughout the grant to help foster and create buy‐in on campuses where there was not as much interest in NANSLO at the start of the grant were not enough to create lasting change.</p> <hd id="AN0147809162-3">The Student Experience</hd> <p>In addition to examining the implementation of NANSLO, the evaluation team also used the evaluation to look at the experience for students and achievement outcomes. More than 2,000 students used NANSLO to conduct lab activities during the grant period from 2012 to 2016. Overall, students reacted positively to the NANSLO lab experience, suggesting that when adopted, students thought it was successful. Students who had used NANSLO lab activities were surveyed over a series of site visits in Fall 2015 to gauge their perception of NANSLO. Of 359 respondents, 92% (<emph>N</emph> = 331) believed that it gave them a valuable laboratory experience. Likewise, students participating in focus groups believed that their laboratory experience was valuable. One student said: "The experience was more than satisfying, and we [the student and her lab partners] were extremely pleased to be able to do this remote lab activity." Another added: "We took turns to do all four exercises by ourselves, and it was very challenging and interesting, but we did it. We were able to do microscopic examinations, analyze, and observe. At the end we photographed the tissues." When asked if she would participate in another NANSLO experience, another student said she and her lab partner "will definitely do it again, what a great experience that was! And so much fun, too!" Finally, another student simply said, "I thought it was pretty cool." Students had good experiences with the online labs.</p> <p>Implementation studies revealed that preparation made a difference for the successful use of NANSLO by students. Faculty and student preparation before beginning the lab activities increased positive student outcomes and decreased technical challenges. Two teaching styles emerged relative to NANSLO: one in which the faculty member was positive about NANSLO, fully engaged in the NANSLO experience, prepared for the lab activity and encouraged or required students to prepare; and one in which the faculty member was less positive, was disengaged from the lab activity, and did not prepare for or require students to prepare for it. Not surprisingly, the evaluation found that those students in the first group enjoyed their lab activity more, felt they learned more, and were better prepared for the activity than those in the second group.</p> <p>Quantitative analysis during the evaluation showed that students using NANSLO lab activities in CCCSOnline classes had comparable outcomes to those using kit labs in which relevant equipment such as microscopes and slides were borrowed and returned via mail by the student (Edwards, Mattoon, & McKay, 2015). When looking at learning outcomes from the same lab activity, students using NANSLO received similar grades to students using traditional distance lab options, such as lab kits. This indicates that students using NANSLO laboratories learn the material just as well as students using kit labs.</p> <hd id="AN0147809162-4">Conclusion</hd> <p>The NANSLO project succeeded as a proof of concept for remote labs as an addition to online courses: "It began to move a few skeptics toward somewhat greater acceptance that remote labs can strengthen the science learning experiences of college students" (Stokes & Helms, 2012, p. 11). However, it also illuminated the reality that new technology can be met with skepticism and mistrust, especially when programmatic fit is not perfect and buy‐in is limited. Programmatically, a fully online modality is ideal for remote, web‐based science labs. Resistance occurred in part because many of CHEO's courses were hybrid rather than fully online, which allowed the opportunity for on‐campus labs to occur. In addition, most allied health courses were not able to "plug and play" the NANSLO science lab activities because they did not fit the mold of general education science courses and were instead specialized healthcare courses with some, but not all, of the learning concepts presented in the packaged lab activities. While faculty members could "unpack" the lab activities to present certain concepts via the remote labs, very few did so. The resistance and obstacles that emerged to NANSLO by some and the acceptance and interest in NANSLO by others align well with change theory that highlights how resistance and obstacles to change will occur if people do not understand the change initiative and do not know how to incorporate it into their work (Kezar, 2018).</p> <p>The process of helping people overcome resistance and understand the changes being made is an ongoing one. Even though strides were made during the grant, the reality is that change is an ongoing and difficult process. Change can also be helped or hindered by the presence or absence of leadership involved in the initiative. In the case of NANSLO, college leadership was generally not involved in the implementation, and use of the laboratories was largely left up to departmental leadership and faculty at individual colleges. As is often the case with grant funding, leadership was limited in scope and lacked the ability to impact implementation efforts to the degree necessary to enact lasting change.</p> <p>However, much can be learned from the lessons of the NANSLO implementation for future implementation of technology changes in higher education, especially for institutions in rural areas. For institutions looking to adopt similar remote science learning, the following lessons learned may prove valuable:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Change is necessary for community colleges and universities to address the needs of rural learners. Remote science laboratories should be implemented to increase the number of students exposed to general science courses and to expand the course offerings for healthcare programs in rural areas.</item> <p></p> <item> Leadership is important. Colleges and universities should empower strong positive leadership to guide implementation processes for remote science laboratories. Leadership should create sustainability plans, encourage faculty involvement, and offer professional development and training for all healthcare, science, and allied health faculty.</item> <p></p> <item> Technical support should be available early and throughout the implementation process and remain available to offer ongoing troubleshooting after adoption. Although cloud‐based technology will most likely remove many of the technical barriers CHEO faculty encountered due to institutional firewalls, technical assistance and training is still necessary to ensure faculty and students are able to use the technology properly. As this study confirmed, students who were given training material prior to beginning their lab activity were more likely to complete it and have a positive experience.</item> <p></p> <item> Remote science lab activities should be offered to fully remote, online students to replace lab kits. Students who could visit campus and attend in‐person lab activities did not find the remote activities as useful as those who were fully remote.</item> <p></p> <item> Faculty should offer full lab activities in courses such as biology or chemistry (considered "hard science" courses) or "unpack" lab activities to offer them in allied health or similar courses. As evidenced by this research, faculty who used the technology in allied health courses and unpacked the lab activities to offer specific lessons were more supportive of NANSLO overall. Those who tried to use full lab activities in allied health courses found them to be a poor fit for their students.</item> </ulist> <p>Innovations in education like NANSLO can be helpful tools to create high quality remote learning opportunities for rural students. Using technology to bring educational opportunities in STEM and healthcare can help students who might not otherwise be able to access education. It may also help to preserve the vibrancy of rural communities by training skilled workers to fill gaps in the workforce. In addition to its usefulness for rural students, innovations like this are going to be essential as educational delivery models change post‐pandemic. High quality online learning tools will be important to students all around the globe. NANSLO and innovations like it could solve the challenges presented with teaching science courses in remote settings. There is great potential for these innovations, and the implementation of NANSLO provides important lessons in terms of both implementation and delivery.</p> <ref id="AN0147809162-5"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref1" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Bell, Angela D., Rowan‐Kenyon, H. T., & Perna, L. W. (2009). College knowledge of 9th and 11th grade students: Variation by school and state context. The Journal of Higher Education, 80 (6), 663 – 685. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2009.11779039</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref2" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Carlson, L. E., & Sullivan, J. F. (1999). Hands‐on engineering: Learning by doing in the integrated teaching and learning program. International Journal of English Education, 15 (1), 20 – 31.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref5" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Corter, J. E., Nickerson, J. V., Esche, S. K., Chassapis, C, Im, S., & Ma, J. (2007). Constructing reality: A study of remote, hands‐on and simulated laboratories. ACM Transactions on Computer‐Human Interaction, 14 (2), 1 – 27. https://doi.org/10.1145/1275511.1275513</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Demi, M. A., McLaughlin, D. K., & Snyder, A. (2009). Rural youth residential preferences: Understanding the youth development‐community development nexus. Community Development, 40 (4), 311 – 330. https://doi.org/10.1080/15575330903279606</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Department of Agriculture. (2018). Rural Education at a Glance. Retrieved from https://<ulink href="http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/rural-economy-population/employment-education/rural-education/">www.ers.usda.gov/topics/rural-economy-population/employment-education/rural-education/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Edwards, R., Mattoon, A., & McKay, H. (2015). Findings and recommendations: North American Network of Science Labs Online (NANSLO). Piscataway, NJ : Rutgers EERC.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Hallyburton, C. L., & Lunsford, E. (2013). Challenges and opportunities for learning biology in distance‐based settings. Journal of College Biology Teaching, 39 (1), 27 – 33.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Hillman, N. (2019). Place matters: A closer look at education deserts. Washington, DC : Third Way, AcadeMix.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Jeschofnig, P., & Jeschofnig, L. (2011). Teaching lab science courses online: Resources for best practices, tools and technology. San Francisco, CA : Jossey‐Bass.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kezar, A. (2018). How colleges change: Understanding, leading, and enacting change (2nd ed.). New York : Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Provasnik, S., Kewal‐Ramani, A., Coleman, M., Gilbertson, L., Herring, W., & Xie, Q. (2007). Status of education in rural America (NCES 2007–040). Washington, DC : National Center for Education Statistics.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rosenboom, V., & Blagg, K. (2018). Three million Americans are disconnected from higher education. Urban Wire. Retrieved from https://<ulink href="http://www.urban.org/urban-wire/three-million-americans-are-disconnected-higher-education">www.urban.org/urban-wire/three-million-americans-are-disconnected-higher-education</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Scanlon, E., Colwell, C., Cooper, M., & Paolo, T. D. (2004). Remote experiments, revisioning and rethinking science learning. Computer and Education, 43 (1–2), 153 – 163.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shaw, L., & Kennepohl, D. (2010). Accessible elements: Teaching science online and at a distance. Edmonton, Canada : AU Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sicker, D. C., Lookabaugh, T., Santos, J., & Barnes, F. (2005). Assessing the effectiveness of remote networking laboratories. Proceedings of the 35th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference. Boulder, CO : ASEE/IEEE, 7 – 12.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Skillman, S. M., Patterson, D. G., Lishner, D. M., & Doescher, M. P. (2013). The rural health workforce: Data and issues for policymakers in Washington, Wyoming, Alaska, Montana, Idaho. Issue #1: The rural health workforce: Challenges and opportunities. Policy Brief #146.1. Seattle, WA : WWAMI Rural Health Research Center, University of Washington.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sonnenwald, D. H., Whitton, M. C., & MacLaughlin, K. L. (2003). Evaluating a scientific collaboratory: Results of a controlled experiment. ACM Transactions on Computer‐Human Interaction, 10 (2), 150 – 176.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stokes, L., & Helms, J. (2012). The North American Network of Science Labs Online (NANSLO) project: Final report of the external evaluation. Inverness, CA : Inverness Research.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Thornton, Z. M. (Ed.). (2019). Revisiting rural community colleges. New Directions for Community Colleges, 187. San Francisco, CA : Jossey‐Bass.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Renée Edwards; Heather McKay and Patricia Shea</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author</p> <p></p> <p>R enée E dwards is senior researcher at Education and Employment Research Center, Rutgers University.</p> <p>H eather M cKay is director of Education and Employment Research Center, Rutgers University.</p> <p>Patricia Shea is Senior Advisor Academic Leadership Initiatives, Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education (WICHE).</p> </aug>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1278689
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Changing the Lab Experience: Using Technology to Deliver Science Instruction in Rural Communities
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Edwards%2C+Renée%22">Edwards, Renée</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22McKay%2C+Heather%22">McKay, Heather</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Shea%2C+Patricia%22">Shea, Patricia</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22New+Directions+for+Community+Colleges%22"><i>New Directions for Community Colleges</i></searchLink>. Spr 2021 (193):83-93.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 11
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2021
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Technology+Integration%22">Technology Integration</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Delivery+Systems%22">Delivery Systems</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Science+Instruction%22">Science Instruction</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Science+Laboratories%22">Science Laboratories</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Networks%22">Networks</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Electronic+Learning%22">Electronic Learning</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Rural+Areas%22">Rural Areas</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Alignment+%28Education%29%22">Alignment (Education)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22College+Faculty%22">College Faculty</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1002/cc.20441
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0194-3081
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: This case study of an online science laboratory network, the North American Network of Science Labs Online (NANSLO), demonstrates that successful initiatives must fit well within institutions' existing structural and programmatic elements as well as align with institutional goals, course-level programming, and have adequate buy-in at the faculty level.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2020
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1278689
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1278689
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1002/cc.20441
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 11
        StartPage: 83
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Technology Integration
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Delivery Systems
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Science Instruction
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Science Laboratories
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Networks
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Electronic Learning
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Rural Areas
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Alignment (Education)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: College Faculty
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Changing the Lab Experience: Using Technology to Deliver Science Instruction in Rural Communities
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Edwards, Renée
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: McKay, Heather
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Shea, Patricia
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2021
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0194-3081
          Numbering:
            – Type: issue
              Value: 193
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: New Directions for Community Colleges
              Type: main
ResultId 1