Bridging gaps through multimodal instruction

Hands-on laboratory exercises are crucial to the experience of chemistry students (Sansom & Walker, 2020). Unfortunately, this format is the first to be sacrificed in the shift to online learning. For this reason, providing opportunities for students to perform their own experiments and analyses was critical when designing activities for the class. Laboratory courses have at least three aims: (a) imparting a specific set of skills, including observation, experimentation, and interpretation; (b) encouraging critical thinking; and (c) allowing students to experience phenomena firsthand (Seery et al., 2018; Reid & Shah, 2007; Abraham et al., 1997). When engaging nonscience majors, the third goal is perhaps most important. To address these goals, we needed to use a combination of different instruction delivery modes.

Three of the four modes of delivery (see Table 1)—namely simulated labs, livestream, and home experiments—address this goal by requiring live participation from the remote students. Recorded experiments require the least engagement to perform the experiment but do require an understanding of the procedure to analyze the collected data.

Simulated labs were used for critical experiments that cannot be replicated at home due to demands for proper equipment and glassware or a controlled setting such as the laboratory; examples of such activities include the use of lasers for a physics lab, animal dissection for a biology lab, or the use of spectrometers for a chemistry lab. Simulated labs, whether through the use of dedicated software or web-based activities, can be reliable alternatives to physical labs and, when properly delivered, can improve student performance and attitude (Corter et al., 2007; Son, 2016). We used a simulated laboratory to perform acid-base titration and a web-based tool to explore Beer’s law (see Online Appendix). The simulated labs were most challenging for students who did not have any prior laboratory experience. However, students also noted that these labs were less intimidating because they knew mistakes would not lead to irreversible consequences and that they were more likely to explore in the lab. On one hand, that students have confidence in finding their own way is a positive aspect of simulated labs, but the instructor needs to emphasize proper techniques by providing demonstrations or supplemental pre-recorded discussions.

Livestreaming allows remote students to participate in class and engage the instructor and their peers. This mode has the potential to encourage collaboration among students when a student in the face-to-face format and a remote student are paired together (Figure 1B). The caveat is that students have to be provided with laptops to host a video call or be allowed to use personal computers in the laboratory. With such pairings, planning can be done together, and experiment tasks are split, with the face-to-face student performing the tasks while the remote student takes notes. Time can then be provided at the end for collaborative discussion and analysis. In our lab, we provided students a basic protocol for an oscillating reaction, the Briggs-Rauscher reaction. Pairs were then tasked with exploring the effects of varying reactant volumes and starch types. This activity required communication among pairs, which resulted in improved engagement (Laredo, 2013; Laal et al., 2013). Demonstrations can also be done via livestreaming, especially at the start of a session, to capture student attention, such as by performing the “burning dollar” demonstration or the colorless-pink transition of phenolphthalein.

These two modes of delivery are enabled by technology through the use of virtual reality laboratories, simulations, or video-conferencing and livestreaming. Previous studies note that students engage in and learn from these technology-enabled formats but still prefer hands-on experience (Corter et al., 2007). Indeed, while students are engaging in the phenomena in these modes, they still miss the true hands-on experience.

To address the third goal further, we utilized experiments and demonstrations that students can execute at home. When designing these activities, the instructor needs to be fully aware of resources available to remote students. Moreover, as much as possible, out-of-pocket costs must be kept at a minimum, or to virtually nothing, and no hazardous chemicals or substances that require special disposal protocols should be involved. Most students will have access to a kitchen, and technology for remote students is also expected. Access to a kitchen and technology open up significant opportunities for designing hands-on experiments. Several “kitchen science” activities in physics, chemistry, and biology have been designed and executed (Vieyra et al., 2017; Gya & Bjune, 2021; Nguyen & Keuseman, 2020; Schultz et al., 2020; Andrews et al., 2020). A properly designed at-home experiment should provide the student the opportunity to use alternative materials, have independent variables that can be explored, and be able to be tied back to a concept or laboratory exercise. In our course, students were tasked with capturing and quantifying carbon dioxide released by dissolving Pop Rocks in soft drinks using a balloon (see Online Appendix). The “Pop Rocks and Coke” myth was featured in MythBusters, and the episode was used to pique students’ interest. Without prompting, students explored variables such as type of soft drink and temperature. The experiment also stimulated a discussion on ideal gases, solubility, production of Pop Rocks, and revisiting the conclusions from the MythBusters episode. In our experience, experiments delivered through this mode are the most successful based on student feedback and participation.

The fourth mode is the use of recordings. This mode has the least potential for active engagement during the experiment but requires students to understand the procedure to answer postlaboratory questions. This mode is a last resort and was only utilized once in our course during a quarantine period (see Online Appendix). Recordings can, however be helpful for demonstrating proper techniques and use of equipment and can supplement student learning as needed. Because recordings are delivered asynchronously, they can best be used as resources for students in reviewing best practices and proper use of instruments and equipment or in tandem with simulated labs.

Interesting phenomena, collaborative learning experiences, and exploratory work

To improve scientific literacy in the general public, significant changes must be made at all levels of education and in how science is communicated by practitioners to the public (Fatimah & Anggrisia, 2018; Anderson et al., 2020; Van Eijck, 2010). One way to improve scientific literacy is to better engage nonscience majors at the college level through natural science electives. Student exploration and problem-solving opportunities in a laboratory course can result in improved outcomes and student understanding (Laredo, 2013; Walker et al., 2012).

Our experience during the COVID-19 pandemic provided us the opportunity to explore various modes of delivery of instruction, as discussed in the previous section. Lessons from these modes’ utility in engaging students and meeting course objectives, however, provide valuable insight for how to design and develop experiments postpandemic so we can improve the way these natural sciences courses engage nonscience majors.

Activities that begin with student engagement, are supplemented by opportunities for knowledge building, and culminate in exploration and discovery should enrich the student experience and improve performance, understanding, and retention (Figure 2). We illustrate this using the classic acid-base titrations chemistry experiment (Figure 2B), but the general strategy should be applicable to other natural sciences.