Effect of laboratory manual layout: Does experiential learning benefit from authentic context?
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
This article is not in any list yet, why not save it to one of your lists.Abstract
2. Abstract Experiential learning is the pedagogic foundation of practical laboratory education. This process of learning though experience enables students to develop a deeper understanding of the theoretical material as well as valuable real-world skills. However, there is often a disconnect between the authentic, real-world context of performing laboratory skills; and the method of instruction within higher education. This study developed two student laboratory manuals; one which followed a traditionally linear “week by week” format, and another which took inspiration from a publication format and listed the protocols in a distinct “methods” section. The effect the change of layout had on student learning was assessed through analysis of student summative assessment and interaction with the online learning environment. Additionally, the effect student confidence and perceived technical skills development was assessed through a student survey. The differences in layout resulted in no significant differences in student assessment performance but did result in higher levels of engagement with the online learning environment. The student survey reported an increase in technical confidence (21%) and skill (31%) with the authentic “methods” section layout changes compared to the traditional format. The increase in student engagement, confidence, and perceived skill shows that experiential learning does benefit from placing the information in an authentic context.
Article activity feed
-
-
Thank you for submitting your research to Access Microbiology. This work is of interest to the academic community and builds on existing research. Please see below the reviewers comments of your manuscript. Reviewer 2 has postulated several questions, and I believe these would be best addresses in the discussion rather than undertaking further work. Please note, these reviews where on the cusp between minor and major revisions, so I have marked it as a major revision as it will allow you more time to address the reviewers comments. Thank you again for your submission and I hope you find the reviewer comments strengthen your manuscript, Kind regards Mel
-
Comments to Author
An interesting study trialling a new approach to providing methods to students in labs in HE. A worthwhile study to look into how student engagement can be improved and made more authentic. Overall the paper is well structured, with good presentation of results and appropriate analysis. Methods: I would recommend to add in how long the course is and how many labs the students are doing to provide additional context. It would be worth explaining what lab techniques students engage with and more detail of how the skills assessment works. The questionnaire is incredibly simplistic as it contains two questions and doesn't allow for any exploration of what 'confidence' relates to. Do students refer to confidence in the lab relating to ability to understand the methods, confidence in knowledge gain, …
Comments to Author
An interesting study trialling a new approach to providing methods to students in labs in HE. A worthwhile study to look into how student engagement can be improved and made more authentic. Overall the paper is well structured, with good presentation of results and appropriate analysis. Methods: I would recommend to add in how long the course is and how many labs the students are doing to provide additional context. It would be worth explaining what lab techniques students engage with and more detail of how the skills assessment works. The questionnaire is incredibly simplistic as it contains two questions and doesn't allow for any exploration of what 'confidence' relates to. Do students refer to confidence in the lab relating to ability to understand the methods, confidence in knowledge gain, confidence in peer-to-peer interactions etc. Also, for the second question, can you say in one question about increasing all technical skill? Possibly certain techniques were improved over another, but this can't be determined. This was done to encourage participation, however has this led to a very limited data set being collected that limits the investigation. It would be beneficial to do a follow up focus group to clarify this question (potentially add this in as future work) and add this is as a limitation within the discussion. Results: Figure 2: I am concerned about comparing online engagement scores from year to year due to normal variation in cohorts. Student engagement has also been hugely affected by COVID-19 pandemic, with 22/23 cohort potentially doing 2 years of exams online, and we know this has affected engagement. Can we say this is a valid approach? Earlier cohorts are not used due to COVID-19 but the effect will still be there. It would be useful for the author to describe how the study was advertised to students, as within the paper, the intervention was described as a 'more authentic' way to present methods. Was this terminology used at all with students, as this may have introduced bias. Discussion: There is no reflection of why the changes in the lab manual might increase self-assessed student confidence and technical ability, out with the comment on being authentic as this is the way it is presented in papers. Why would this layout change benefit student learning at undergraduate level? This would be beneficial to explore. There should be reflection in the discussion around why grades of the skills assessed as part of the course did not vary between lab manual types. Detailed comments: Title: Reword: I am not sure a question posed is the correct approach here. Also, should it be: 'Does experiential learning benefit from an authentic context?', where benefit has no s? Lines 62: 'to the author', this should be re-worded. Line 65: This is repeated. 'in a in an' Line 69: 'with it'-rephrase to 'with the method'. Table 1: Legend should be put into table to explain content. Line 104: Spelling of strands incorrect. Line 108: Undertaken mis-spelled. Line 115-120: This should be in methods section. Line 122: This should be in introduction section. Line 123-126: Move to methods section. Line 133 and 140: Check spelling of therefore. Line 149 to 152: This should be in methods section. Line 152 remove 'Instead'. Figure 2. Can student engagement for labs really be measured with number of hours of online presence across the whole VLE for the course? Also, comparing year to year isn't an approach I would use to validate a change in pedagogical approach due to normal variation present in cohorts year to year. Even a change in module manager could influence engagement. Line 179-181: This should be moved to introduction and not in results section. Line 278: 'may not be as pronounced', as what? Explain in more detail.
Please rate the manuscript for methodological rigour
Satisfactory
Please rate the quality of the presentation and structure of the manuscript
Good
To what extent are the conclusions supported by the data?
Partially support
Do you have any concerns of possible image manipulation, plagiarism or any other unethical practices?
No
Is there a potential financial or other conflict of interest between yourself and the author(s)?
No
If this manuscript involves human and/or animal work, have the subjects been treated in an ethical manner and the authors complied with the appropriate guidelines?
Yes
-
Comments to Author
In this manuscript, the authors provide evidence that presenting laboratory manual in an authentic context enhanced students' experiential learning. The project demonstrates methodological rigour comparing the impact of intervention (modified methods section) with no intervention in two different labs within the same cohort of students. The research question has been studied in various ways using student survey and metrics such as engagement with online learning environment and student outcomes. Authors have given valid reasons for using these approaches. Although the two labs being compared are different and so will the specific protocol details, the experimental design is strong, and methods used were suitable to answer the research questions. Authors have confirmed the availability of all supporting …
Comments to Author
In this manuscript, the authors provide evidence that presenting laboratory manual in an authentic context enhanced students' experiential learning. The project demonstrates methodological rigour comparing the impact of intervention (modified methods section) with no intervention in two different labs within the same cohort of students. The research question has been studied in various ways using student survey and metrics such as engagement with online learning environment and student outcomes. Authors have given valid reasons for using these approaches. Although the two labs being compared are different and so will the specific protocol details, the experimental design is strong, and methods used were suitable to answer the research questions. Authors have confirmed the availability of all supporting data promoting reproducibility of methodology Most results have been clearly presented and well explained. Note the following: 1. Results have been presented in duplicates, using both figure and table for same dataset. Figures & tables have also been jointly labelled as figures. Could the best representation of data (figure or table) be considered and used? 2. Consider changing colour scheme in Likert data figure(red/green) to be more friendly for the colour-blind? 3. Include a statement to justify why Welch's correction was used The manuscript has been well organised, and contents presented logically. Structure communicates research findings and evidence-based arguments. Theoretical background to experiential and authentic learning have been discussed and there is a rich literature review. Note the following: 1. The discussion has not explored why there was no significant difference in student assessment outcome despite observed increase in areas such as student confidence, engagement and perceived technical skill. 2. Authors have thoughtfully noted the limitations of their study which is great, well done. The results from this study are significant and would have benefitted from sampling more than a year's cohort. For future considerations, I would recommend repeating study, perhaps in the coming session (or even in another discipline), to observe consistency of trend. Please check for typographical errors. Some are noted below: 1. Manuscript title - benefit without 's' 2. 65 - delete 'in a ' 3. 108- spelling - undertaken 4. 133,140 - spelling - therefore 5. 134- no apostrophe - 'practicals'
Please rate the manuscript for methodological rigour
Good
Please rate the quality of the presentation and structure of the manuscript
Good
To what extent are the conclusions supported by the data?
Strongly support
Do you have any concerns of possible image manipulation, plagiarism or any other unethical practices?
No
Is there a potential financial or other conflict of interest between yourself and the author(s)?
No
If this manuscript involves human and/or animal work, have the subjects been treated in an ethical manner and the authors complied with the appropriate guidelines?
Yes
-