There seems to be limited literature in finding ways to bring mobile devices into science labs. I get the fear behind it – bringing chemicals and tablets onto the same table has the potential for disaster. This is why some lab-specific devise like Vernier’s LabQuest are meant to be “kid-proof” durable for lab and outside use. Below are three articles of times when devices are used in a lab situation – 2 in college and 1 in middle school.
Paperless Organic with iPads
In this example, iPads were used by all students taking Organic Chemistry at Washington College in Maryland. Students used the tablets for both lecture and lab. In lecture, students took notes using Notability and 9 out of 12 students commented that they liked the ease of use of the tablet. Students are easily able to integrate instructor and personal notes, quickly flipping between multiple pens. Having the easy ability to do this helps, especially in a subject like orgo which is so detail oriented. What I loved reading about, in particular, was how they worked with the tablets during labs. Since substances in organic labs can be damaging to tablet, students were not allowed to touch the tablets while their gloves were on and they were not allowed to be kept in the hoods. As a result, many students used the talk-to-text function in Notability. This is a great idea to help students still use the tablet while working with dangerous solvents. Another advantage of lab work is the ability to integrate photos of lab setups and other details into lab notes. Having photos of complicated set-ups or of final products can help in the final write up of a lab. Students who worked with the iPads generally outperformed the students who did not use the iPads in the course by a third of a letter grade (Lab: iPad B, without B-; lecture B-, without C+). Not only did students go paperless in this organic chemistry class, but they proved it can also have a positive outcome on their understanding of the material.
Paperless Gen Chem Lab with iPads
This study begins with an introduction highlighting how more colleges are starting iPad programs, but how not as many universities have been introducing these devices into the labs. In 2012 the University of New Haven Gen Chem Honors lab course started using iPad 3 with the goal of having a paperless lab. At the start of the course students were asked to download a variety of apps (Blackboard, UPAD, Dropbox, CloudOn, Chemist, Vernier Graphical Analysis). Students were able to download any “handouts” typically given out for lab. Notes were easily able to be added to these documents. In this experiment, in order to protect the tablets, the iPads were placed into plastic Ziploc bags at the start of every lab (works well with gen chem labs – not as well with the organic labs as performed above since the same solvents could potentially dissolve the bag as well as damage the tablet). The touch screen was still able to function through the bag, and the only time it was removed was to use the camera functions for the same reasons described in the previous study. Students had to have their data signed by a TA at the end of each lab period, and then moved the data into BookPAD, which would lock the data and make it difficult to alter. Final labs/datasheets/reports were then submitted through Dropbox. The authors make it very clear, however, that it takes a lot of time and effort to set up a program such as this and to find the appropriate apps for the course. At the start of the semester, students were quite frustrated with the process, finding it difficult to work in multiple apps, but their attitudes had changed quite a bit by the end of term. There was also a steep learning curve in learning how to neatly write on the tablets. While they don’t have specific data to show, student comments show that it was a positive experience and they liked the impact the iPads had on labs. Environmentally, they suspect that approx.. 120 pages of paper/student were saved by use of the iPads, and it was easy to convert all of the data into an electronic notebook. Overall, they had a very positive experience and are now also including the iPads into the lecture portion of the course.
Hands On: Physical vs. Virtual
In this final article, the authors point out that it has been repeatedly stated that “hands-on learning” is crucial, especially in science instruction. What they do, however, is challenge the concept “hands-on.” Traditionally, I think of this as things that I can physically manipulate, but they argue that the concept applies just as easily to things that can be virtually manipulated. Students in seventh and eighth grade were given the task of building mousetrap cars. One group of students built physical cars with materials provided, and the other group used a computer interface to “point-and-click” build the cars on the computer screen. The images in the computer interface were “cartoon-like” to help widen the gap between the physical and virtual worlds. One advantage to the virtual cars was the time required to build these cars. Because no physical dexterity was needed to connect the parts, cars could be assembled very quickly and several cars could be made and tested in the time needed to build a physical car. Students in both groups were given pre- and post-tests to evaluate their knowledge of the properties of fast mousetrap cars. Students in each group were split into an additional group – fixed time (build as many cars as you can in that time span) and fixed number (build 6 cars in whatever time is needed). This study ultimately showed that there was no difference in improved scores between the two groups. Ultimately students were able to learn the same concepts if working in a physical or virtual environment. While it’s hard to think of turning all labs virtual (this study worked with older students who, presumably, already have good motor skills and have had several physical hands-on experiences in the past), this study shows that a well-designed virtual lab can provide the same benefits. The first example I think of for virtual labs is dissection. Every year there are a few students who are squeamish and resistant to doing physical dissections. If a program is well designed, this shows there is potential in students gaining the same benefits without the cutting.
Ultimately, there is hope in bringing mobile technology into lab scenarios. There are potentially more difficulties with this than, say, in a history classroom due to liquids and other potentially dangerous chemicals. I know this has inspired me to find ways to bring it into the lab. I would love to have students have all of their information in one place, data stored in the cloud, and students be able to easily work with each other both in the physical lab space and outside of class.
To make mobile learning work, it takes a significant amount of forethought and planning. Using these mobile devices as mindtools and not just e-textbooks is challenging, but potentially very rewarding. Being able to access devices from anywhere to work either individually or collaboratively is a large part of being a successful mobile tool. In addition to the devices themselves, finding the appropriate apps for the situation is also vitally important. Taking the time to try out different apps and test them out on the platforms the students have available to them is important. We may or may not be able to find all of the bugs ahead of time, but we should know if the task can be completed on whatever platform we think our students may use. I’ve cycled through a range of emotions in this course – first naively excited, then terrified and overwhelmed, and back finally to cautiously excited. I’m looking forward to the new year that is starting all too soon to start putting some of the ideas into practice.
Amick, A.W., Cross, N. (2014) An Almost Paperless Organic Chemistry Course with the Use of iPads. Journal of Chemical Education. 91(5). 753-756
Hesser, T.L., Schwartz, P.M. (2013) iPads in the Science Laboratory: Experience in Designing and Implementing a Paperless Chemistry Laboratory Course. Journal of STEM Education. 14(2). 5-9
Klahr, D., Triona, L.M., Williams, C. (2007) Hands on What? The Relative Effectiveness of Physical Versus Virtual Materials in an Engineering Design Project by Middle School Children. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 44(1). 183-203