Lab in the Time of COVID: Hybrid and Remote Labs for General Chemistry

Joshua Sokoloski, Assistant Professor of Chemistry, Salisbury University | jesokoloski@salisbury.edu

Anita Brown, Associate Professor of Chemistry, Salisbury University | arbrown@salisbury.edu

     The COVID-19 pandemic posed a particularly challenging dilemma for disciplines with laboratory-intensive curricula. Perhaps the biggest challenge for our chemistry department at Salisbury University was to continue to provide an enriching laboratory experience for our general chemistry students. Skills, both hard and soft, developed in these laboratories provide the foundation for all other laboratory courses that undergraduates with various majors will later complete. Midway through March 2020, when we unexpectedly changed to fully remote instruction, our laboratories turned into data analysis recitations, with students working through their lab reports using instructor-provided data. Yet the department felt strongly that the experiential learning in general chemistry was crucial for later academic success and must resume.

     A team consisting of lecture and laboratory instructors Dr. Anita Brown, Dr. Jose Juncosa, Dr. Joshua Sokoloski, Mindy Howard, and Danielle Provost developed, nearly in parallel, two solutions to the challenges of general chemistry in the times of COVID-19: remote at-home laboratory activities and a hybrid general chemistry lab sequence for de-densified campus operations. During Summer 2020, we developed and taught remote lab sections, and we used the experience gained during the creation and execution of those summer lab courses to foster the development of the future hybrid or remote labs. Remote labs were to be emergency options for campus closure resulting in a shift to full online instruction or for special sections for those students who could not safely participate in on-campus activities.

     The first challenge for hybrid lab instruction was to handle de-densification in the classroom. Before the pandemic, each laboratory section included 22 students, and we ran approximately 28 sections per week between General Chemistry I and II. A typical lab lasted 165 minutes and featured a pre-lab quiz, a pre-lab lecture, the actual lab activity, as well as time for data analysis and interpretation. Under social distancing guidelines from the state and university, a maximum of nine students and one instructor could work in the lab at a time. To have all students in lab each week under these conditions, we would have had to run an impossible 68 lab sections each week.

     Under our hybrid laboratory sequence, each lab section was still enrolled with a 22-student maximum; however, each lab instructor divided their lab section into three groups. Each group rotated through the same set of face-to-face (F2F) lab experiments over a three-week period. Group 1 completed a face-to-face set of labs during week 1, Group 2 completed that same set of face-to-face labs during week 2, and so on. In a single F2F session, the students conducted the equivalent of two full experiments. Thorough discussion of the requisite background and pre-lab quizzes were moved online to MyClasses, our Canvas learning management system, to maximize F2F time for the actual lab activities. The online materials were distributed as a template for all lab instructors to use. In the weeks they were not in lab, the students worked on the data analysis of the F2F experiments they had conducted and completed several online virtual lab activities. Due dates were established for post-lab analysis so that only one completed lab report was turned in each week and were synchronized to occur after all students had completed the same set of F2F labs.

     One member of “the team” was selected to be the lab coordinator for each course. This person was responsible for making sure the template site was operational and disseminated properly, for communicating with all instructors, and for making necessary rapid decisions – for example, how suddenly to offer unanticipated make up labs the next week.

     To accommodate all our traditional learning objectives for general chemistry labs in an abbreviated amount of physical lab time for students, the team developed multiple new experiments. We focused on key skills such as proper use of common laboratory equipment, solution preparation, measuring concentrations of analytes via spectrophotometry, and titrations. In the first two rotations of the General Chemistry I laboratory sequence, students prepared samples to be used in future rotations and assembled them into kits that could be taken with them should campus close midway through the semester, an occurrence SU managed to avoid. The final rotation of each lab course was a lab practical for assessment of student learning.

     In Summer 2020 and Spring 2021, we also offered a few sections of completely remote general chemistry labs, available for non-chemistry majors. Our goal was to recreate our on-campus sequence of F2F lab experiments as closely as possible while also ensuring that student safety was not compromised. For the General Chemistry I remote labs, completely in-house kits and experiments were designed by Dr. Anita Brown, Dr. Jose Juncosa, and Mindy Howard. Students prepared solutions using volumetric flasks and conducted titrations using plastic syringes. For General Chemistry II labs, we used commercial lab kits from Carolina Biological Supply consisting of activities that matched almost all of our traditional F2F experiments (in-house kits were impractical due to shipping restrictions on many of the reagents).

     We can say with pride that our hybrid and select remote lab approach allowed our students to conduct a full complement of lab experiments in both General Chemistry I and II even with de-densification policies in place during a global pandemic. The hybrid rotation model facilitated make-up opportunities for the students who missed lab due to quarantine or illness. The remote lab sections, while not the same training with true laboratory equipment, still served to provide meaningful hands-on work for students who would not have been able to be on campus. This accommodation allowed these students to remain on track for graduation.

     We and our colleagues found one unexpected silver lining to this hybrid model approach: The lab structure forced students to work independently for all experiments rather than in pairs. Prior to the pandemic, approximately half of the General Chemistry II and a quarter of General Chemistry I labs involved students working in pairs due to equipment and space limitations with a full 22-student section. Additionally, students tended to complete their data analysis in pairs. With more individual lab activities, and all data analysis completed outside of class, students had to be more self-reliant to get their lab goals accomplished.

     We also looked at student outcomes in the courses to try and understand the impact of our modified curriculum. In General Chemistry I, the modified curriculum involved more solution preparation. The lab practical was altered accordingly and so score comparison with past years is difficult. Practical scores for some hybrid sections were lower than in previous semesters, but others maintained typical scores with a possible improvement in solution preparation. In General Chemistry I, overall lab grades also decreased during the pandemic, possibly due to decreased engagement. Observations in General Chemistry II did, however, indicate that our hybrid and possibly remote lab experiences provided our first-semester students with foundational lab skills. We observed that students who took General Chemistry I at other institutions without F2F instruction faced steeper initial learning curves. This was true even with the basic skills of recognizing traditional glassware and reading graduated markings to the correct number of significant figures. Overall success in our General Chemistry II hybrid labs was reflected by similar scores on the lab practical compared to pre-pandemic semesters.

     Increased proficiency for both students and instructors in online learning was another positive outcome. Students had to be able to scan and upload their work as well as to incorporate online videos and quizzes into the traditional F2F activities of the lab course. Such ambidexterity will figure into most post-pandemic careers, so our students will be better prepared for this future of work.

     Of course, there were clear drawbacks to this hybrid model. Even though students performed approximately the same amount of lab work, they had to do so over fewer F2F lab sessions. This lower frequency of physical lab work may have inhibited mastery of technical lab skills that can only be developed by regular, repeated practice. For example, performing three sets of titrations in one lab meeting is not the same experience as doing those three sets over three weeks. The hybrid model was also more work-intensive for lab instructors. Maintaining the group rotation schedule, checking rosters for campus clearance, and coordinating make-up labs was complex. Keeping groups on track required weekly emails identifying which group was meeting F2F and what lab assignments were due. Emails answering student questions increased dramatically. Grading online can also be prone to technical issues and was quite time consuming for some instructors. Additional time was required for lab instructors to set-up and maintain the online learning management sites for their lab sections. Also, we found that students did not all carefully watch or use the videos provided. In General Chemistry I, our introductory videos included embedded quizzes. Although the program required them to watch the related video segment before attempting a quiz, students easily avoided that. These embedded quizzes had a variety of issues that were very time consuming for the lab coordinator to fix.

     Still, there were aspects of the modified curriculum that we will carry forward. We will continue to use some of the materials we developed. The template Canvas site created for each course contained all introductory material as well as a module for each lab. The information in the template was copied to each lab instructor’s site. Instructors could then modify some assignments and due dates, but largely used the information from the template site as is, aiding our instructors who were using our learning management system for the first time. In Fall 2021, when we returned to standard lab sizes, a template site consisting of introductory material and a gradebook entry for each lab was provided to lab instructors. We plan to continue to use these minimal template websites as well as some online instruction and activities. In the General Chemistry I labs, the original F2F labs are being modified to incorporate the greater emphasis on solution preparation and a few will include components that seemed more engaging for students.

     At this point, we do not recommend fully remote labs for general chemistry at SU. Introductory videos showed the steps to complete each lab, stressed safety and technique concerns, and quizzed students on these topics. While students’ pictures of key steps seemed to indicate they were using good technique, the videos of their work showed significant safety and technique problems. In the General Chemistry I remote labs, the lab practical administered during a synchronous session showed significantly reduced scores, and a significant portion of students demonstrated a serious lack of skills. To complete online labs, we recommend instructors find methods to ensure students engage with the introductory material, that students submit videos performing the labs, and that the instructor provide comments on those videos prior to the next activity.

     Another recommendation for all hybrid or remote instructors is to maintain regular contact with the students during the week and to run synchronous online sessions whenever feasible. Students, especially a significant portion of first-year students, needed that structure to successfully stay on task. For many instructors teaching hybrid, though, this was not possible, as the time when students were required to be in lab online was when the instructor was in a physical lab with a different group of students. Anecdotally, when students in both the hybrid and remote sections attended sessions to work on analysis of the data, whether the sessions were required or not, the students felt they understood more, and they submitted work that was clearer and more correct. Typically, when sessions were not required and synchronous, two or fewer students attended.

     Overall, we found it possible to implement de-densified and remote general chemistry labs that maintained many of our high standards. Although far from ideal, such reorganizations of general chemistry labs can be used in emergency circumstances that limit student access to campus. Having coordinators to oversee the process, providing online templates for instructors to load their learning management sites, and maintaining regular online communication are the keys to success in these circumstances.