| 
  • If you are citizen of an European Union member nation, you may not use this service unless you are at least 16 years old.

View
 

NANSLO Lab Reports Review Process - March 27, 2012

Page history last edited by Sue Schmidt 6 years, 6 months ago

Greetings Biology, Chemistry and Physics Panels!

 

Thank you volunteers!

Thank you to Mark Segar (C), Bill McLaughlin (C), Adam Wenz (C), Shashi Unnithan (C), Carol Pollock (B), and Tracy Dougher (B), for volunteering for either rubric design or lab report review.  More Biology and Physics members are needed.

 

Context for Development of the Lab Report Rubric and Lab Report Review

Since the September workshop, several CCCS faculty members have collaborated with NANSLO panel members and other campus faculty in the continued development of RWSL experiments and revision of the NANSLO lab material. This work has been in preparation for offering at least one RWSL experiment in their Spring and/or Summer semesters.  Jesse Huguley will be launching an RWSL physics experiment of his own design in the coming month through CCCOnline. Kate Lormand (Biology), Jesse (Physics), and Dan Branan (Chemistry) will be offering RWSL experiments during summer sessions in their respective online courses. We will be collecting between 6 and 12 lab reports from each class for review as part of our data analysis in association with NANSLO project funding through the Next Generation Learning Challenge (NGLC, funded by Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation).

 

Purpose of lab report review and use of the rubric

The purpose of our analysis is to examine the impact on learning that the RWSL experience has had on students as documented in the lab report. We’re going to identify if the reports show evidence of deeper learning such as critical thinking, problem solving and signs of engagement - specific to the student’s experience of using the remote web-based science lab.

(We’re not developing a rubric for use in grading the reports, as an instructor may. We’re not even grading the RWSL lab assignment.)

 

We will design one rubric that can be used across all three disciplines. We believe this to be possible because we are looking at higher level learning outcomes and will not be looking at discipline specific acquisition of knowledge. Feedback is welcome!

 

Review of the Lab Report Rubric

By Monday, I will be sending a link to the wiki where you can find a draft rubric and leave your comments for broad discussion (email’s fine too, but it’s easier for members of the three listservs to comment and read of each other’s thoughts at the wiki). You will also find the Lab Review Process document there too. It tells of our proposed methodology.

 

Information regarding the lab report review process will be available as we move forward.

 

Deeper Learning

The attached document is important to review in preparation of discussing the rubric’s dimensions. It highlights the concepts of “Deeper Learning” which are looked for by the Next Generation Learning Challenge (NGLC) organization. NGLC seeks to measure student learning according to this criteria. This document was drafted to summarize discussion at a recent NGLC conference on the topic of deeper learning and was circulated to grant recipients. Our task in developing a rubric will be to identify the dimensions that best fit our use of RWSL for inclusion in the rubric.

 

I’ll be sending updates to all the panel members on progress as FYI. Volunteers will do their work at the wiki…. All are invited to participate as available.

 

Thank you!

 

Catherine Weldon

Project Coordinator

North American Network of Science Labs Online (NANSLO)

Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education

3035 Center Green Drive

Boulder, CO 80301-2204

T  303.541.0220

cweldon@wiche.edu

http://www.wiche.edu/nanslo

 

 

 

Comments (1)

Lynnette Hoerner said

at 12:13 pm on Apr 11, 2012

Am I in the wrong place here? There don't seem to be any comments on the rubric.
Lynnette

You don't have permission to comment on this page.