Abstract
The COVID-19 pandemic has compelled innovations in science teaching and learning, such as blending online sessions with conventional face-to-face classes. We developed and validated the Blended Laboratory and E-learning iNstructional Design (BLEND) model for university-level remote laboratory sessions (RLS) to respond to the fluctuating instructional environment necessitated by the pandemic. We used the design and development research method to construct and apply an ID model in an analytical chemistry experiment (ACE) course for pre-service chemistry teachers, iteratively revising the model with participant feedback. We based the initial BLEND model on a literature review and lessons from our preliminary study in 2020. For internal validation, six stakeholders participated in the usability test, and 10 science subject-matter educators and three educational technology experts provided expert reviews. For external validation, we developed and implemented an ACE-RLS course module, and surveyed and interviewed seven university students who took the course. After two rounds of validation, the BLEND model was confirmed to be internally efficient and externally effective, with interactions between the instructor and students particularly appreciated. The final BLEND model for university-level RLS emphasizes constant formative evaluation, feedback, and structures and visualizes the RLS instructional system at both weekly and overall course levels.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
Data is not available for the public for this study.
References
Abrahams, I. (2012). Practical Work in Secondary Science: A Minds-On Apporach. New York: Continuum International Publishing Group.
Abrahams, I., & Millar, R. (2008). Does practical work really work? A study of the effectiveness of practical work as a teaching and learning method in school science. International Journal of Science Education, 30(14), 1945–1969.
Aktan, B., Bohus, C. A., Crowl, L. A., & Shor, M. H. (1996). Distance learning applied to control engineering laboratories. IEEE Transactions on Education, 39(3), 320–326.
Ali, W. (2020). Online and remote learning in higher education institutes: A necessity in light of COVID-19 pandemic. Higher Education Studies, 10(3), 16–25.
Allen, M. W., & Merrill, M. D. (2017). SAM and Pebble-in-the-Pond: Two alternatives to the ADDIE model. In R. A. Reiser & J. V. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and Issues in Instructional Design and Technology (pp. 31–41). Pearson.
Ardac, D., & Akaygun, S. (2004). Effectiveness of multimedia-based instruction that emphasizes molecular representations on students’ understanding of chemical change. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(4), 317–337.
Berg, C. A. R., Bergendahl, C. B., Lundberg, B., & Tibell, L. (2003). Benefiting from an open-ended experiment? A comparison of attitudes to, and outcomes of, an expository versus an open-inquiry version of the same experiment. International Journal of Science Education, 25(3), 351–372.
Bergmann, J., & Sams, A. (2012). Flip Your Classroom: Reach Every Student in Every Class Every Day. International Society for Technology in Education.
Bidarra, J., & Rusman, E. (2017). Towards a pedagogical model for science education: Bridging educational contexts through a blended learning approach. Open Learning: THe Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, 32(1), 6–20.
Blizak, D., Blizak, S., Bouchenak, O., & Yahiaoui, K. (2020). Students’ perceptions regarding the abrupt transition to online learning during the COVID-19 pandemic: Case of faculty of chemistry and hydrocarbons at the University of Boumerdes—Algeria. Journal of Chemical Education, 97(9), 2466–2471.
Branch, R. M. (2017). Characteristics of foundational instructional design models. In R. A. Reiser & J. V. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and Issues in Instructional Design and Technology (pp. 23–30). Pearson.
Brinson, J. R. (2015). Learning outcome achievement in non-traditional (virtual and remote) versus traditional (hands-on) laboratories: A review of the empirical research. Computers & Education, 87, 218–237.
Brinson, J. R. (2017). A further characterization of empirical research related to learning outcome achievement in remote and virtual science labs. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 26(5), 546–560.
Cicciarelli, B. A. (2013). Use of pre-recorded video demonstrations in laboratory courses. Chemical Engineering Education, 47(2), 133–136.
Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2016). E-learning and the Science of Instruction: Proven Guidelines for Consumers and Designers of Multimedia Learning. Wiley.
Clark, R. E. (1983). Reconsidering research on learning from media. Review of Educational Research, 53(4), 445–459.
Crawford, C. (2004). Non-linear instructional design model: Eternal, synergistic design and development. British Journal of Educational Technology, 35(4), 413–420.
Dalgety, J., Coll, R. K., & Jones, A. (2003). Development of chemistry attitudes and experiences questionnaire (CAEQ). Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(7), 649–668.
Domin, D. S. (1999). A review of laboratory instruction styles. Journal of Chemical Education, 76(4), 543–547.
Dorsey, L., Goodrum, D., & Schwen, T. (1997). Rapid collaborative prototyping as an instructional development paradigm. In C. Dills & A. Romiszowski (Eds.), Instructional Development Paradigms (pp. 445–465). Educational Technology Publications.
Dowding, T. (1991). Managing chaos (or how to survive the instructional development process). Educational Technology, 31(1), 26–31.
Erduran, S. (2021). Science education and the pandemic, 1 year on: Emergence of new conceptual tools and re-calibration of existing educational approaches. Science & Education, 30, 201–204.
Flick, L. B. (1993). The meanings of hands-on science. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 4(1), 1–8.
Fraser, B. J., Giddings, G. J., & McRobbie, C. J. (1995). Evolution and validation of a personal form of an instrument for assessing science laboratory classroom environments. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32(4), 399–422.
Glynn, S. M., & Koballa, T. R., Jr. (2006). Motivation to learn in college science. In J. J. Mintzes & W. H. Leonard (Eds.), Handbook of College Science Teaching (pp. 25–32). National Science Teachers Association Press.
Graham, C. R. (2006). Blended learning systems: Definition, current trends, and future directions. In C. J. Bonk & C. R. Graham (Eds.), The Handbook of Blended Learning: Global Perspectives, Local Designs (pp. 3–21). Pfeiffer.
Gregory, S.-J., & Di Trapani, G. (2012). A blended learning approach to laboratory preparation. International Journal of Innovation in Science and Mathematics Education, 20(1), 56–70.
Hart, C., Mulhall, P., Berry, A., Loughran, J., & Gunstone, R. (2000). What is the purpose of this experiment? Or can students learn something from doing experiments? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(7), 655–675.
Harvard Future of Teaching and Learning Task Force (2022). Reimagining the classroom, enriching content, and expanding the Harvard community. Harvard University. Retreived June 17, 2022 from https://ftltaskforce.harvard.edu/files/future-teaching-learning/files/harvard_ftl_final_3.8.22_2.pdf
Hicks, R. W., & Bevsek, H. M. (2012). Utilizing problem-based learning in qualitative analysis lab experiments. Journal of Chemical Education, 89(2), 254–257.
Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. N. (2004). The laboratory in science education: Foundations for the twenty-first century. Science Education, 88(1), 28–54.
Huang, C. J., Chen, H. X., & Chen, C. H. (2009). Developing argumentation processing agents for computer-supported collaborative learning. Expert Systems with Applications, 36(2), 2615–2624.
Hu-Au, E., & Okita, S. (2021). Exploring differences in student learning and behavior between real-life and virtual reality chemistry laboratories. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 30(6), 862–876.
Jang, W., Choi, M., & Hong, H.-G. (2020). A case study on the operation of non-face-to-face experimental class at university with COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Learner-Centered Curriculum and Instruction, 20(17), 937–966.
Kalaskas, A. B. (2013). Science lab report writing in postsecondary education: Mediating teaching and learning strategies between students and instructors. Unpublished doctoral dissertation (George Mason University).
Kim, S. (2014). Development of a forum theatre instructional design model utilizing digital media. Unpublished doctoral dissertation (Seoul National University).
Kim, T. H., & Jin, S. H. (2015). Development of auditory design guidelines for improving learning on mobile phones. Computers & Education, 91, 60–72.
Kirschner, P. A., Buckingham-Shum, S. J., & Carr, C. S. (Eds.). (2012). Visualizing Argumentation: Software Tools for Collaborative and Educational Sense-making. Springer.
Kozma, R. B. (1991). Learning with media. Review of Educational Research, 61(2), 179–211.
LaBay, D. G., & Comm, C. L. (2004). Student expectations regarding online learning: Implications for distance learning programs. Journal of College Teaching & Learning, 1(10), 85–96.
Lee, G.-G., & Hong, H.-G. (2021). Science education experts’ perception of the remote laboratory sessions provoked by the COVID-19. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 39(5), 391–400.
Lee, G.-G., Jeon, Y.-E., & Hong, H.-G. (2021). The effects of cooperative flipped learning on science achievement and motivation in high school students. International Journal of Science Education, 43(9), 1381–1407.
Lee, G.-G., Kang, D. Y., Kim, M. J., Hong, H.-G., & Martin, S. N. (2023a). The emergence of remote laboratory courses in an emergency situation: University instructors’ agency during the COVID-19 pandemic. Cultural Studies of Science Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-023-10169-0
Lee, G.-G., Kang, D. Y., Kim, M. J., Hong, H.-G., & Martin, S. N. (2023b). University students’ perceptions of remote laboratory courses necessitated by COVID-19: Differences in emergent teaching strategies at a Korean university. Asia Pacific Education Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-023-09837-1
Lee, J. (2014). Development of a Visual Summarizer Design Model for Digital Learning. Unpublished doctoral dissertation (Seoul National University).
Lee, J., & Jang, S. (2014). A methodological framework for instructional design model development: Critical dimensions and synthesized procedures. Educational Technology Research and Development, 62(6), 743–765.
Lee, J., Lim, C., & Kim, H. (2017). Development of an instructional design model for flipped learning in higher education. Educational Technology Research and Development, 65(2), 427–453.
Lee, J., Song, H. D., & Hong, A. J. (2019). Exploring factors, and indicators for measuring students’ sustainable engagement in e-learning. Sustainability, 11(4), 985.
Lim, C., Song, Y., Hong, S., & Park, C. (2020). A study on the applications and improvement of the rapid prototyping to instructional systems design (RPISD) model. Journal of Educational Technology, 36(3), 589–617.
Loveys, B. R., & Riggs, K. M. (2019). Flipping the laboratory: Improving student engagement and learning outcomes in second year science courses. International Journal of Science Education, 41(1), 64–79.
Lowe, D., Newcombe, P., & Stumpers, B. (2013). Evaluation of the use of remote laboratories for secondary school science education. Research in Science Education, 43(3), 1197–1219.
MaNickerson, J. J. V. (2006). Hands-on, simulated, and remote laboratories: A comparative literature review. ACM Computing Survey, 38(3), 1–24.
Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia Learning (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
Mayer, R. E. (2011). Applying the Science of Learning. Pearson/Allyn and Bacon.
Mayer, R. E., Fiorella, L., & Stull, A. (2020). Five ways to increase the effectiveness of instructional video. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(3), 837–852.
McBrien, J. L., Cheng, R., & Jones, P. (2009). Virtual spaces: Employing a synchronous online classroom to facilitate student engagement in online learning. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v10i3.605
Nguyen, V. H., Spears, R. D., Warner, R. L., & Joy-Thomas, A. R. (2021). Transitioning the anatomy curriculum to an online platform: Lessons learned. Journal of Dental Education, 85, 932–935.
Ni, A. Y. (2013). Comparing the effectiveness of classroom and online learning: Teaching research methods. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 19(2), 199–215.
Nixon, E. K., & Lee, D. (2001). Rapid prototyping in the instructional design process. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 14(3), 95–116.
O’Brien, T. (1991). The science and art of science demonstrations. Journal of Chemical Education, 68(11), 933–936.
Oliver, M., & Trigwell, K. (2005). Can ‘blended learning’ be redeemed? e-Learning, 2(1), 17–26.
Park, S. (2019). A developmental study on a SPAT design model for mobile learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 67(1), 123–159.
Petillion, R. J., & McNeil, W. S. (2020). Student experiences of emergency remote teaching: Impacts of instructor practice on student learning, engagement, and well-being. Journal of Chemical Education, 97(9), 2486–2493.
Picciano, A. (2009). Blending with purpose: The multimodal model. Journal of the Research Center for Educational Technology, 5(1), 4–14.
Rahman, N. A., & Sahibuddin, S. (2010). Social interaction in e-learning: an overview. In 2010 International Symposium on Information Technology (Vol. 1, pp. 1–4). IEEE.
Reid, N., & Shah, I. (2007). The role of laboratory work in university chemistry. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 8(2), 172–185.
Reigeluth, C. M. (2013). Instructional-Design Theories and Models: A New Paradigm of Instructional Theory. Routledge.
Reimers, F. M., & Schleicher, A. (2020). A framework to guide an education response to the COVID-19 Pandemic of 2020. OECD. Retrieved April 14, 2020 from https://oecd.dam-broadcast.com/pm_7379_126_126988-t63lxosohs.pdf
Rice, J. W., & Thomas, S. M. (2009). Tertiary Science Education in the 21st Century. Australian Council of Deans of Science.
Richey, R. C., & Klein, J. D. (2005). Developmental research methods: Creating knowledge from instructional design and development practice. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 16(2), 23–38.
Richey, R. C., & Klein, J. D. (2007). Design and Development Research: Methods, Strategies, and Issues. Routledge.
Rubio, D. M., Berg-Weger, M., Tebb, S. S., Lee, E. S., & Rauch, S. (2003). Objectifying content validity: Conducting a content validity study in social work research. Social Work Research, 27(2), 94–104.
Russell, C. P., & French, D. P. (2001). Factors affecting participation in traditional and inquiry-based laboratories. Journal of College Science Teaching, 31(4), 225–229.
Salta, K., Paschalidou, K., Tsetseri, M., & Koulougliotis, D. (2021). Shift from a traditional to a distance learning environment during the COVID-19 pandemic. Science & Education, 31, 93–122.
Schamel, D., & Ayres, M. (1992). The minds-on approach: Student creativity and personal involvement in the undergraduate science laboratory. Journal of College Science Teaching, 21(4), 226–229.
Sinex, S. A., & Chambers, T. L. (2013). Developing online collaboration skills in the general chemistry laboratory. Journal of Chemical Education, 90(9), 1244–1246.
So, W. W. M., Chen, Y., & Wan, Z. H. (2019). Multimedia e-learning and self-regulated science learning: A study of primary school learners’ experiences and perceptions. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 28, 508–522.
Stockwell, B. R., Stockwell, M. S., Cennamo, M., & Jiang, E. (2015). Blended learning improves science education. Cell, 162(5), 933–936.
Sung, S. H., Li, C., Huang, X., & Xie, C. (2021). Enhancing distance learning of science—Impacts of remote labs 2.0 on students’ behavioural and cognitive engagement. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 37(6), 1606–1621.
Tho, S. W., Yeung, Y. Y., Wei, R., Chan, K. W., & So, W. W. M. (2017). A systematic review of remote laboratory work in science education with the support of visualizing its structure through the HistCite and CiteSpace software. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 15(7), 1217–1236.
Tripp, S. D., & Bichelmeyer, B. (1990). Rapid prototyping: An alternative instructional design strategy. Educational Technology Research and Development, 38(1), 31–44.
Tsai, C. Y. (2018). The effect of online argumentation of socio-scientific issues on students’ scientific competencies and sustainability attitudes. Computers & Education, 116, 14–27.
UNESCO (2021, June 23). Education: From disruption to recovery. Retrieved August 25, 2021 from https://en.unesco.org/covid19/educationresponse
West, R. E., Sansom, R., Nielson, J., Wright, G., Turley, R. S., Jensen, J., & Johnson, M. (2021). Ideas for supporting student-centered stem learning through remote labs: A response. Educational Technology Research and Development, 69(1), 263–268.
Willis, J. (1995). A recursive, reflective instructional design model based on constructivist-interpretivist theory. Educational Technology, 35(6), 5–23.
Winer, L. R., Chmienne, M., & Vázquez-Abad, J. (2000). A distributed collaborative science learning laboratory on the internet. The Americal Journal of Distance Education, 14(1), 47–62.
Wut, T. M., & Xu, J. (2021). Person-to-person interactions in online classroom settings under the impact of COVID-19: a social presence theory perspective. Asia Pacific Education Review, 22(3), 371–383.
Yoon, H., Woo, A. J., Treagust, D., & Chandrasegaran, A. L. (2014). The efficacy of problem-based learning in an analytical laboratory course for pre-service chemistry teachers. International Journal of Science Education, 36(1), 79–102.
You, Y. (1993). What can we learn from chaos theory? An alternative approach to instructional systems design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 41(3), 17–32.
Youssef, M., McKinstry, E. L., Dunne, A., Bitton, A., Brady, A. G., & Jordan, T. (2020). Developing engaging remote laboratory activities for a nonmajors chemistry course during COVID-19. Journal of Chemical Education, 97(9), 3048–3054.
Zacharia, Z. C., Manoli, C., Xenofontos, N., De Jong, T., Pedaste, M., van Riesen, S. A., & Tsourlidaki, E. (2015). Identifying potential types of guidance for supporting student inquiry when using virtual and remote labs in science: A literature review. Educational Technology Research and Development, 63(2), 257–302.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the Ministry of Science and ICT of the Republic of Korea and by the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF-2021R1F1A1058192). This manuscript has been adapted in part from research shared in an unpublished doctoral dissertation: Lee (2023). The Development of the Blended Laboratory and E-learning Instructional Design (BLEND) Model: Lessons from University Instructors and Students Toward the Post-COVID-19 Laboratory Education. [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Seoul National University, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Funding
This work is supported by Ministry of Science and ICT (KR), Grant No. 2021R1F1A1058192
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding authors
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendices
Appendix A. ACE schedule and course content
Module | Week | Pre-lab assignment | Content |
|---|---|---|---|
1 | 1 | TA | - Orientation- Production and standardization of NaOH solution & determination of the concentration of a weak acid.- Titration of a polyprotic acid |
2 | Group 1 | - Argentometric titration: Volhard method | |
3 | Group 2 | - EDTA titration | |
4 | Group 3 | - Production and standardization of KMnO4 solution (As2O3)- Measuring calcium salt (CaCO3) | |
5 | Group 1 | - Iodimetric titration of vitamin C and H2O2 | |
6 | Mid-term break | ||
2 | 7 | Group 2 | - Titration in a non-aqueous solvent |
8 | Group 3 | - Determination of dissociation constant using spectrophotometry | |
9 | Group 1 | - Applied electrochemical experiment 1 | |
10 | Group 2 | - Applied electrochemical experiment 2 | |
11 | Group 3 | - H-point standard addition method | |
12 | Final-term break | ||
13 | Final exam |
Appendix B. Remote laboratory perception survey (RLPS) used previously and in this study (translated from Korean) (Lee et al. 2023b)
Category | Question | Response | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Demographic information | To which college do you belong? | ||||
What year are you at university? | |||||
What is your gender? | |||||
What RLS course did you take in the first semester of 2020? | |||||
Open Question 1: What are the characteristic features of that subject? | |||||
Video satisfaction | The videos provided in the RLS course were… | SD | D | A | SA |
satisfactory in image quality and composition. | |||||
satisfactory in sound quality and background. | |||||
satisfactory in editing and captions. | |||||
Open Question 2: Do you have any additional ideas for videos used in RLSs in the future? | |||||
Learning expectation | Before taking the RLS course, I … | SD | D | A | SA |
expected to acquire appropriate knowledge. | |||||
expected to acquire appropriate skills. | |||||
expected to acquire appropriate attitudes towards science. | |||||
Learning outcome satisfaction | After taking the RLS course, I … | SD | D | A | SA |
have gain satisfactory knowledge. | |||||
have gain satisfactory skills. | |||||
have gain satisfactory attitudes. | |||||
Class participation | While taking the RLS course, I … | SD | D | A | SA |
studied at the same pace as the class. | |||||
studied all the content for each class. | |||||
participated until the end of the semester. | |||||
Open Question 3: If there had been no COVID-19, how do you think your expectations for the course, as well as your ultimate level of satisfaction and participation would have differed? | |||||
Class preparation | Before RLS course were instituted, I … | SD | D | A | SA |
prepared by investigating the equipment, materials, reagents, etc. | |||||
prepared by investigating the content and processes of the experiments. | |||||
prepared for the quiz. | |||||
Experience during class | Taking the RLS course, I… | SD | D | A | SA |
was able to have enough experience with the equipment, materials, reagents, etc. | |||||
was able to have enough experience with the content and processes of the experiments. | |||||
was able to obtain sufficient experience in the interpretation of results and discussion | |||||
Area | Question | Response | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Use of learning management system (LMS) | In the RLS course I have taken, … | SD | D | A | SA |
The active use of the LMS was promoted and encouraged. | |||||
sufficient teaching and learning materials were uploaded to the LMS. | |||||
instructors and learners actively interchanged ideas. | |||||
Open Question 4: What do you think the use of the LMS in the face-to-face laboratory class would have been like if there had been no COVID-19? | |||||
Interaction with instructors and colleagues | In the RLS courseI have taken, … | SD | D | A | SA |
cooperation and interactions with instructors and colleagues were encouraged. | |||||
cooperation and interactions with instructors were generally smooth. | |||||
cooperation and interactions with colleagues were generally smooth. | |||||
Open Question 5: If there had been no COVID-19 and in-person classes had been held, what do you think the preparation, classroom experience, LMS usage, and instructor and peer interactions would have been like? | |||||
Lab report writing | While writing my lab report after class, I … | SD | D | A | SA |
could easily obtain the necessary information. | |||||
was able to obtain the assistance necessary for scientific writing. | |||||
was able to obtain appropriate feedback. | |||||
Evaluation | On the evaluation, I … | SD | D | A | SA |
was able to receive scores that were reasonable for me. | |||||
was provided with clear evaluation criteria. | |||||
was able to raise problems with the results of the evaluation. | |||||
Open Question 6: What do you think the experience of writing lab reports and evaluations in the in-person laboratory class would have been like if there had been no COVID-19? | |||||
Pros and cons of and suggestions for RLS | Open Question 7: What were the disadvantages of the RLS course? | ||||
Open Question 8: What were the advantages of the RLS course? | |||||
Open Question 9: What changes are necessary to improve RLS courses? | |||||
Appendix C-1. Weekly class structure in the first module of the ACE course
Period | Students in the pre-lab group | Students in the other groups | Instructor (TA) |
|---|---|---|---|
Before class | - Conduct preliminary experiment at the laboratory with TA - Shoot and edit video of the experiment - Prepare for the presentation (slides) - Write a pre-lab report | - Write a pre-lab report | - Conduct preliminary experiment at the laboratory with the pre-lab group - Help the pre-lab group shooting the video |
During class | - Access to real-time Zoom session | ||
- Play the video of the experiment - Make a presentation that shows theories and experimental procedures | - Listen to the presentation - Watch the video | - Listen to the presentation - Watch the video | |
- Have a Q&A session | |||
- Help other groups with mind mapping | - Perform mind mapping via the Mind Meister webpage | - Help students with mind mapping | |
After class | - Write a lab report | - Write a lab report | - Evaluate lab reports - Provide feedback on the lab reports |
Appendix C-2. Weekly class structure in the second module of the ACE course
Period | Students in the pre-lab group | Students in the other groups | Instructor (TA) |
|---|---|---|---|
Before class | - Conduct preliminary experiment at the laboratory with the TA - Shoot and edit video of the experiment - Send the video to the TA - Prepare for the presentation (slides) - Write a reflection journal to share - Write a pre-lab report | - Write a pre-lab report | - Conduct preliminary experiment at the laboratory with the pre-lab group - Help the pre-lab group shoot the video - Upload the video to YouTube |
During class | - Access to real-time Zoom session | ||
- Make a presentation that shows theories, experimental procedures, and reflection journal | - Listen to the presentation - Watch the video | - Listen to the presentation - Play the video | |
- Have a Q&A session | |||
- Help other groups with mind mapping | - Perform mind mapping via the Mind Meister webpage | - Help students with mind mapping | |
- Present each group’s mind map product | |||
After class | - Write a lab report | - Write a lab report | - Evaluate lab reports - Provide feedback on the lab reports |
Appendix D. Student presentations of preliminary videos and slides made while conducting an experiment
Week 2: EDTA titration
Week 5: Iodimetric titration of vitamin C and H2O2
Appendix E. Synchronous mind mapping activity and products
Week 1: Production and standardization of NaOH solution & determination of the concentration of a weak acid; Titration of polyprotic acid
Week 9: Applied electrochemical experiment 1
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Lee, GG., Hong, HG. Development and validation of the blended laboratory and e-learning instructional design (BLEND) model for university remote laboratory sessions: responding to the COVID-19 pandemic and planning for the future. Education Tech Research Dev 72, 1025–1065 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-023-10327-9
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-023-10327-9