1887

A “Hybrid” Bacteriology Course: The Professor’s Design and Expectations; The Students’ Performance and Assessment

    Authors: STEVEN KRAWIEC1,*, DIANE SALTER2,†, EDWIN J. KAY3
    VIEW AFFILIATIONS HIDE AFFILIATIONS
    Affiliations: 1: Department of Biological Sciences, Lehigh University, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, 18015-4732; 2: Centre for Learning and Teaching through Technology, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Canada, N2L 3G1, and; 3: Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Lehigh University, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, 18015-3084
    AUTHOR AND ARTICLE INFORMATION AUTHOR AND ARTICLE INFORMATION
    • *Corresponding author. Mailing address: Department of Biological Sciences, Lehigh University, 216 B Iacocca Hall, 111Research Drive, Bethlehem, PA 18015-4732. Telephone: (610) 758-3684. Fax: (610) 758-4004. E-mail: sk08@lehigh.edu.
    • Present address. Office of the Dean, Centre for Curriculum & Faculty Development, Sheridan College Institute of Technology and Advanced Learning, 1430 Trafalgar Road, Oakville, Ontario, Canada, L6H 2L1.
    • Copyright © 2005, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.
    Source: J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ. May 2005 vol. 6 no. 1 8-13. doi:10.1128/154288105X14285806642136
MyBook is a cheap paperback edition of the original book and will be sold at uniform, low price.
  • XML
  • PDF
    132.44 Kb
  • HTML
    45.39 Kb

    Abstract:

    A basic bacteriology course was offered in two successive academic years, first in a conventional format and subsequently as a “hybrid” course. The latter combined (i) online presentation of content, (ii) an emphasis on online resources, (iii) thrice-weekly, face-to-face conversations to advance understanding, and (iv) frequent student postings on an electronic discussion board. We compared the two courses through statistical analysis of student performances on the final examinations and the course overall and student assessment of teaching. The data indicated that there was no statistical difference in performance on the final examinations or the course overall. Responses on an instrument of evaluation revealed that students less strongly affirmed the following measures in the hybrid course: (i) The amount of work was appropriate for the credit received, (ii) Interactions between students and instructor were positive, (iii) I learned a great deal in this course, and (iv) I would recommend this course to other students. We recommend clear direction about active learning tasks and relevant feedback to enhance learning in a hybrid course.

Key Concept Ranking

Anaerobic Respiration
0.55664146
Infectious Diseases
0.49510375
Continuous Culture
0.48634455
Biogeochemical Cycle
0.455948
Batch Culture
0.43264398
0.55664146

References & Citations

1. Bonk CJ, King KS1998Electronic collabor-ators: learner centered technologies for literacy, apprenticeship, and discourse4Lawrence ErlbaumMahwah, N.J
2. Bonk CJ, Cunningham DJ1998Searching for learner-centered, constructivist and sociocultural components of collaborative educational learning tools3243 Bonk CJ, King KSElectronic collaborators: learner-centered technologies for literacy, apprenticeship and discourseLawrence Erlbaum AssociatesMahwah, N.J
3. Cennamo K, Ross J, Rogers C2002Evolution of a web-enhanced course: incorporating strategies for self-regulationEducause Quarterly252833[Online.] http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/eqm0214.pdf.
4. Duffy T, Dueber B, Hawley C1998Critical thinking in a distributed environment: a pedagogical base for the design of conferencing systems61 Bonk CJ, King KSElectronic collaborators: learner-centered technologies for literacy, apprenticeship and discourseLawrence Erlbaum AssociatesMahwah, N.J
5. Harrigan K, Carey T, Salter D2002An instructional design model for learning object re-useMerlot International Conference, Academic Approaches to Technology: Content, Collaboration, Collections & Community, Atlanta, Georgia. [Online.] http://conference.merlot.org/conference/2002/program/detail_program.php#MonConc1.
6. Herrington J, Oliver R, Stoney S2000Engaging learners in complex, authentic contexts: instructional design for the web8596 Wallace M, Ellis A, Newton DProceedings of the moving on-line conference Southern Cross UniversityLismore, New South Wales, Australia
7. Light RJ2001Making the most of college: students speak their minds242Harvard University PressCambridge, Mass
8. Mendenhall W, Beaver J, Beaver M1999Introductions to probability and statistics10th ed.766Brooks/Cole Publishing CompanyPacific Grove, Calif
9. Ory J2001Instructor and course evaluation system catalog28University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
10. Salter D, Richards L, Carey T2004The “T5” design model: an instructional model and learning environment to support the integration of on-line and campus based coursesEduc Media Int4120721710.1080/09523980410001680824 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09523980410001680824
11. Small D1998Calculus after high school calculus: confronting the core curriculum4754 Dossey JAConsidering change in the undergraduate mathematics majorProceedings of the Mathematical Association of America (notes 45), Mathematical Association of AmericaWashington, D.C.
12. Slavin RE1995Cooperative learning: theory, research, and practice2nd ed.194Allyn and BaconBoston
13. Vella J2000Taking learning to task: creative strategies for teaching adults151Jossey BassSan Francisco
154288105X14285806642136.citations
jmbe/6/1
content/journal/jmbe/10.1128/154288105X14285806642136
Loading

Citations loading...

Supplemental Material

No supplementary material available for this content.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journal/jmbe/10.1128/154288105X14285806642136
2005-05-01
2017-11-23

Abstract:

A basic bacteriology course was offered in two successive academic years, first in a conventional format and subsequently as a “hybrid” course. The latter combined (i) online presentation of content, (ii) an emphasis on online resources, (iii) thrice-weekly, face-to-face conversations to advance understanding, and (iv) frequent student postings on an electronic discussion board. We compared the two courses through statistical analysis of student performances on the final examinations and the course overall and student assessment of teaching. The data indicated that there was no statistical difference in performance on the final examinations or the course overall. Responses on an instrument of evaluation revealed that students less strongly affirmed the following measures in the hybrid course: (i) The amount of work was appropriate for the credit received, (ii) Interactions between students and instructor were positive, (iii) I learned a great deal in this course, and (iv) I would recommend this course to other students. We recommend clear direction about active learning tasks and relevant feedback to enhance learning in a hybrid course.

Highlighted Text: Show | Hide
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/jmbe/6/1/jmbe-6-1-8.xml.a.html?itemId=/content/journal/jmbe/10.1128/154288105X14285806642136&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Figures

Image of FIG. 1.

Click to view

FIG. 1.

Distributions of statistically significant student responses in the conventional and hybrid courses. (A) The amount of work was appropriate for the credit received. (B) Interactions between students and instructor were positive. (C) I learned a great deal in this course. (D) I would recommend this course to other students.

Source: J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ. May 2005 vol. 6 no. 1 8-13. doi:10.1128/154288105X14285806642136
Download as Powerpoint

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Please check the format of the address you have entered.
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error