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: [email protected].
    • 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 KS 1998 Electronic collabor-ators: learner centered technologies for literacy, apprenticeship, and discourse 4 Lawrence Erlbaum Mahwah, N.J
2. Bonk CJ, Cunningham DJ 1998 Searching for learner-centered, constructivist and sociocultural components of collaborative educational learning tools 32 43 Bonk CJ, King KS Electronic collaborators: learner-centered technologies for literacy, apprenticeship and discourse Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Mahwah, N.J
3. Cennamo K, Ross J, Rogers C 2002 Evolution of a web-enhanced course: incorporating strategies for self-regulation Educause Quarterly 25 28 33 [Online.] http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/eqm0214.pdf.
4. Duffy T, Dueber B, Hawley C 1998 Critical thinking in a distributed environment: a pedagogical base for the design of conferencing systems 61 Bonk CJ, King KS Electronic collaborators: learner-centered technologies for literacy, apprenticeship and discourse Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Mahwah, N.J
5. Harrigan K, Carey T, Salter D 2002 An instructional design model for learning object re-use Merlot 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 S 2000 Engaging learners in complex, authentic contexts: instructional design for the web 85 96 Wallace M, Ellis A, Newton D Proceedings of the moving on-line conference Southern Cross University Lismore, New South Wales, Australia
7. Light RJ 2001 Making the most of college: students speak their minds 242 Harvard University Press Cambridge, Mass
8. Mendenhall W, Beaver J, Beaver M 1999 Introductions to probability and statistics 10th ed. 766 Brooks/Cole Publishing Company Pacific Grove, Calif
9. Ory J 2001 Instructor and course evaluation system catalog 28 University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
10. Salter D, Richards L, Carey T 2004 The “T5” design model: an instructional model and learning environment to support the integration of on-line and campus based courses Educ Media Int 41 207 217 10.1080/09523980410001680824 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09523980410001680824
11. Small D 1998 Calculus after high school calculus: confronting the core curriculum 47 54 Dossey JA Considering change in the undergraduate mathematics major Proceedings of the Mathematical Association of America (notes 45), Mathematical Association of America Washington, D.C.
12. Slavin RE 1995 Cooperative learning: theory, research, and practice 2nd ed. 194 Allyn and Bacon Boston
13. Vella J 2000 Taking learning to task: creative strategies for teaching adults 151 Jossey Bass San Francisco

Supplemental Material

No supplementary material available for this content.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journal/jmbe/10.1128/154288105X14285806642136
2005-05-01
2019-09-19

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