Distance Learning: A Viable Alternative to the Conventional Lecture

Information

•

Textbooks

•

Media

•

Resources edited by

Teaching with Technology

Gabriela C. Weaver Purdue University West Lafayette, IN 47907

Distance Learning: A Viable Alternative to the Conventional Lecture–Lab Format in General Chemistry

W

Ruby S. Casanova and Jennifer L. Civelli Department of Chemistry, Cape Fear Community College, Wilmington, NC 28401 Doris R. Kimbrough Department of Chemistry, University of Colorado at Denver, Denver, CO 80217 Barbara P. Heath and James H. Reeves* Department of Chemistry, University of North Carolina at Wilmington, Wilmington, NC 28403; *[email protected]

With the age of information comes the opportunity to open the world of chemistry to the growing number of “nontraditional” students who cannot take advantage of conventional education settings. Although distance education courses often involve more student dedication and initiative than conventional courses (1), they are attractive alternatives for students who do not have ready access to a college or university, have restricted hours for course participation, or simply dislike the conventional “school” environment. Thus it is important to develop models for distance learning that provide educational opportunities comparable to those offered by conventional courses. Implementation of a distance learning laboratory is often cited as a key obstacle to development of an effective distance learning chemistry course (2), and may account for the paucity of such offerings in the United States. Safety, liability, and cost issues are of concern (3, 4), yet a more significant pedagogical obstacle lies with the assumption that a “laboratory atmosphere” cannot be replicated outside of a laboratory setting (2, 4). According to this reasoning, students who do experiments outside the laboratory setting and the supervision of a laboratory instructor cannot acquire the necessary lab techniques and skills, nor can they perform experiments with sufficient precision to collect quantitatively useful data. One approach to solving the distance learning lab dilemma is to design virtual laboratories that rely on interactive simulations, videos, and animations to convey the lab experience. When they are performed in conjunction with hands-on laboratory experiments, virtual laboratories have been shown to provide students higher levels of learning compared with those who performed the same hands-on experiments but did not use the virtual labs (5). Moreover, though expensive and time-consuming to create, virtual laboratories provide experiments that can be repeated as often as necessary from any location at no additional cost in resources or personnel. While advantages such as these lead some researchers to claim that the online experience of a virtual experiment is “about as good as the real thing”, others worry that students who only have the virtual lab experience will not acquire the hands-on familiarity they get from conventional science labs (6). Indeed, we believe that the sights, sounds, and smells of hands-on experiments, as well as the care and precision required to collect meaningful data, are vital expewww.JCE.DivCHED.org

•

riences if students are to appreciate the experimental basis of the discipline. In this paper we describe a distance learning general chemistry course for science majors that addresses the laboratory dilemma by providing a series of hands-on laboratory experiments designed to be performed in students’ homes. The course is especially well suited for community colleges, which serve large numbers of non-traditional students and where class sizes typically are small so that the instructors are able to focus on the individual needs of the distance learners. The laboratory portion of the course is based on “kitchen chemistry” experiments (7) developed for the Anywhere, Anytime Chemistry Experience (AACE) through funding from the Learning Anywhere Anytime Partnership (LAAP). With the exception of an inexpensive balance, all materials and equipment needed for these experiments can be purchased at local grocery, hardware, and department stores; the procedures are designed to be no more dangerous than cooking. Despite these restrictions, the laboratory curriculum was designed to be both quantitative and rigorous. Thus, although some at-home laboratories required the use of the measurement techniques that were less precise than those available to students in the conventional laboratory, distance learning students were able to obtain quantitative information of sufficient precision to draw meaningful conclusions from their data. In Version I of the course, implemented during the Fall 2000 and Spring 2001 semesters, students received detailed outlines of lecture materials over the World Wide Web (WWW) and met on campus every Saturday for three-hour laboratory–recitation periods. During these on-campus sessions, homework problems were discussed, quizzes were given, and the AACE experiments were carried out. In Version II, implemented during the subsequent three semesters (Fall, 2001 through Fall, 2002), the students were not required to attend any regular class meetings and performed the AACE experiments in their homes. Electronic homework assignments, quizzes, and laboratory reports were collected and graded on a weekly basis. Flexible, program-specific assessment instruments were developed to evaluate the effectiveness of these approaches as alternatives to conventional formats. Qualitative data were collected through continuous student and instructor feedback, classroom visitations, and focus groups, while comparisons of

Vol. 83 No. 3 March 2006

•

Journal of Chemical Education

501

Information

•

Textbooks

•

Media

•

Resources

final exam and laboratory practical scores provided quantitative information. Assessment results are provided below. Project Description

Instructional Design The conventional on-campus versions of the course that were used for comparison purposes were taught during the Fall 1998, Fall 2001, and the Spring and Fall 2002 semesters at the University of North Carolina at Wilmington, a midsize public university. The lectures were delivered by an experienced university instructor, and were accompanied by multimedia presentations. The laboratory component of the course was conducted using conventional approaches, meeting three hours per week and utilizing laboratory-grade chemicals and modern equipment. Over the course of five semesters, an average of 108 students per semester completed the final exam for this course. Most were typical full-time Table 1. Student Demographic Information for Version II of the Distance Learning Course OStudent Data OCategories

Distribution of Students (N = 100), %

OFemale

65

OMale

35

OOver age 25

46

ONon-Traditional

54

OPrevious college chemistry course

23

OPrevious college science course

56

OPrevious college science laboratory

57

Figure 1. Partial calendar from Fall 2002 distance learning general chemistry course offered through Cape Fear Community College.

502


•

students, 18–19 years old, single, and either not employed or employed on a part-time basis. The distance learning version of the course was offered at Cape Fear Community College (CFCC), also located in Wilmington, during these semesters: Fall 2000, 2001, and 2002; and Spring 2001 and 2002. Because the class sizes were relatively small (5–15 students), data from different sections taught by the same instructor were combined. The instructor who implemented Version I of the course was teaching the science majors chemistry course for the first time, although she had eight years of experience as the lab instructor–technician for the Chemical Technology program at CFCC. The instructor for the subsequent semesters (Version II) was a fulltime chemistry faculty member in her second and third years, respectively, of community college teaching. A total of 25 students completed Version I of the course; 30 students completed the courses offered using Version II. Demographic information for the Version I students indicate that 44% could be characterized as non-traditional students, while 54% of the Version II students fell into that category. In this context, non-traditional students are defined as students who enter college a year or more after high-school graduation, are working to support themselves or their families, have dependents in their care, are married or divorced, or are serving in the armed forces or are veterans (8). For Version II, some additional demographic information was collected via the Internet at the start of the course, yielding information for all students, whether or not they completed the course. This information, summarized in Table 1, is consistent with typical distance learning populations.

Distance Learning Materials The Web-based course materials for both Version I and II of the distance learning course consisted of a home page, a syllabus, an active calendar linked to outlines (Figure 1), interactive versions of the conventional lecture notes, practice quizzes and exams, and the AACE experiments. The calendar served as the key organizational resource; it was maintained and updated for students in both courses by the UNCW instructor. The students were expected to work on each lesson for at least one and one-half hours. A typical week involved working on three lessons and a laboratory. Although calendar dates were associated with each lesson, there was no expectation that students would complete the lesson on that day. Instead, students were given weekly deadlines in the form of graded homework and quizzes. The defining feature of Version I of the distance learning course was the Saturday morning face-to-face meeting. This on-campus period was designated as the laboratory component of the course and the AACE labs were performed with the assistance of the instructor. The students were allowed to work in pairs on most of the laboratories, although each student was responsible for his or her own lab report, which included an objective, the data (usually compiled in an Excel spreadsheet), and a results and discussion paragraph. Lab reports were due the Wednesday after the experiment was performed. In addition to providing the lab experience, the instructor utilized this weekly period to review homework assignments, discuss important concepts, and administer a quiz covering the previous weeks’ lessons.


•

www.JCE.DivCHED.org

Information

In the second version, the weekly on-campus meetings were eliminated. Students completed all assignments, including laboratories, at home. Weekly homework assignments, typically submitted as electronic mail attachments in the form of word processing documents, were graded and returned with feedback to each student. Quizzes were provided through Quizmaker, a Web-based testing tool developed locally, and were available between the hours of 6 p.m. and 12 midnight on the dates specified in the calendar. Students received their score (number correct) as soon as they submitted their responses and were permitted to take each quiz as often as they wished during the time when it was posted. AACE laboratories were carried out individually by students in their homes. Reports and data sets were submitted electronically four days after the laboratories were scheduled to be performed. Evaluation Methods

Qualitative Assessments The program evaluator (author BPH) used a responsive evaluation model to determine the suitability of offering an online distance learning chemistry course to science majors. The evaluation plan was designed to include segments that adapted in response to changes in the implemented project. This model is characterized by a focused evaluation goal, thoughtful adjustments based on data collected, continuous data collection allowing the evaluators to recognize shortcomings in the evaluation plan and make appropriate adjustments, and effective communication among developers, instructors, and evaluators. Data sources resulted from multiple evaluator activities and assessments, which were ongoing during the time period the courses were offered. These included classroom visits, periodic instructor meetings, focus groups, and conversations with instructors. Frequent contact with the developers (authors JHR and DRK), instructors (authors JLC and RSC), and students provided continuous data that supplied insight into the evolution of the course from multiple perspectives. In years two and three of the project, online options for student and instructor feedback were added, completing the course offering as a wholly online venture. Because of the differences between conventional and distance learning student populations, a non-equivalent control group design was implemented (9). One goal of the evaluation plan was to determine the extent to which the distance learning materials met National Science Education Standards (NSES) guidelines. These guidelines were developed to address the criteria set forth by the National Research Council (NRC) in the areas of teaching, assessment, and program standards (10). The NSES criteria presented in Table 2 were adapted from the complete standards list to include only those items that were applicable to the introductory post-secondary level. One to seven criteria are associated with each standard. Table 2 served as a checklist that was completed at the conclusion of each semester using observation notes, meeting notes, and instructor feedback. The results were used by the evaluator to assess the level at which the applicable standards were met. To assess the AACE laboratories, a conventional introductory chemistry course checklist was created based on the review of the relevant knowledge and skills that students are www.JCE.DivCHED.org

•

•

Textbooks

•

Media

•

Resources

expected to gain by completing the first semester of laboratories at UNCW. This list was compared to a similar list developed from the AACE experiments, providing an initial comparison of the laboratory portions of the two courses. The checklists are presented in the Supplemental Material.W

Quantitative Assessments A common final exam was administered to students in the conventional and distance learning courses. The exam consisted of 72 multiple-choice questions organized in four groups of eighteen questions each. Questions in the first three groups (1–54) were worth one point each and covered the same material as those on the three, hour-long exams given during the semester. Scores for each group were compared to those achieved on the corresponding hourly exam, with the higher score used to compute the final grade. Questions from the last group (55–72) were worth three points each and corresponded to material covered after the third exam. Because the final exam was comprehensive and could represent as much as 70% of the final grade for the course, it provided an excellent vehicle by which to compare the performances of students

Table 2. Course Evaulation Results Relative to the National Science Education Standards OEvaluation Criteria, National Science OEducation Standards (NSES)

Results, Year 1

Results, Year 2

Teaching A.

Plan inquiry program

5/7

7/7

B.

Guide and facilitate learning

1/2

2/2

C.

Ongoing assessment

1/5

4/5

D.

Design and manage learning environment

3/5

4/5

E.

Develop communities of learners

0/2

0/2

F.

Ongoing development of the program

2/3

3/3

12/24

20/24

Totals Assessment A.

Consistent with decisions

4/4

4/4

B.

Opportunity to learn

0/1

1/1

C.

Data collected used for decision making

2/5

5/5

D.

Practices are fair

2/2

2/2

E.

Inferences are sound

1/1

1/1

9/13

13/13

Totals Program A.

Elements are consistent with NSES

2/4

4/4

B.

Relevant to students

3/3

3/3

D.

Provides access to resources

1/1

1/1

Totals

6/8

8/8


•


503

Information

•

Textbooks

•

Media

•

Resources

Table 3. Distribution of Points for Lab Practical Scores Lab (each worth 8 points total)

Lab Procedure

Data Presentation

Data Analysis

Density and Volume

4

2

2

Paper Chromatography

3

2

3

Qualitative Analysis

3

2

3

taking the distance learning course with those taking the conventional version of the course. To provide a quantitative comparison of the conventional and AACE laboratories, three laboratory practicals—Qualitative Analysis, Paper Chromatography, and Density and Volume—were developed from the ACS Small-Scale Laboratory Assessment Activities (11). The procedures were modified slightly to be somewhat less openended and the rubrics were adjusted to reflect the changes. The practical was administered during the Spring 2002 semester at both UNCW and CFCC. At UNCW, two laboratory sections of students completed Paper Chromatography, two completed Qualitative Analysis, and one completed Density and Volume. The CFCC students completed all three of the lab practicals. The areas of interest for the practicals were lab procedure, data presentation, and data analysis and conclusions. The procedures were scored by multiple observers using specifically designed rubrics while the students completed the practicals in the laboratory. The data presentation and analysis were scored from the submitted work. Each lab was graded using an eight-point rubric. Weighting of the scores is shown in Table 3.

Results

Qualitative Results Assessment results of Version I of the course provided initial information about the course, student and instructor experiences, and highlighted some technological issues. Feedback was collected primarily from instructor self-reporting and student comments during focus groups. Overall, students indicated satisfaction with the course, reporting that it was well organized and contained sufficient materials and guidance to enable them to succeed. They found the course calendar to be especially useful because it provided links to all the course materials organized by due date. However, many students indicated that they did not like weekly quizzes and felt that the required weekly class meetings hindered the flexibility of the asynchronous online course structure. Some also reported problems with the implementation of the technology, including difficulty with software installation, broken links to necessary course material, and trouble downloading images and graphing software. These issues were corrected as they arose. In years two and three (Version II), focus groups, student information forms, and weekly instructor activity forms were replaced by Web-based online forms that greatly improved both the quantity and quality of the data collected. The data were organized by date and reviewed to gain an understanding of how the course operated from week to week. The instructor considered student behavior to be “on-task” if a majority of the students completed all assignments required that week in a timely manner. The information collected in Spring 2002 is summarized in Table 4.

Table 4. Summar y of Community College Instructor Feedback during the the Spring 2002 Semester Date of Feedback

Lab Completed (Data Assigned)

Meeting

Assignments

Correspondence

On-Task?

01/29

Balance (1/19)

None

Quiz, homework, lab report

E-mail, phone, individual

Yes

02/40

Density and volume (9/8)

None



Yes

02/11

Chromatography (2/2)

Review session and exam

Quiz, homework, lab report, exam

E-mail, phone, individual, group

Yes

02/26

Solubility and conductivity (2/16)

None



Yes

03/26

Burning calories (3/16)

None



Yes

04/40

Heats of Reaction (3/23)

None



Yes

04/10

None

None

Quiz, homework


Yes

04/16

None

Review session and exam

Quiz, homework

E-mail, phone, individual, group

Yes

04/24

None

None

Quiz, homework


Yes

05/10

Beer’s Law (4/27)

None



Yes

504


•


•

www.JCE.DivCHED.org

Information

Replacing focus groups with online forms also had a significant impact on data collected from students. On-campus focus groups were not well attended and difficult to schedule since the course did not have a regular meeting time. In contrast, the forms were linked from the course calendar and could be completed whenever the student’s schedule allowed. The responses were e-mailed directly to the evaluator, who created a summary and forwarded it to the instructor. Students indicated that they found the course to be harder than a conventional course, but liked the flexibility. All respondents said that they would recommend the course to peers who had, as one student put it, “good selfdiscipline and an understanding of how much work the class takes”. All were very pleased with the instructor and many commented on her high level of accessibility and her genuine concern for them. A summary of feedback provided by students in Spring 2002 is available in the Supplemental Material.W Both versions of the distance learning course met the NSES program requirements (Table 2), since six out of eight criteria were satisfied in year one, and all eight criteria were satisfied in subsequent semesters. As implemented in Version I, however, the course failed to satisfy half of the teaching criteria and 30% of the assessment criteria. These deficiencies were corrected in Version II, when 83% of the teaching criteria and 100% of the assessment criteria were satisfied. Of the 17 laboratory objectives identified as expected outcomes for students in conventional labs at UNCW (listed in Appendix 2 in the Supplemental MaterialW), distance learning (AACE) students are exposed to 9. The differences can be traced to differences in the laboratories offered in the two programs. UNCW students complete three separation techniques, while AACE students complete one. AACE students also do not complete any qualitative analysis labs or an emission spectra lab. However, Appendix 2 in the Supplemental MaterialW also demonstrates that AACE students perform labs that investigate balance, solubility and conductivity, and applications of Beer’s Law, completing seven learning objectives not included in the conventional laboratory experience. There is no evidence that these differences hinder the students’ performance or learning in either class.

•

Textbooks

•

Media

•

Resources

Discussion Based on the analysis of the data collected for this study, we conclude that the learning opportunity for students taking the distance learning general chemistry course was equivalent to the opportunity available to those attending the conventional lecture. It is important to emphasize that it is the learning opportunity being evaluated and not the course experience as a whole. For many students, face-to-face interactions with the instructor and other students are invaluable components of the overall course experience, and a distance learning mode of presentation would not be a desirable alternative. The goal of this project is to develop a format that provides an equivalent learning opportunity for students who don’t find faceto-face interactions necessary or those who require an asynchronous course schedule. A critical component of the distance learning course was the requirement of weekly interactions between the students and their instructor, fulfilled either by attending weekly lab– recitation classes (Version I) or submitting homework and quizzes on a weekly basis (Version II). The relatively small class sizes permitted the instructors to interact with each student on a personal basis, thus providing a constant flow of information between the students and the instructor and ensuring that the students stayed “on-task” (Table 4). Both student and instructor feedback identified this as critical to successful completion of the course. Students also identified the course organization as important and voiced consistently high praise for the course instructor. Most relied on their textbook and

Table 5. Comparison of Final Exam Averaged Scores between Students in the Distance Learning Course and in the Conventional Course over Five Semesters Semesters in Which the Courses Are Compared

Conventional Course Averaged Exam Scores (N)

Distance Learning Course Averaged Exam Scores (N)

Fall 2000 Spring 2001

61.98 (117)

75.84 (25)

Fall 2001 Spring 2002 Fall 2002

65.63 (318)

80.11 (30)

Quantitative Results Final Exams Students in Version I of the course (Fall 2000, Spring 2001) took the same final exam as the one that was administered to university students who completed the conventional course in Fall, 1998. Those who participated in Version II took the same final exams as the students taking the conventional university course during the same semester. As shown in Table 5, distance learning students in both versions of the course achieved significantly higher averages than their counterparts in the conventional chemistry course. Laboratory Practical Comparison The average scores for each category of the scoring rubric, normalized to decimal values representing the percentage score, are presented in Figure 2. www.JCE.DivCHED.org

•

Figure 2. Comparison of average normalized laboratory practical scores for UNCW and CFCC students. Distance learning (CFCC) students achieved higher scores than their conventional counterparts in every tested category.


•


505

Information

•

Textbooks

•

Media

•

Resources

the discipline and motivation necessary to succeed in distance learning courses. One important difference between the conventional and distance learning groups is that the conventional course had a high retention rate, with more than 90% of students who enrolled in the course taking the final exam. By contrast, 53% of students who originally enrolled in the distance learning course took the final exam. Feedback from the distance learners who dropped the course indicates that their decisions were often motivated by issues in their personal lives rather than poor grades. In Fall 2001, the seven students who dropped the course cited the following reasons (number of students): • Withdrew after orientation (3) Figure 3. Comparison of final exam grades for students in the conventional and distance learning courses during Fall 2001, Spring 2002, and Fall 2002 semesters.

• No time (1) • Need the lecture experience (1) • Family difficulties (2)

found the interactive course notes to be of little value (Appendix 1 in the Supplemental MaterialW). This finding suggests that while videos and interactive Web-based exercises offer the possibility of improving the chemistry learning experience, they are not required for the distance learning course to be effective. Common final exams offered a quantitative measure of the success of the distance learning model relative to the conventional course. Although they never attended lectures, distance learning students consistently achieved higher average final exam scores than their conventional course counterparts. As shown in Figure 3, over 96% of the students who completed Version II of the distance learning course earned a grade of “C” or better on the final exam. This result is significant because the policy of replacement of hourly exam scores if higher scores are achieved on the corresponding section of the final exam assures that the final score represents the minimum grade a student will receive for the lecture portion of the course. Because the groups were nonequivalent, no general conclusion about the relative effectiveness of the two learning methods can be drawn from the higher average scores achieved by the distance learners. What can be concluded is that the different formats offer advantages that complement the personal situations and learning styles of different groups. The majority of the distance learners were adult, non-traditional students, a population “whose previous exposure to alternative methods of learning lets them apply not only life experience, but a wider variety of learning methodologies than the traditional student” (12). In Adult Learners in the Academy, Lee Bash characterizes this group as “autonomous and self-directed, practical, relevancy-oriented and having a foundation of life experiences” (13). These are characteristics especially well suited to the AACE format, since working at home with household equipment and chemicals reinforces the practicality and relevance of the chemistry in their daily lives. Although many distance learners commented on the significant commitment of time and discipline required for the course, all praised its flexibility and organization, as well as the availability and helpfulness of the instructor, and most said they would recommend the course to anyone who had

506


•

The students not completing the course in the Spring, 2002 semester cited these reasons (number of students): • No show (5) • No time (3) • GI bill would not fund (1) • Needed lecture experience (1) • Too difficult (1)

Thus, the higher attrition rate reflects the diversity of the non-traditional student population and emphasizes the fact that distance learning is not a universal alternative for learning general chemistry. Nevertheless, the final exam performance of the distance learning students who completed the course indicates that the course provided them with the resources necessary to succeed in the lecture portion of a science majors’ general chemistry course. The results of the laboratory practicals provide a compelling argument for the equivalency of the conventional and AACE laboratory experiences. Of particular significance is the fact that the distance learners achieved a higher average score in the procedure category, as shown in Figure 2. Despite the fact that they performed the AACE experiments in their kitchens using common household items such as homemade balances, measuring cups, and coffee filters, the distance learners had little difficulty utilizing the electronic balances and common laboratory glassware and equipment made available to them during the laboratory practical. This result suggests that well-designed distance learning laboratories can provide students with the techniques and skills expected of science majors who complete a first-semester chemistry laboratory. Examination of Figure 2 also reveals that distance learning students did substantially better than their conventional course counterparts in the data presentation category. This may be a consequence of the fact that the distance learners worked alone and were required to submit individually written lab reports for each experiment. Students in the conventional course, by contrast, typically worked in pairs and submitted data sheets that summarized their experimental results. These results contradict the conventional wisdom that meaningful experiments can only be performed in a labora-


•

www.JCE.DivCHED.org

Information

tory setting under the supervision of a qualified instructor. Working alone in their homes, the distance learners carried out experiments that successfully mirrored those done in traditional laboratories. This is significant because the experience of discovering chemistry by performing quantitative measurements on common household chemicals demonstrates the relevance of science to the everyday lives of students. In summary, we conclude that the two versions of the distance learning general chemistry course for science majors described in this study represent models for delivering general chemistry content that provide the flexibility, organization, and instructor feedback required by distance learners. With the success of the AACE laboratories, a major stumbling block to offering distance learning first-semester introductory chemistry as a distance learning course has been overcome, at once expanding the opportunity for learning general chemistry to an audience of non-traditional students and introducing these students to doing science in their everyday lives. Acknowledgments

W

Both a summary of feedback provided by distance learning students in Spring 2002, and a checklist of the relevant

www.JCE.DivCHED.org

•

•

Media

•

Resources

Literature Cited 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

7.

9. 10. 11.

12.

Supplemental Material

Textbooks

knowledge and skills that students are expected to gain by completing the conventional first-semester general chemistry laboratories at UNCW are available in this issue of JCE Online.

8.

The authors gratefully acknowledge the hard work of undergraduate students Kelly Mayo, Jenny Wright, and Katy Magolan, who piloted the laboratories and critiqued course Web pages. Major funding for this project was supplied by the Learning Anywhere Anytime Partnership (LAAP) program of the Funds for the Improvement of Post Secondary Education (FIPSE), U.S. Department of Education, 1999 (Grant # P339B990138). We would also like to thank the Office of the Provost at the University of North Carolina at Wilmington for summer financial support.

•

13.

Epstein, Margarete. Distance Education 1999, 4, 1–5. Patterson, M. J. J. Chem. Educ. 2000, 77, 554–555. Boschmann, E. J. Chem. Educ. 2003, 80, 704–708. Kennepohl, D. J. Chem. Educ. 1996, 73, 938–939. Martínez-Jiménez, P.; Pontes-Pedrajas, A.; Climent-Bellido, M. S.; Polo, J. J. Chem. Educ. 2003, 80, 346. Carnevale, D. Chronicle of Higher Education 2003, 49 (21), A30; http://chronicle.com/free/v49/i21/21a03001.htm (accessed Dec 2005). Reeves, J. H. Anytime, Anywhere Chemistry Experience Web Page at University of North Carolina at Wilmington. http:// www.uncw.edu/chem/Courses/Reeves/OnLineLabs/Index.html (accessed Dec 2005). University of North Carolina at Wilmington Commuter and Non-Traditional Student Services Center Home Page. http:// www.uncw.edu/stuaff/doso/commuternontrad (accessed Dec 2005). Campbell, D. T.; Stanley, J. C. Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research; Rand McNally: Chicago, 1963. National Research Council. National Science Education Standards; National Academy Press: Washington, DC, 1995. Examinations Institute, Division of Chemical Education. ACS Small-Scale Laboratory Assessment Activities, Silberman S. G., Eubanks, L., Eds.; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 1996. Donathan, David A. Business Education Forum 2003, 38 (1), 45–47. Bash, Lee. Adult Learners in the Academy; Anker Publishing Co.: Bolton, MA, 2003; pp 28–29.


•


507

Distance Learning: A Viable Alternative to the Conventional Lecture

Recommend Documents