Abstract
Online course delivery has increased in prevalence, particularly due to the onset in 2020 of the COVID-19 pandemic. Biomedical engineering laboratory courses pose unique challenges when transitioning to a remote or hybrid space. Here, we describe a novel approach to online lab delivery to improve student learning and engagement in a required introductory biomedical engineering laboratory class. The presented work focuses on the implementation and assessment of a novel approach to remote lab delivery named LabMate, which is a mobile, multi-view livestreaming platform that connects students to an in-person class remotely. Surveys of student and instructor participants assessed hardware quality and areas of improvement. Focus groups with students who had taken the course in an online format previously were conducted after a demonstration of the system. Survey responses were overall positive; however, some areas of improvement were identified, such as audio quality and video quality. Students and instructors appreciated the ability to deliver class synchronously online rather than perform make-up labs. Focus group participants found LabMate to be more engaging and enjoyable than prior online lab experiences. Students and instructors preferred LabMate over other online lab delivery methods. The students found the experience to be more dynamic and engaging, providing them with the opportunity to develop some of the core competencies of a biomedical engineering student.
Keywords: Laboratories, Virtual learning, Distance learning, At-home learning, Experiential learning, Online teaching
Challenge Statement
Online or hybrid classes have grown in popularity and demand, particularly since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. It can be difficult to translate an engineering lab course to a virtual space because of the hands-on, interpersonal nature of the laboratory learning process. Biomedical engineering (BME) labs pose an additional challenge due to the requirement of biosafety practices and the stationary equipment needed to analyze samples. It has been shown that virtual labs lacking haptic feedback1 or collaborative (active) learning2 reduce student engagement and learning. Additionally, some of the core competencies of a BME undergraduate student that are developed in the lab are difficult to implement in an online class, such as making measurements and interpreting data from biological systems, laboratory technique, and communications.3 Student engagement is critical to learning these core competencies, and collaborative activities have been shown in literature to improve online instruction and engagement through student-student interaction, discussion, and rapport.2,4–6
The challenge addressed in this manuscript is to improve online BME lab instruction engagement via increased student-student interaction and collaboration. The class of interest is a required, introductory BME laboratory course that focuses on quantitative analysis of bacterial and mammalian cell culture techniques. The class is structured into eleven main labs split into four modules.7 Labs are sequential in design and there are weekly laboratory sessions, each lasting from 1 to 4 h. Materials, data, and content and associated skills for the labs build on previous sessions. Previous fully online offerings of this course included at-home lab kits corresponding to each module.8,9 Students would review and discuss the lab kit protocols and videos of the experiment with the instructor. While this approach accommodated the need to offer the course remotely, there is minimal student engagement during video presentations. Decreased student engagement may reduce the development of core competencies such as communication skills. Further, video presentations do not properly represent real world data, often limiting the interaction students have with the data and potential to learn from mistakes. For these reasons, labs where students are able to directly engage with the material, make their own decisions, and interact with peers are preferred.
Current offerings of the course are in-person, but there are still occasions where a student is unable to attend, including quarantine where the student feels able to attend class and travel for sports and other extracurriculars. Previously, students were required to attend a make-up lab ranging from 2 to 4 h at the end of the semester to complete the course. This process required extra time from the instructors and students as well as increasing cost from operating the laboratory and additional required materials. A more ideal solution would incur a one-time cost, require minimal set-up, and provide connection to the lab, lab partner, and real-world data. If a module is re-designed, this solution would not require any additional work. This system can also be used for multiple different types of labs, making it a versatile option for online lab delivery. Eliminating the need for make-up sessions at the end of the semester would also be ideal for students and instructors.
Novel Initiative
To improve remote student learning and engagement, we implemented a novel remote lab partner system named LabMate in the Fall 2021 semester.10 After the pilot offering, areas of improvement were identified and changes in the platform and pedagogy were implemented. In this paper, we describe testing and analysis of the LabMate system as it was used in the Spring 2022 semesters. Students from prior online offerings of the course were also invited to compare LabMate to previous virtual lab delivery methods.
Development and Implementation
The novel remote system consists of three main components and is described in more detail in Ref. 10. A GoPro HERO 8 camera and a Microsoft Surface Pro 7 tablet are attached to a medical grade rolling cart, such as the Surface Rise Freedom Extended used here (Fig. 1). Both technologies stream simultaneously to provide the student with a social view of their partners and instructors as well as a technical view of the experiment (Fig. 2). This provided the student with an opportunity to “virtually attend” a lab that they were unable to attend in person. The online student would contact the instructor prior to lab, sometimes with little to no advance notice, and the teaching assistant would pair LabMate with the student’s regular partner or a volunteer. The online student would be able to interact with their lab partner and complete the lab in the standard amount of time. Only one LabMate system was implemented in this course, so remote students shared the device. To streamline LabMate setup in the case of last-minute notice from students, the system was stored in the back room of the lab and all electronics were kept plugged in and charging when not in use, allowing for a “grab and go” approach.
FIGURE 1.
Diagram of LabMate with key components labeled. (A) GoPro camera for technical view, (B) tablet for social view, and (C) rolling cart with basket for portability.
FIGURE 2.
LabMate in the classroom. (A) In-person view of LabMate with (a) GoPro, (b) tablet, and (c) rolling cart with basket. (B) In-person student view of LabMate. (C) Virtual student view of experiment (big picture) and lab partner and instructor (small picture).
An initial pilot implementation was launched,10 and feedback from this was used to improve the instructions students were given to increase engagement with LabMate. It was suggested to participants that the online student should take notes, lead the protocol discussion, and do calculations while the in-person student performed the experiment. Since both students have read the protocol prior to the lab, they would work together to complete the experiment and document observations and data. The importance of communication between partners was emphasized to the students to promote teamwork and constructive discussion. Feedback and ideas for improvement were gathered from surveys of current students and focus groups consisting of students who had previously taken the course in the online format.
Reflection
Student and instructor experiences were collected via surveys and focus groups, as described below.
Survey Assessment
A short, IRB-approved survey was administered to students who had used the LabMate system as either an online participant or the in-person partner to a remote student. The survey consisted of Likert-scale and open response questions, refer to Supplemental Information. The class had over 60 students divided into four sections, and LabMate was used a total of 14 sessions throughout the semester. Of the 20 students who used LabMate as either a remote participant or partner of a remote participant, eight responded to the survey (N = 8, 40% response rate). Similar surveys were also administered to the five course instructors, refer to Supplemental Information. One instructor survey was collected (N = 1, 20% response rate).
Survey Results
Data collected from survey questions about hardware suggest that LabMate was highly effective for remotely connecting remote students to the laboratory. All students who responded agreed or strongly agreed that they could both hear and see through the system for the duration of the lab; however, video quality was not always consistent (Fig. 3). This is likely due to sporadic Wi-Fi connectivity in the laboratory space.
FIGURE 3.
Student-reported hardware quality. (a) The sound quality was clear, consistent, and overall good for the duration of the lab. (b) I could hear and understand the instructor and other students for the duration of the lab. (c) The video quality was clear, consistent, and overall good for the duration of the lab. (d) I could properly see through both cameras for the duration of the lab. Not all participants responded to all items, since these questions were not required.
Thematic analysis of open response questions generated six distinct themes (Table 1). The process of analysis consisted of looking for patterns across participants for emergent themes in the data.11 This was conducted by one researcher and reviewed by two other researchers, making it a collaborative coding process. This process allowed the researcher to synthesize these patterns in participant responses to clarify findings. Primary drawbacks of the system were hardware limitations, either due to insufficient battery life or poor internet connection. For example, the Surface Pro tablet would sometimes run out of battery during longer laboratory sessions, despite being connected to a high-powered external battery pack. Some participants reported that it was hard to hear or discern who was talking to them due to background noise. Another issue was the video lag, as remote participants were unable to watch certain steps of the experiment due to poor video quality; interestingly, other students reported that they had no issues with video quality. This is likely due to occasional poor internet connection rather than a shortcoming of the hardware. Battery issues were a more common theme among partners of remote participants, while audio and visual problems were only reported by online students. This is likely because if the battery ran out of power, the system had to be plugged into an electrical outlet, decreasing its mobility and accessibility for the in-person students.
Table 1.
Themes and respective quotes taken from open response survey questions.
| Theme | Example quotes | |
|---|---|---|
| Battery issues | At times, the battery would die quickly. We would need to plug it in frequently. (PRP) | The camera or tablet wasn't charged, which made it difficult to maneuver the LabMate setup because the devices had to be near an outlet. (PRP) |
| Audio/visual issues | At times the audio would be hard to hear if the person speaking was not directly next to the LabMate such as when the instructor was at the front of the room giving directions. (RP) | The only issue was that the Wi-Fi was not great and so the video would lag. (RP) |
| Interaction with peers and instructors | Having two cameras and speakers that allowed me to talk and hear what fellow students were saying encouraged more interaction. (RP) | I liked that I could see what the in-person partner was doing and that I could speak to them and engage with them in real time. (RP) |
| Participation | It was beneficial as it allowed me to still be able to participate in lab even when I could not physically be there. (RP) | I liked being able to work with my lab partner even though they couldn't come in person. (PRP) |
| View of lab | Being able to see different perspectives of the lab through the dual cameras. (RP) | Being able to see what was happening at the table was helpful. (RP) |
| Desire for hands-on learning | While I am a visual learner, I think not being able to hands-on participate in the lab was not beneficial. (RP) | Least beneficial was the inability to help especially with more hands-on labs. (RP) |
Remote participant (RP) or partner of remote participant (PRP) is indicated after each quote
Students appreciated the ability to attend lab or have their partner attend lab despite the student not being physically present. Remote participants enjoyed the ability to communicate with their partner in real time, and most agreed that the system encouraged them to interact with their peers and instructors. However, some felt that it was not enough, as one partner of a remote participant described, “It was easy to forget about the LabMate or not explain what you were doing to them.” Remote participants appreciated having two cameras streaming simultaneously as it provided them with a more complete view of the lab. They particularly enjoyed the GoPro camera angle, as it provided a close-up view of the experimental techniques. While LabMate provided a suitable virtual option lab session, students still felt that there was something missing from the experience. Multiple participants mentioned their desire for more hands-on learning.
The instructor feedback was similar to student responses, with the main negative of the system being the battery life of the tablet. One instructor reported that the tablet ran out of power on multiple occasions, causing online students to miss parts of the lab. Further, they reported that setting up the system was “a bit of a hassle”, but they still appreciated the ability for students to attend lab virtually in place of taking a make-up lab at the end of the semester. Finally, the instructor recommended utilizing a worksheet or other activity for the remote participant to both show and improve student participation.
Focus Group Assessment
IRB-approved focus groups were conducted with student pairs or groups who had taken the course in the purely online format as it was offered the previous year. Participants were given a demonstration of the system by attending the class in real time via LabMate, with one participant attending the lab session to emulate the lab partner experience. An in-person student or group was assigned to moderate LabMate, and the students worked together to complete the experiment. The online students were then invited to participate in a 30–60-min focus group regarding their experiences with LabMate. A semi-structured interview protocol was followed. A total of five students participated in the full demonstration and focus group (N = 5) and participants were split into two separate focus groups.
Focus Group Results
Thematic analysis of focus group transcripts produced four main themes (Table 2). Participants appreciated the interaction and connection with the lab that LabMate provided. Students enjoyed being able to talk to their partner as the experiment was being performed; further, engagement with their peers and instructors was enhanced when compared to the original online delivery method. One student shared,
I'd say I like LabMate better than my previous online experiences because I am able to talk to the person performing the procedure, they can talk to me about the steps they're performing, they can tell me about any errors they made, they can maybe ask me a question for clarification. We're basically able to work together, like we're able to follow the procedure together and make mistakes together.
Table 2.
Themes and respective quotes taken from focus groups conducted with previously online-only students.
| Theme | Example quotes | |
|---|---|---|
| Engagement with Peers and Instructors | I do feel more involved, and I feel like with this format, there's more responsibility on me to speak up and engage myself in the lab, because when you're in a Zoom meeting, it's easy to stay quiet and not talk to your partner. | I would say it's definitely more effective than online lab, because basically for all intents and purposes you are in the lab and you're able to engage with people in real time. |
| Dynamic and Interactive Lab | I feel like it's definitely more interactive because you're able to talk to the people performing the experiment as they're performing it. So, if those are your lab partners, you can ask them questions about why they're doing something… if you get a reply in the moment while you're thinking about it… it is more dynamic. | It really did enhance the learning and definitely was more interactive. And like I said, troubleshooting and doing that part of it for problem solving is very important for me, so even if I'm not specifically doing the experiment, I can still help the lab partner or I can still work through some of those problems that might occur. |
| Audio/Video Issues | I guess the audio quality could be improved a little bit in some way. Maybe if you had a… microphone that is attached to the participant or the person that's performing the procedure. | The one thing that I will say is that the camera was high quality, but I feel like the quality was a little bit detrimental to it because it was a little laggy sometimes and the frame rate would go down substantially at points. |
| Advice on Pedagogy | I think it would have been better to have both LabMate and also maybe a simulation on the side so we could visualize it on our own end. | The person performing the experiment needs to talk through every step, they need to tell you what's going on at each step, they need to detail out everything... it would basically kind of be like they were kind of vlogging the experiment. |
Words like “interactive” and “dynamic” were used frequently, and students felt positively about the ability to see and make mistakes in real time. They valued the troubleshooting process as a critical part of the laboratory experience. When asked about what they value in a lab class, one student reported, “There has to be more problem solving in actual lab courses and troubleshooting and making sure that all the processes are working properly before doing anything.” When interpreting data from biological systems, it is important to know and understand the details of the experimental mechanisms to properly troubleshoot and verify the validity of results. This aligns with the core competencies of a biomedical engineering student’s laboratory education,3,12 both indicating that students value this learning experience and that they were able to gain this experience from LabMate. All five of the participants agreed that they felt more engaged with the lab than previous online laboratory course offerings, and all agreed that they would rather use LabMate than other online lab delivery options.
While the system feedback was positive, there were still opportunities for improvement. The primary issue focus group participants encountered was audio glitching and/or video lagging. This was likely due to inconsistent internet connection, as Wi-Fi capabilities within the instructional lab room were limited. Participants also had ideas on how to better implement LabMate in the future. Examples include providing online students with a worksheet to complete or having the in-person student explain each step of the experiment in detail, much like they were “vlogging” the experiment. One student mentioned that a shared document between partners or groups would encourage more interaction as well.
Future Implementations
In future implementations of the LabMate system, there are improvements suggested by this study. First, while the high-powered external battery pack extended the duration of use, it was still limiting for longer labs (2+ h). The authors’ suggested revision is to prepare one battery pack for every 2 h of use. Next, to address audio issues, an external, wireless microphone could be added to the system. This would be worn by the instructor when lecturing and by the partner of the remote participant when performing the experiment. The microphone would attenuate background noise and highlight the voice of the wearer, making it easier for the remote participant to hear what is being said. We recommend a wireless lavalier or lapel microphone. To address the video quality in locations without strong wireless internet connections, an external USB-connection Wi-Fi card such as the TP-Link Archer T9UH or similar AC1900 device could be added, allowing for improved internet connectivity without the addition of an Ethernet cable. Though the more specific instructions described earlier and collaborative learning used in this implementation was more effective than the “hands-off” pilot approach,10 improvements can still be made. For example, expectations of what the partner of the remote participant should be doing, such as explaining the steps as they are performed (“vlogging” the experiment), will be made clearer in future implementations. Another possible addition is an extra, separate exercise specifically for the online student. This could be a simulation of the experiment, a worksheet, a shared document between lab partners, lab kits, or another activity to improve learning and engagement. Finally, we recommend that future implementations gather achievement data on students using this system to evaluate the effectiveness of meeting course learning objectives.
Summary
LabMate is an appropriate substitute for students who normally attend class in-person but require a remote option. It is a sufficient alternative to make up labs that is more cost-effective, time-effective, engaging, and helps the student stay on track with the sequential experiments. Overall, students preferred their experience with LabMate over prior online laboratory experiences, including for the same course as described in the introduction, evidenced by all focus group participants agreeing they would rather use LabMate than prior online delivery methods. They appreciated the ability to see the experiment performed in real time, as this gave them the opportunity to troubleshoot and engage with the material on a deeper level. Though lacking haptic feedback, students found the system to be engaging and dynamic, providing them with the opportunity to learn some of the core competencies of a BME undergraduate. Instructors appreciated the time-saving opportunity, when available, to offer the lab session remotely in place of make-up labs at the end of the semester, because this allowed more students to stay on track with the sequential nature of the course. Further, instructors liked the portability and accessibility of the system.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank the students and instructors for their participation and feedback.
Author Contributions
EMJ and KJJ designed the study. EMJ collected all project data. EMJ and JLS completed data analysis. EMJ drafted the manuscript and all authors revised the manuscript.
Funding
This work is supported by the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign Provost Initiative on Teaching Advancement.
Data Availability
All materials are available in the Supplemental Information.
Code Availability
Not applicable.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Consent to Participate
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
Consent for Publication
Not applicable.
Ethical Approval
This work is approved by University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign IRB # 22464.
Footnotes
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
References
- 1.Zacharia ZC. Examining whether touch sensory feedback is necessary for science learning through experimentation: a literature review of two different lines of research across K-16. Edu Res Rev. 2015 doi: 10.1016/j.edurev.2015.10.001. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Dixson MD. Creating effective student engagement in online courses: what do students find engaging? J Scholarsh Teach Learn. 2010;10(2):1–13. [Google Scholar]
- 3.Perreault EJ, Litt M, Saterbak A. Educational methods and best practices in BME laboratories. Ann Biomed Eng. 2006 doi: 10.1007/s10439-005-9030-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Levy Y. An empirical development of critical value factors (CVF) of online learning activities: an application of activity theory and cognitive value theory. Comput Educ. 2008;51(4):1664–1675. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2008.04.003. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Gaytan J, McEwen BC. Effective online instructional and assessment strategies. Am J Distance Ed. 2007;21(3):117–132. doi: 10.1080/08923640701341653. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Graham C, Gaviltay K, Lim BR, Craner J, Duffy T. Seven principles of effective teaching: a practical lens for evaluating online courses. Ext Pedagog Threaded-Top Discuss. 2001;2001:1. [Google Scholar]
- 7.Blassick C, David B, Storm A, Jensen P, Jensen K. Laboratory exercise to measure restriction enzyme kinetics. J Microbiol Biol Edu. 2019 doi: 10.1128/jmbe.v20i3.1703. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Jawad MN, Bhattacharjee A, Lehmann R, Busza A, Perez-Pinera P, Jensen K. Remote laboratory exercise to develop micropipetting skills. J Microbiol Biol Edu. 2021 doi: 10.1128/jmbe.v22i1.2399. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Bhattacharjee A, Johnson E, Perez-Pinera P, Jensen K. Development and implementation of a remote enzyme kinetics laboratory exercise. J Microbiol Biol Edu. 2022 doi: 10.1128/jmbe.00286-21. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Johnson E, Jensen K. Work in progress: practically present: developing a novel approach to remote laboratory learning and engagement through LabMate. 2022 ASEE Annu Conf Expo. 2022.
- 11.Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3(2):77–101. doi: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Feisel LD, Rosa AJ. The role of the laboratory in undergraduate engineering education. J Eng Edu. 2005 doi: 10.1002/j.2168-9830.2005.tb00833.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Data Availability Statement
All materials are available in the Supplemental Information.