My revised proposal (originally submitted for consideration in fall 2005) is as follows:
(1) To complete development of a series of programmed, online tutorials using the “Blackboard” platform for students in Anthropology 101L: Physical Anthropology Laboratory (1 Unit); (2) to test and evaluate the effectiveness of these tutorials with statistical data collected from Blackboard and feedback obtained from student questionnaires; and (3) to adapt these tutorials to the stated objectives, instructions, contents and procedures used for in-class laboratory assignments; and (4) to devise methods to motivate students by actively using computer-assisted materials for in-class lab preparation.

I selected this problem because Anthropology 101L (Laboratory for Physical Anthropology) was designed primarily to meet the needs of non-science majors seeking to completion of lab prerequisite requirements for transfer to four-year institutions. Unfortunately, many of these students do not have even basic background in the measuring, computational, descriptive and/or analytical skills needed for student learning in a laboratory environment. Nor have they directly experienced working cooperatively in groups to solve problems. There remains a need to provide students on a “real-time” basis with specific, well-focused background and “refresher” knowledge which can be used to directly supplement and support activities in the lab course. This is because lab students have the option of taking the co-requisite Anthropology 101 concurrently from any available instructor who may schedule the coverage of critical topics, with different emphases, at different times during the semester. Further, the students who have completed the co-requisite during either of the two preceding semesters have the option to enroll in the lab course up to a year following completion of the co-requisite.

The benefits of flexibility, however, are frequently offset by the difficulty many students experience in relating the topical contents from previous lectures into the directed applications required by a current lab exercise. Personal experience has also shown that many students have neither the time (nor much inclination) to systematically review a previously-used lecture text or substitute reference materials) in order to recall, refresh, re-learn (or even learn anew) the background concepts needed for work in the lab. Hence, the possibilities offered for learning in the laboratory environment are greatly diminished, and the quality of learning as assessed in final laboratory work-products is not all that it might be.

Current experience with my three current Anthropology 101l lab students has largely confirmed the above in two ways. First, an informal oral survey was taken in each section at the beginning of new lab topics. After reading the handout and workbook sections for the current lab (distributed the prior week at the end of class), students were asked: “Do you feel that you have enough background in ______________ from the (anthropology) lecture to start today’s lab?” Most students (90% or more) invariably indicated by show of hands that they both needed and wanted a “review” of the underlying theory and basic lecture concepts. Usually, only 3 or 4 students (from lab sections of approximately 30 students each) indicated that the topics were adequately covered in lecture or that they remembered enough to be able to proceed. This was also true for the students taking both the lecture and lab concurrently: they often responded that “the topic hasn’t been covered yet” (even though the course syllabus may say otherwise).  Some students also grew bored with what they considered “busy work” (a direct quote from one of my student evaluations) because they saw little purpose in the details of lab work without an immediate connection to its overall purpose or significance. These anecdotal responses, together with the need to continually provide intensive, one-on-one remedial assistance to students during the lab period, demonstrate a fairly general “disconnect’ between the past learning and retention of basic, essential concepts obtained in lecture and their present application in the laboratory.

I also discovered, however, a problem in how students actually use (or, properly speaking, not use) the remedial resources made available to correct the so-called “disconnect” between the background requirements for the lab and their self-admitted inadequate preparation to undertake it. Since a relatively complete initial set of tutorials were completed before the start of the fall semester (when I had originally anticipated this research project would commence), I decided offer them via Blackboard to my current lab students on a “non-required” basis.  I amended the course syllabus to include a statement about the availability of the “Online Tutorials” and the advantages of using them—a “pitch” repeated at appropriate times throughout the semester. At the first class meeting on August 15th, I also conducted a one hour virtual “tour” of Blackboard and a complete run-through of Tutorial 1 (“Metric Measurement and Calculator Use”).

The results of the above efforts, thus far, have been disappointing: Based only on  incomplete data from Blackboard (1) only 63 percent of all currently-enrolled students (84 in all) in the three lab sections completed the initial logon procedures for Blackboard during the first seven weeks of the course; (2) among the “logged-on” students, less than 60 “hits” on Blackboard for all three lab sections during the weeks from August 15 through October 1, 2005 were recorded; and (3) overall Blackboard use by students appears largely confined to reading announcements, sending emails and (minimally) online discussion. Use of the actual tutorials (including related discussion board forums) is unclear because of a programming problem with the Blackboard program (i.e. it will not generate any specific statistics from the so-called “Content Areas” (including the “Assignments” section where the tutorials were been uploaded).  It seems probable that it will be at least as important to find practical ways to motivate students to actually use the tutorials as it will be to develop relevant and useful content. Based on the above experience, I will mandate use of the tutorials in the two lab sections designated as “experimental” (i.e. the 12:00 and 3:00 PM sections) and monitor student usage via Blackboard. Students in the experimental group will also be required to complete a specific “homework” assignment based on their personal interaction with the tutorial prior to the in-class lab. The “control” group, however, (i.e. the 7:00 pm section) will not   
have access to the tutorials and will only receive my standard list of websites and written resources to assist them in obtaining background and preparing for the labs. It is anticipated that the overlap in these materials between the experimental and control groups will be minimal.

Questions continually arise in the teaching of Anthro 101L about the particular types of student learning that take place in the context of separate “lecture” courses and adjunct “laboratory” sections. Relating these in a laboratory environment is a challenge that is also faced by instructors teaching “lecture” and “lab” sections in other disciplines. In a recently-circulated memorandum on “How to Write Student Learning Outcomes,” a “Classification of Cognitive Skills” is presented outlining six “cognitive skills categories” that might provide a useful structure for understanding and operationalizing useful connections between separate  “lecture” and “lab” components” which could be used “…to create “learning outcomes” that tap into each individual (student’s)…ability levels.” For example, the learning behaviors articulated by the author as Category I and II (i.e., “Knowledge” and “Comprehension”) seem directly applicable to the design of the  lecture component of a course , while Category  III, IV, V and VI behaviors (“Application”, “Analysis,” “Synthesis” and “Evaluation”) seem more naturally to fall within the purview of the laboratory component.

My first objective is to define and apply Category I and II definitions and behaviors as lecture review and “refresher” components, which can be used in the lab as an interactive resource that could be accessed by students involved in Category II, IV and V activities  (i.e., collecting and describing data, formulating testable questions, performing analysis and drawing conclusions). Such a resource would help(a) enable rapid and accurate assessment of current student “knowledge” and “comprehension” for particular lab “applications”), (b) provide accessible, directed and structured access to specific information needed for lab activities, (c) encourage and reward individual students to enhance, re-acquire (or acquire for the first time) the knowledge needed to successfully perform “comprehension” tasks in a self-paced, feedback-intensive format on an “as-needed” basis; and which (d) allows regular interaction with and feedback by instructor and student peers. Simply assuming that students possess the knowledge and skills required to perform well in the lab, simply by virtue of the fact that they are completing or have completed a co-requisite course, is insufficient. Delaying a “check for understanding” to assess individual competency in vital knowledge areas until after their application during an in-class lab assignment, does not contribute much either to effective student learning, or to lab instructor satisfaction.

The “Blackboard” platform will serve as an inexpensive, relatively easy resource to deliver such “knowledge tutorials” to lab students. The current set of 15 tutorials will be required for use by all students in two (2) lab sections during spring 2006.  The third lab section will be the “control: section and will be conducted without using the online tutorials. Each tutorial will consist of : (1) background information consistent with that received during lectures; (2) an introductory tutorial  relevant to the background, context and methodological requirements of the entire lab exercise; (3) station by station web-based tutorial materials where students may practice, reinforce and repeat as often as necessary the procedural, measurement, data collection and manipulation, computation, graphing, plotting and other descriptive skills required by a particular in-class lab exercise; and (4) a required “pre-assignment” which summarizes the key points needed for each in-class lab and which provides focused feedback to the instructor on the level of student preparation for each upcoming in-class lab exercise. As planned, each tutorial should provide a self-contained and readily accessible basis for the “application,” “analysis,”  “synthesis” and “evaluation” of skills required in each anthropology lab application.

All students (experimental and controls) enrolled in spring 2006 will receive the same basic course orientation and the individual lab exercises. Each will be required to complete a confidential written questionnaire (QUESTIONNAIRE I) dealing with their experience in taking the “co-requisite” Anthro 101 course (either concurrently or as already completed). Part I will contain fixed-choice response questions concerning the topical content of the lecture course will be included to assess the level of past learning and retention of selected core anthropological knowledge-areas (Examples: “Define “Evolution” in two or three short sentences,” “Explain how Natural Selection works,” “List  ______ different species of primates,” “Name ______ important hominid fossil discoveries” and “Solve the following single-trait genetics problem”). Part II will contain more general course-related questions, such as: “How well do you feel the lecture course has prepared you/is preparing you for Anthropology 101L?” or “List three things you learned during the lecture course” Part III contains inquiries about the student’s themselves, their personal, work and educational history, GPA, math and science interest and background (if any), experience with computers (e.g., email, internet, word-processing and spreadsheet use) and whether or not students have experience using “Blackboard.” In Part IV, students will also be asked about their educational plans and their specific reason for taking in Anthropology 101L.

All experimental students will be informed about the required tutorials via the course syllabus and weekly at lab briefings, in addition to a thorough orientation at the first class session on “Blackboard” logon and access procedures (including the use of Blackboard discussion postings and responses, and the various communication functions). Weekly lab handouts will be integrated with online tutorial contents. Students will be required to complete specific parts of the tutorial in writing as a necessary preparation for the in-class lab. Since tutorial/handouts will be available 24/7 online, students will be able to freely download materials and work at their own pace to complete the required preparation for each in-class lab. Both the tutorials and in-class lab exercise(s) based upon them will be turned in as required homework/in-class lab assignments and each will receive a letter grade. The use of all “optional” resources (except for the online bibliography) will be discontinued.

Student progress in the experimental sections will be monitored via Blackboard and via periodic questionnaires (QUESTIONNAIRE II) attached to selected lab handouts for students to provide specific feedback after both the tutorial and the in-class lab assignment have been completed. Some of the specific feedback areas include: (a) quality of tutorial contents, i.e. “Was this tutorial helpful in providing background information and preparation for the lab and how?); (b) design of the tutorial; i.e., “Was this tutorial interesting, engaging and clearly presented and why?; (c)  tutorial focus and efficiency of presentation, i.e. “How much time did you need to complete the tutorial?,” “Were any “gaps” or other problems apparent?;” (d) tutorial relevance, i.e. “Was the tutorial too easy or too hard?” “Did this tutorial really help me to do better in this lab and in the course?” At the end of the course, an effort will be made to link the reported questionnaire data with more objective criteria of student success in the course (tutorial/lab grades, exam and quiz scores, etc.). 

I plan to solicit specific advice regarding the structure and content of Questionnaires I and II from experienced professionals and faculty at COC. I am currently in process of doing an online search for comparable instruments to get some ideas about designing specific forms for evaluating different kinds of online resources. 

Periodic progress reports and the final project report will be prepared in the spring semester based on (a) Blackboard use statistics, (b) student questionnaires and other ad hoc input and (c) personal instructor experiences and anecdotal observations. In addition to enhancing student learning in general, it is anticipated that this project could provide the basis for recommending other course improvements, such as (d) replacing current student lab reports with alternative means of appraisal, such as individual or group skills demonstrations or other presentations; (e) reducing the number and size of the expensive, multi-page lab handouts currently provided to students at Division/District expense, by replacing them with online resources via Blackboard that can be downloaded as-needed and at will; and (f) permanently eliminating the use of expensive laboratory manuals and workbooks in favor of a variety computer-based resources that are compatible with different learning styles and cognitive learning modes.

The objectives of this research are consistent with the mission of the Institute of Teaching and Learning and its stated goals “to promote and enhance instruction…” (through) ongoing support and promotion of teaching skills among faculty, to strengthen the culture of teaching, to serve as a symbol of College of the Canyon’s commitment to excellence in teaching and to influence policy that will support the development of an excellent teaching and learning environment” (Institute Mission Statement). In particular, this research seeks to promote active learning among students. As a trainee in the Institute-sponsored COC Associate Program, I learned critically-important lessons in good teaching, such as the need to teach according to clearly-stated objectives (i.e. “learning outcomes”), care in planning, presentational timing, the need to continually “check for understanding” during the learning process (“assessment”) and, most of all, the need for active learning and “clear, interactive communication between the teacher and learners.” In the Online Certificate Program (June 2004), I was continually impressed with the multiplicity of ways that students learn and continue to be motivated by the  additional possibilities for effective face-to-face teaching and student learning that are supplemented with appropriate online resources appealing to different cognitive styles at any time and on demand. I believe that these approaches are critical if the boundaries between the classroom and the laboratory are to be integrated for the benefit of students in all disciplines. 

This proposal attempts to build on a “hybrid” model for a laboratory course by testing a single question: “Can specific, lab-critical knowledge (Anthropology 101) be newly-acquired, reinforced, supplemented, learned anew, or even corrected by an individual learner in specific laboratory problem-solving contexts? (Anthro 101L) through the controlled use of online resources? Stated another way: “Can student learning in the laboratory be measurably enhanced through the timely delivery of appropriate, supplemental knowledge that is relevant, well-designed, engaging and readily available via Blackboard or other types of electronic media platforms?” Finally, how much structure, programming and “discipline” should be required, as opposed to the number and kind of options, alternatives, flexibility and personal choice tolerated, to ensure that students are ultimately successful in achieving specified learning outcomes and attaining their educational goals, while still remaining motivated to learn? 

A total of 90 students in three separate lab sections will participate in this research project during the spring 2006 semester. Sixty (60) students will comprise the experimental groups(s) using and evaluating the tutorials. A control group of thirty (30) students will serve as a control group without the use of tutorials.

I have learned thus far that individual student initiative and ability in the organizing, scheduling and use of resources is not something that can be taken for granted—especially where teaching and learning must be integrated within a hybrid online and face-to-face environment. I believe, however, that with high expectations and with the parameters clearly set, students will still have room to exercise a tremendous amount of flexibility, creativity and freedom in the process, and thus benefit greatly from the unique learning context of laboratory investigation and discovery. I hope to continue learning about and improving the feasibility of providing of providing remedial information to students on an individual, “as-needed” basis in such a way that student performance in a laboratory environment can be both better motivated and continually improved. I am anxious to use both online and “hands-on” resources together in teaching anthropology. Further, can students be better motivated and enjoy greater success in laboratory learning with opportunities to communicate among themselves and with the instructor and provide critical feedback using email,  “Blackboard” or other online communication platforms? Experience has shown me that student communication skills in a college-level course are always critical—but they are “acquired skills…that are not usually practiced by the majority of students unless (their) value has been demonstrated.” There is also much to be learned, specifically, about laboratory teaching  per se from this project; i.e. what can we learn about the role and function of a “lab instructor,” and the boundaries between what we should absolutely require students to learn and perform, as opposed to what we allow them to discover (or not discover) on their own?