Physiology educators’ attitudes, experiences and recommendations after an abrupt transition to remote laboratories
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The COVID‐19 pandemic has been associated with university lockdowns, forcing physiology educators to pivot laboratories into a remote delivery format. This study documents the experiences of ten physiology educators from Australia, Canada, the U.S. and the U.K. as they rapidly transitioned to remote laboratories in March‐July, 2020. They wrote reflective narratives that explored their experiences and attitudes about virtual laboratories before, during and after the transition to remote delivery. Thematic analysis of the reflections found that before COVID‐19, few of the educators had utilized virtual laboratories, with most believing that virtual laboratories could not replace the in‐person laboratory experience. In response to university lockdowns, the educators transitioned from traditional on‐campus, in‐person laboratories to off‐campus, remote laboratories within a week or less. This transition was mainly achieved by using commercially available online laboratory software, home‐made videos and sample experimental data (collected before COVID‐19). Opportunities associated with the remote transition included new collaborations (local and international), the exploration of unfamiliar technologies and revisiting the laboratory course curriculum and structure. However, the experience also generated challenges including excessive workloads, lack of expertise, disparities in online and workspace access, academic integrity issues, educator/student stress, changes in learning outcomes and a perceived reduction in student engagement (particularly due to the loss of educator‐student and student‐student interactions). Despite these challenges, most of the educators planned on retaining successful aspects of the remote laboratories post‐pandemic, particularly with a blended model of remote and in‐person (on‐campus) laboratories. This study concludes with recommendations and practical strategies for physiology educators as to how they can plan, develop, deliver and assess effective remote laboratories.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".