E-Learn 2016 - Washington, DC, United States, November 14-16, 2016

Importance of Formative Assessment for Virtual Lab Instruction

Gerri Light, MSIDT & Mary Alberici, Ph.D.

Western Governors University

-1366-
 E-Learn 2016 - Washington, DC, United States, November 14-16, 2016

Importance of Formative Assessment for Virtual Lab Instruction

Providing virtual laboratory and hands on instruction and practice is a growing aspect of online education
for a number of reasons. Virtual lab environments provide online students with a range of options, from guided,
instructor-led environments to augmented reality labs. It is notable that in all virtual lab environments the students,
instructors, and administrators all need techniques or methods to measure the effectiveness of these virtual lab
learning experiences. Students need ongoing quizzes and self-testing tools. Faculty require ongoing formative
assessment to better serve their student population. And administrators demand ongoing data that shows how these
sometimes expensive virtual labs actually contribute to online student success.
Thus ongoing formative assessment is critical to both effective implementation and to student success in
these online environments. In the instance of competency based learning environments, the instructor plays the
pivotal role of formatively assessing the effectiveness of the virtual lab experience on student outcomes, and then
communicating that information to program development and instructional designers. In more traditional online
environments the formative assessments may be actual testing instruments, or online activities designed to measure
student engagement and progress.

Virtual Lab Instruction

As online education continues to develop there is a corresponding increase in the use of virtual lab
environments for instruction that are either hosted on site or by cloud computing technologies (Dukhanov, Karpova,
& Bochenina, 2014). Virtual labs range from interactive personations such as those created with Sharable Content
Object Reference Model (SCORM) technologies, to those created with augmented reality technologies (Learning
Technologies Group, n.d.; Wu, Lee, Chang, & Liang, 2013). Having a range of virtual technologies allows for both
synchronous and asynchronous online learning opportunities, and allows online instructors to leverage hands on
instruction for almost any category of academic study. However, labs that are pre-built (MeasureUp or LabSim,
among others) are designed for the larger audience and may not match the features and quality that an instructor-
designed lab would include, to address the identified needs and learning styles of specific student populations.
So in addition to the consideration of academic subject, method of online instruction, and online lab
environment, the learning styles and preferences of the student population must be considered, as well as the
preferred instructional strategies of the faculty. Knowing that one online student may have learning preferences
supported by a more traditional educational environment, while another student in the same course has only ever
attended virtual classrooms makes a big difference in how a course is designed. And there is also that range of
online experience for the teaching faculty.
Thus during the design of the virtual lab it is crucial to ensure that this range of experience by both students
and faculty be considered, and that the lab design be focused on the desired student outcomes (Tatli & Ayas, 2013).
And of course it is vital to include built-in consideration for ongoing formative assessment by both students and
faculty.
Virtual Lab Content and Assessment Considerations

When designing and integrating a virtual lab experience with academic content, it is important to ensure
that the technology involved is not only prescriptive or technologically engaging, but that it is geared toward the
expected learning outcomes that are to be achieved (Konak, Clark, & Nasereddin, 2014). With this in mind, the
content of the virtual lab and the formative and summative assessments involved must be aligned with the expected
learning outcomes, while allowing the online faculty as much individual choice as possible. This freedom of choice
and consideration of teaching styles is critical to successful faculty performance. Because although assessment
information may be gathered through testing outcomes and collating that data, true assessment of knowledge gained
is more likely to be observable during student/instructor dialogue. Such observational assessment, combined with
other formative data, is a rich source of feedback on whether the virtual lab environment is meeting student
instructional needs.
Depending on the teaching styles and level of interaction by faculty, student/instructor dialogue may take
place in discussion forums, individual chat rooms, or even phone calls and private email exchanges. Providing a

-1367-
 E-Learn 2016 - Washington, DC, United States, November 14-16, 2016

number of channels for this interaction is the key. The dialogues themselves will provide the instructor with
feedback and formative data on the effectiveness of the online lab experience for individual students.
Another consideration is that to promote this type of dialogue, instructors may need to shift from their
habitual roles. In other words, faculty may need to learn to facilitate an online student to not only be able to recite
facts, but also to express and apply concepts and theories related to the virtual learning material. The Kolb Educator
Role Profile (KERP) is a newly developed tool that provides a way for online instructors to self-assess and develop
their facilitator role, to improve both formative assessment and student learning outcomes (Experienced Based
Learning Systems, n.d.).
Based on Kolbs work on experiential learning, the KERP profile indicator shifts from a focus on the
learner back to a focus on the instructional characteristics or style used by the educator. To be more effective,
online instructors working in virtual learning lab environments may want to develop an awareness of these differing
approaches to increase their efficacy with a broader range of students and situations (Kolb et al, n.d.).

KERP Support for Distance Learning

An individuals results from the KERP profile provide an overview of instructional characteristics and
suggested teaching strategies for each characteristic. Consider the following graphic, that shows the most common
educator roles and characteristics:

In this static representation of KERP, there are two educator roles that focus on meaning. Note that an
individual high in the subject expert quadrant (lower right quadrant) is likely to demonstrate a reflective,
authoritative style and rely on providing instruction using lectures and texts, much as they have done in traditional
brick and mortar classrooms. Compare this to an individual high in the facilitator quadrant (upper right quadrant),
who is likely to demonstrate a warm, affirming style that relies on creating relationships and an ongoing dialogue
with students. Then there are two instructional styles that are focused on action. These include the standard setter
(lower left quadrant), a traditional approach used in many STEM subjects, that teaches for objective standards and
focuses on both formative and summative assessments. Finally, there is the role of coach, which is actively
collaborative and uses ongoing dialogue and feedback with students to formatively assess and refine the
instructional process.
Educators who provide online instruction utilizing virtual lab environments will find that their subject
matter expertise will always be needed, but they may need to broaden their facilitator expertise to better determine

-1368-
 E-Learn 2016 - Washington, DC, United States, November 14-16, 2016

the actual knowledge and skills gained by their students. Faculty who willingly broaden their abilities to assess and
facilitate in multiple ways will also greatly increase their effectiveness as online instructors.
Ongoing assessment of both student learning and faculty effectiveness ensures virtual lab activities are
more than prescriptive and are well connected to the content and to individual student needs. In all cases, the
instructor plays the pivotal role of formatively assessing the effectiveness of the virtual lab experience on student
outcomes, and then communicating that information to program development and instructional designers. And the
best way to acquire this formative information is by broadening faculty understanding of educator roles in online
environments.

Using the KERP

Using the KERP model to actively improve educator effectiveness is a simple and rewarding practice. Just
as educators encourage their students to ask deeper questions and reflect on what they are learning, educators that
grow in effectiveness must ask themselves deeper questions and reflect on how they think about their roles and
student outcomes. The following graphic shows the ongoing, interactive nature of the four key educator roles from
the KERP model. Note that this is the same model, but emphasizes the cyclic nature of effective teaching. In other
words, all truly effective educators cycle through these roles, but they may have one or two aspects that feel more
natural or comfortable.

(Kolb et al, n.d.)

So a powerful tool for improving effectiveness of online virtual lab instruction will be to help each
individual online faculty move beyond comfortable and habitual roles, to explore new instructional styles and
strategies, and to continually practice formative assessment that can gauge the effectiveness of virtual labs and make
a real difference in student outcomes. For those who wish to explore the Kolb Educator Role Profile and begin
using it to improve outcomes in their virtual labs and classrooms, it is available at Experienced Based Learning
Systems, Inc.

-1369-
 E-Learn 2016 - Washington, DC, United States, November 14-16, 2016

References

Dukhanov, A., Karpova, M., & Bochenina, K. (2014). Design virtual learning labs for courses incomputational
science with use of cloud computing technologies. Procedia Computer Science, 29, 2472-2482.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2014.05.231
Experienced Based Learning Systems (n.d.). What is experiential learning. Retrieved from
http://learningfromexperience.com/
Kolb, A., Kolb, D., Passarelli, A., & Sharma, G. (n.d.). On becoming an experiential educator: The educator role
profile. Retrieved from
http://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0LEVv4UZOlXTjkAjPQnnIlQ;_ylu=X3oDMTEyanFmaTE3BGNvbG8D
YmYxBHBvcwM4BHZ0aWQDQjI3OTVfMQRzZWMDc3I-/RV=2/RE=1474942101/RO=10/RU=http
%3a%2f%2flearningfromexperience.com%2fmedia%2f2014%2f02%2fERP-ebls-working-paper-2-
14.pdf/RK=0/RS=CP4Wk_IqOV9kQmDA2YfgiEHr6bE-
Konak, A., Clark, T. K., & Nasereddin, M. (2014). Using Kolbs Learning Cycle to improve student learning in
virtual computer laboratories. Computers & Education, 74, 11-22. Retrieved from
http://www.journals.elsevier.com/computers-and-education
Learning Technologies Group (n.d.). SCORM explained. Retrieved from http://scorm.com/scorm-explained/
Tatli, Z., & Ayas, A. (2013). Effect of a virtual Chemistry laboratory on students achievement. Educational
Technology & Society, 16(1), 159-170. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/jeductechsoci.16.1.159
Wu, H., Lee, S. W., Chang, H., & Liang, J. (2013). Current status, opportunities and challenges of augmented reality
in education. Computer & Education, 63, 41-49.
http://dx.doi.org/dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.10.024

-1370-