A general outline for each activity is listed below:
1. Pre-opinion survey
2. Background of “Need to Know” information 3. Pre test
4. Procedure
5. Post test discussion 6. Post test
7. Post-opinion survey
The first step in implementing and evaluating the laboratory activities was to conduct a
preliminary survey to evaluate the students‟ opinions and attitudes towards science. The survey included four Likert scale questions for the pre-opinion survey and five Likert scale questions for the post-opinion survey as well as two multiple choice questions in each and a few additional short answer questions. The scale includes five different options for the students to choose from including: strongly disagree, disagree, neutral, agree, and strongly agree (Mogey, 1999). This survey is included in Appendix E.
We have taken into consideration the findings of previous WPI education projects in Thailand which found that students often copied their peers when asked to articulate their thoughts (Amendolare, Briskey, LaGoy, Largesse, & Orme-Johnson, 2008; Whitten-Kassner, Patrick, Okumura, & Colangelo, 2009). The project team encouraged the teachers at the Baan
25
Na Yao School to have the students express their own thoughts and ideas while taking our surveys.
Before the students performed the laboratory activity the teacher provided background information on the subject matter. This included a lecture by the teacher and a discussion in which the students were encouraged to asked questions.
After the background discussion a worksheet was distributed to the students to serve as a preliminary evaluation. This „pre test‟ tested the students‟ knowledge on the subject matter. The pre test contained a few short answer questions, true or false, or multiple choice questions most of which were easily answerable, a few which were harder to answer, and one question that the students should not have been able to answer. The one temporarily unanswerable question as suggested by Professor William Clark, of Worcester Polytechnic Institute, was used as a way to keep the students actively thinking throughout the experiment. This question would be
answerable upon completion of the activity (Clark, 2009). This suggestion was obtained through an interview with Professor Clark, the notes of which can be seen in Appendix A.
After completion of the pre test the teacher distributed and explained the laboratory procedure to the students to allow them the opportunity to ask any clarifying questions. The Baan Na Yao teachers conducted the laboratory activities independently from the project team. The Thai members of the team were available for assistance when needed. The laboratory activities were conducted in this manner so that in the future teachers would be able to conduct them on their own. “Clinical research can be influenced by many factors that are capable of invalidating results, and one of these factors is known as the Hawthorne effect: the mere awareness of being under observation can alter the way in which a person behaves (De Amici, Klersy, Ramajoli, Brustia, & Politi, 2000).” Through discussion with the three previous IQP teams that had similar projects to this, we learned that direct assistance from the team members in the classroom
affected the students‟ interactions and performance. It was also noted that the teachers tended to use the project team as assistant teachers. This was avoided by the initial clarification that the project team was there to teach the teachers, not the students. The Chulalongkorn students observed how the Baan Na Yao students were progressing, their interactions with each other, and their interactions with the teachers. The problems the teachers and students encountered and problems with the laboratory procedures were noted for consideration in the final lab manuals.
26
After the laboratory activity was completed the teacher distributed the post test and then the post- opinion survey (included in Appendix E) to the students. We compared the science opinion surveys to determine if the students‟ opinions on science had changed. The post test handout posed the previously unanswerable question. Having completed the laboratory activity, the students should have been able to answer this question. In addition to this other questions were asked to determine the students understanding of the concepts of the laboratory activity. These questions required problem solving using these concepts. The pre and post test questions are included in each laboratory activity in the developed manuals.
The Chulalongkorn members of the project team met with each of the teachers to discuss the outcome of the laboratory activities. The topics of this discussion included the students‟ increased knowledge from the activities and student engagement and group dynamics. The project team gave the teachers a Likert scale and short answer question survey to assess their opinions and feedback on the laboratory activities. This survey is included in Appendix E and the results from these surveys are included in Appendix F. The meetings with and surveys of the teachers helped the team determine the success of the activities. The success of the activities was defined as both an increase in student knowledge and engagement and a high level of teacher confidence in teaching the designed activities using active teaching methods. The data collected from these observations was also used to evaluate the feasibility of the activities‟ sustainment in future years as well as the ability to have the activity spread to other schools.