ABSTRACT
This study examines and describes how various online remote laboratory courses, necessitated by the COVID-19 pandemic, were implemented at Hankuk University in Korea in 2020. We compared four general undergraduate laboratory courses, one each for physics, chemistry, biology, and earth science, and two major-level laboratory courses taught during the spring and fall of 2020. Employing a sociocultural perspective, we examined how the changes in structures at the macro-, meso-, and micro-levels shaped the responses of educational authorities and impacted the agency of university instructors. Instructors implemented various remote laboratory courses in each content area dependent upon availability and access to material resources, including access to video of laboratory activities, and also based on the nature of experimental data associated with each content area. Drawing from survey responses and in-depth interviews with instructors and students, we share findings about how instructor practices impacted the interactions of students, the processes for evaluation, and student learning. We discuss how the global pandemic has re-ignited the debate about the role and value of experimental laboratory activities for undergraduate science majors and about the significance of hands-on versus minds-on science learning. Implications for how universities approach laboratory coursework in the post-COVID-19 are discussed, and questions for university science instruction are raised for future research.
ABSTRACT
Objectives: Laboratory-acquired infection (LAI) of SARS-CoV is well known, but MERS-CoV or SARS-CoV-2 LAI has not yet been reported. Beginning last November, COVID-19 cases increased among laboratory staff at our 2,700-bed tertiary-care hospital. A 7-day home-quarantine policy for healthcare workers when household members were confirmed with SARS-COV-2 was lifted February 28. We investigated LAI and its risk factors. Methods: From March 21 to 25, all confirmed cases of COVID-19 among 176 laboratory staff were surveyed with questionnaire to collect the following data: symptom onset and period, SARS-CoV-2 PCR–positive sample date, age, sex, infection in household members, close contact with COVID-19 confirmed staff, work type, work unit, possibility of LAI and LAI risk factors. Results: In total, 54 laboratory staff (30.1%) were confirmed with SARS-CoV-2 infection;first 1 person on November 28 and 1 person on November 30, 2021, then 13 in February 2022 and 39 later in 2022. Overall, 22 cases had previously infected household members, and 9 cases suspected that they had had hospital contact with an infected patients through phlebotomy or bedside tests. In total, 25 cases of possible LAI mainly occurred in clusters of 3, 6, or 7 people through person-to-person transmission of a coworker who had an infected family member. The remaining 9 cases, including 1 sample receptionist, 2 urine analysis technicians, and 6 SARS-CoV-2 PCR test staff, may have been infected through an infected sample. However, person-to-person transmission was still possible because most shared a changing room and lounge in the same work unit. Conclusions: The most important cause of LAI is person-to-person transmission between coworkers;therefore, home quarantine is an effective measure to prevent LAI when a household member is infected wish SARS-CoV-2. Handling of infected specimens may be the second most common cause of LAI.
ABSTRACT
In 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic swept the globe and caused formal educational sites to shift from in-person instruction to remote learning. University laboratory courses that were previously hands-on were also transformed into remote courses. This study investigates how university students perceived their experiences of remote laboratory courses across various disciplines. This study was conducted at a large public university in the Republic of Korea that offers a variety of laboratory courses. Adopting a mixed-methods approach, we collected online survey responses from 338 students and conducted in-depth interviews with 18 students. The analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Bonferroni post hoc tests of survey responses found that students' perceptions of their remote laboratory courses differed significantly (p < .05) by discipline (physics, chemistry, biology, earth sciences, etc.). Student interviews revealed that these differences in perceptions were attributable to the different emergent teaching strategies used in each course. Based on these findings, for remote laboratory courses in the post-COVID-19 era, we suggest that course instructors clearly set learning objectives, carefully design videos of experiments, offer collaborative and synchronous online sessions, provide guidance and feedback on lab report writing, and introduce supportive assessments.