social distancing lab fall 2020

[Caracal]

There's a tendency to want to just shut off discussions based on the idea of increased risk, but that isn't going to work.

Caracal,  stop repeating the general talking points you've picked up from the mass media as though they were useful information.

You continue to be underinformed because you don't have the relevant background to know what to accept at face value, what needs more detail because of all the factors to be balanced, and what are extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence.

Read what informed people are discussing and become more informed.  People on this thread are discussing risks and trade offs, but you don't know because you don't teach labs.

I've reported this post to the moderators. It is part of a pattern of behavior where you seem unable to actually engage in discussion and prefer to make ad hominem attacks claiming that I haven't read the right things and am uninformed. Unclear what those correct things are, or why my post would elicit such a bizarrely inappropriate response.

Also, these attempts to police who can and can't speak are really toxic. A few weeks ago you were confidently pronouncing about the job prospects of Africanist historians, a topic that it was painfully apparent you knew nothing about.

[the_geneticist]

I have a co-worker that was told that they will do in-person labs until a mid-semester break and then to to entirely online.  For the in-person part of the lab, it's a small enough class that it's run as a "workshop" where 1/2 the students are in the lab each day.  The other half of the students spends that day analyzing data, writing their lab report, and planning the next step.  It makes the labs a bit offset from each other, but that normally happens anyway due to holidays.

[spork]

I have a co-worker that was told that they will do in-person labs until a mid-semester break and then to to entirely online.  For the in-person part of the lab, it's a small enough class that it's run as a "workshop" where 1/2 the students are in the lab each day.  The other half of the students spends that day analyzing data, writing their lab report, and planning the next step.  It makes the labs a bit offset from each other, but that normally happens anyway due to holidays.

To what degree would you describe these labs as recipe-driven, by which I mean "here is the lab apparatus, do steps A, B, and C, record the data, then analyze the data at home and write up your results as a lab report due next week"?

[the_geneticist]

I have a co-worker that was told that they will do in-person labs until a mid-semester break and then to to entirely online.  For the in-person part of the lab, it's a small enough class that it's run as a "workshop" where 1/2 the students are in the lab each day.  The other half of the students spends that day analyzing data, writing their lab report, and planning the next step.  It makes the labs a bit offset from each other, but that normally happens anyway due to holidays.

To what degree would you describe these labs as recipe-driven, by which I mean "here is the lab apparatus, do steps A, B, and C, record the data, then analyze the data at home and write up your results as a lab report due next week"?

I'd say they are using common molecular techniques, but each student has a different gene/variable they are testing.  It's also a new-ish lab so they don't have an existing data set that they could give the students to analyze.  Plus, as majors, they are expected to get the "hand on" skills and know HOW to properly use the equipment/reagents/etc to be prepared for the next courses.

[spork]

I have a co-worker that was told that they will do in-person labs until a mid-semester break and then to to entirely online.  For the in-person part of the lab, it's a small enough class that it's run as a "workshop" where 1/2 the students are in the lab each day.  The other half of the students spends that day analyzing data, writing their lab report, and planning the next step.  It makes the labs a bit offset from each other, but that normally happens anyway due to holidays.

To what degree would you describe these labs as recipe-driven, by which I mean "here is the lab apparatus, do steps A, B, and C, record the data, then analyze the data at home and write up your results as a lab report due next week"?

I'd say they are using common molecular techniques, but each student has a different gene/variable they are testing.  It's also a new-ish lab so they don't have an existing data set that they could give the students to analyze.  Plus, as majors, they are expected to get the "hand on" skills and know HOW to properly use the equipment/reagents/etc to be prepared for the next courses.

So that leads to the question "is this something non-majors 'have to' know?" Are there labs that are required for students not majoring in a science? If so, can they be reformulated so they aren't using labs as much?

(I understand that they typical undergrad taking a genetics lab isn't able to do CRISPR editing at home in the kitchen sink.) 

[the_geneticist]

I have a co-worker that was told that they will do in-person labs until a mid-semester break and then to to entirely online.  For the in-person part of the lab, it's a small enough class that it's run as a "workshop" where 1/2 the students are in the lab each day.  The other half of the students spends that day analyzing data, writing their lab report, and planning the next step.  It makes the labs a bit offset from each other, but that normally happens anyway due to holidays.

To what degree would you describe these labs as recipe-driven, by which I mean "here is the lab apparatus, do steps A, B, and C, record the data, then analyze the data at home and write up your results as a lab report due next week"?

I'd say they are using common molecular techniques, but each student has a different gene/variable they are testing.  It's also a new-ish lab so they don't have an existing data set that they could give the students to analyze.  Plus, as majors, they are expected to get the "hand on" skills and know HOW to properly use the equipment/reagents/etc to be prepared for the next courses.

So that leads to the question "is this something non-majors 'have to' know?" Are there labs that are required for students not majoring in a science? If so, can they be reformulated so they aren't using labs as much?

(I understand that they typical undergrad taking a genetics lab isn't able to do CRISPR editing at home in the kitchen sink.)

The class I'm describing above is only for science-majors.

However, I do teach labs for non-majors.  All students have to take 4 credits of science with a lab to graduate.  I get students who are majoring in:history, political science, English, engineering, computer science, etc.  For those students, I'm not worried about them learning a particular technique or how to use any certain piece of equipment.  Instead, my goals are for them to see that science is relevant to their lives (and hopefully think it's interesting, but that's a bonus).  Lots of folks think that science is just memorizing a collection of facts, rather than a process of discovery and a way of thinking.  So, my wet labs have a real research project where each student gets to discover something new.  And actually new, not just new to them.  I usually run a DNA barcoding project.  It's a lot of work, but very rewarding.
Now that the lab is online, I'm focusing more on the process of science in the context of the current pandemic.  So, they are learning a lot about how to read graphs, make predictions, play around with epidemiology models, etc.  Again, lots of work, but very interesting.

[marshwiggle]

However, I do teach labs for non-majors.  All students have to take 4 credits of science with a lab to graduate.  I get students who are majoring in:history, political science, English, engineering, computer science, etc.  For those students, I'm not worried about them learning a particular technique or how to use any certain piece of equipment.  Instead, my goals are for them to see that science is relevant to their lives (and hopefully think it's interesting, but that's a bonus).  Lots of folks think that science is just memorizing a collection of facts, rather than a process of discovery and a way of thinking.  So, my wet labs have a real research project where each student gets to discover something new.  And actually new, not just new to them.  I usually run a DNA barcoding project.  It's a lot of work, but very rewarding.
Now that the lab is online, I'm focusing more on the process of science in the context of the current pandemic.  So, they are learning a lot about how to read graphs, make predictions, play around with epidemiology models, etc.  Again, lots of work, but very interesting.

I've thought for years that I'd love to create a "scientific literacy" course for non-scientists, getting into a whole bunch of issues from both natural and social science including uncertainties, Type I and II errors, cognitive biases, extrapolation, etc...

[mythbuster]

Our labs are twice a week, so that greatly simplifies one aspect for us. Each class will be split in half and have on day of the week in lab, and another with an online component. We are currently in the planning/triage step of what are the things that MUST be done by hand, vs. those that can be simulated online. Thankfully, our lab uses a relatively small number of hands on techniques so students can learn the techniques in lab and then apply that knowledge to the simulations. They won't be as good at the techniques at the end of the course as a normal semester, but they will have had the experience.
   Doing this is a TON of work, and I'm not even the lab coordinator, I just teach the lecture that goes with the lab.

[Stockmann]

We'd run in the Spring regardless.  It won't be worse than the Fall.

This. Even if all vaccine and antiviral trials fail, it's very unlikely things will be worse in Spring 2021 than in Fall 2020. So it makes sense to postpone stuff/have stopgap measures that are unsustainable in the long run for the rest of 2020.

I'm thinking obviously relevant stuff here is lab space and degree of ventilation. With fume hoods, etc, chemistry labs are probably relatively well-positioned, but other labs probably aren't.
The biggest problems I see with switching practicals from groups or pairs to individual practicals is equipment - there's probably just not enough equipment for that, and probably not enough benches.

[the_geneticist]

We'd run in the Spring regardless.  It won't be worse than the Fall.

This. Even if all vaccine and antiviral trials fail, it's very unlikely things will be worse in Spring 2021 than in Fall 2020. So it makes sense to postpone stuff/have stopgap measures that are unsustainable in the long run for the rest of 2020.

I'm thinking obviously relevant stuff here is lab space and degree of ventilation. With fume hoods, etc, chemistry labs are probably relatively well-positioned, but other labs probably aren't.
The biggest problems I see with switching practicals from groups or pairs to individual practicals is equipment - there's probably just not enough equipment for that, and probably not enough benches.

See what it would cost to buy more.  I put my foot down and insisted that we have enough equipment for students to work individually in my labs.  Making students work in teams due to equipment shortage, not because the project is so big/complex that it requires team work, is a lousy way to teach labs.  You'll have some students that never get the chance to use the equipment either because they are scared to try it or their lab partners don't trust them or they figure that they'll just let someone else do the technical work and they only have to write down the data.

[spork]

However, I do teach labs for non-majors.  All students have to take 4 credits of science with a lab to graduate.  I get students who are majoring in:history, political science, English, engineering, computer science, etc.  For those students, I'm not worried about them learning a particular technique or how to use any certain piece of equipment.  Instead, my goals are for them to see that science is relevant to their lives (and hopefully think it's interesting, but that's a bonus).  Lots of folks think that science is just memorizing a collection of facts, rather than a process of discovery and a way of thinking.  So, my wet labs have a real research project where each student gets to discover something new.  And actually new, not just new to them.  I usually run a DNA barcoding project.  It's a lot of work, but very rewarding.
Now that the lab is online, I'm focusing more on the process of science in the context of the current pandemic.  So, they are learning a lot about how to read graphs, make predictions, play around with epidemiology models, etc. Again, lots of work, but very interesting.

I've thought for years that I'd love to create a "scientific literacy" course for non-scientists, getting into a whole bunch of issues from both natural and social science including uncertainties, Type I and II errors, cognitive biases, extrapolation, etc...

[. . .]

Making students work in teams due to equipment shortage, not because the project is so big/complex that it requires team work, is a lousy way to teach labs.  You'll have some students that never get the chance to use the equipment either because they are scared to try it or their lab partners don't trust them or they figure that they'll just let someone else do the technical work and they only have to write down the data.

To me the above (or rather lack of it) is a reason for the dissolution of departments, or some other means of total curriculum overhaul, at the kind a small-enrollment, tuition-dependent institution at which I work. We have a math department that refuses to let a statistics course count as the gen ed's math requirement. We have a biology department oriented toward teaching the standard gen ed BIO I and II to nursing students and otherwise preparing -- in terms of the design of its curriculum -- students for medical or graduate school, even though our students don't do either except for the very rare exceptions. Twenty-five percent of the undergraduate here are in business, and not a single one of them that I have encountered has any sense of how the scientific process works or why it's useful. Our gen ed lab requirement doesn't do what it's supposed to do.

[mamselle]

Something similar on economics and how to interpret economic theory and applied financial projections for voters would be good.

Or maybe more broadly, "Science for Voters".... to prevent bamboozlement by crafty, cherry-picking politicians.

M.

[no1capybara]

My friend and I have been giving a lot of thought to this, as I'm unemployed and she's not gotten any guidance from her uni except they will be meeting in-person in the fall.

Here's my ideas:

1) Do all the labs the first 3 weeks of the semester, including using lecture times for labs.  Just collect the data and save analysis for later in the semester.  They are learning skills not concepts.  This way, when the first positive COVID-19 tests show up on campus during weeks 2-3, they have the data they need and can learn the concepts online

2) Teach just lecture.  Leave lab as a zero-credit class to be taught in 2021 or 2022, just sometime before they graduate. This would work for lower class major students.

[Aster]

2) Teach just lecture.  Leave lab as a zero-credit class to be taught in 2021 or 2022, just sometime before they graduate. This would work for lower class major students.

This idea has been floated around a lot. While possible, it is incredibly complicated in fulfilling the necessary bureaucracy to implement. There are just *so* many threads and dominoes attached to a co-requisite course within an undergraduate degree plan. Temporary policy changes would be required at the Registrar's office, the Admissions office, Student Advising office, Financial Aid office, Academic Affairs office, etc... The university would need to develop a comprehensive plan for coordinating all of that. That's just for removing the co-requisite lab course in the Fall.

For phasing back *in* the lab courses, it gets a lot more complicated. An even more elaborate and comprehensive plan would be required, one that reconciles previous students who just need to take the lab course only, and new students who are taking the lecture/lab course concurrently. A phased teach-in model would likely have to be maintained for multiple semesters to synch most everybody back up.

At the end of the day, I will guarantee that there will still be scads of students who will demand degree plan waivers for the laboratory courses that they were unable to take for whatever reason. And at the end of the day, I guarantee that the university will grant most all of those waivers. No institution is going to risk the PR poopstorm of holding up a student's graduation over a couple of 1-credit courses while the pandemic is still going on.

As a past department head in charge of course schedules, I have nightmares about this. My own institution investigated this idea very briefly and then quickly shot the idea down. I believe the phrase "total cluster$%^*" was invoked on numerous occasions. But I expect that some universities will attempt it anyways, and it might even work out for some of them. I wish those universities the best of luck.

[eigen]

2) Teach just lecture.  Leave lab as a zero-credit class to be taught in 2021 or 2022, just sometime before they graduate. This would work for lower class major students.

This idea has been floated around a lot. While possible, it is incredibly complicated in fulfilling the necessary bureaucracy to implement. There are just *so* many threads and dominoes attached to a co-requisite course within an undergraduate degree plan. Temporary policy changes would be required at the Registrar's office, the Admissions office, Student Advising office, Financial Aid office, Academic Affairs office, etc... The university would need to develop a comprehensive plan for coordinating all of that. That's just for removing the co-requisite lab course in the Fall.

For phasing back *in* the lab courses, it gets a lot more complicated. An even more elaborate and comprehensive plan would be required, one that reconciles previous students who just need to take the lab course only, and new students who are taking the lecture/lab course concurrently. A phased teach-in model would likely have to be maintained for multiple semesters to synch most everybody back up.

At the end of the day, I will guarantee that there will still be scads of students who will demand degree plan waivers for the laboratory courses that they were unable to take for whatever reason. And at the end of the day, I guarantee that the university will grant most all of those waivers. No institution is going to risk the PR poopstorm of holding up a student's graduation over a couple of 1-credit courses while the pandemic is still going on.

As a past department head in charge of course schedules, I have nightmares about this. My own institution investigated this idea very briefly and then quickly shot the idea down. I believe the phrase "total cluster$%^*" was invoked on numerous occasions. But I expect that some universities will attempt it anyways, and it might even work out for some of them. I wish those universities the best of luck.

It's times like this that I'm happy to be at an institution small enough that we can do things like this without it being a complete clusterfuck.

So much of this also depends on the discipline. My colleagues in physics can pretty comfortably reduce lab time and move things online, because the physical lab skills aren't crucial.

But for our students, they need enough practice safely working with dilute acids before they get to the next labs where they need to work with concentrated acid, all before they get to advanced labs where they're working with air sensitive compounds that go "boom".

Skipping those steps or severely compacting them will cause significant safety issues with very real ramifications, not to mention making them noncompetitive for jobs that assume a standard number of hours practicing lab techniques.