Course Development and Immersion Laboratory Experiences

Volume 38 Number 4 | August 2024

Starting an Online Medical Laboratory Science Education Program Part Seven

Elizabeth A. Gockel-Blessing, PhD, MLS(ASCP)^CM
Amanda Reed, MAE, MLS(ASCP)^CM

When we sat down to work on this installment of our series of articles about starting an online medical laboratory science program, it became clear that the topics of course development and immersion laboratory experiences go hand-in-hand. At this light-bulb moment, we decided to combine them into one article. Part A chronicles course development. Part B focuses on the immersion laboratory experience component of the program.

Part A – Course Development: Are We Having Fun Yet?

The MLS Program at Saint Louis University has been an on-ground program for more than 90 years. The program graduated its first class in 1933. Since its inception, the program has consisted of tractional lectures and laboratory experiences in our student laboratory prior to clinical rotations. In this section, we introduce our approach to online instruction by identifying the similarities and differences between in-seat and online courses, along with describing some of the benefits of conducting this process.

Similarities between In-Seat and Online Instruction

One of the most important considerations when approaching online instruction was developing online courses with effective pedagogy while maintaining the same level of rigor as the in-seat courses.

We determined that the best place to start was to “go back to basics” and review the learning objectives for each course. We decided to move away from learning objectives and join the “learning outcome movement.” We determined our definitions of these two terms as previously outlined in article three of this series, “Curriculum Review: Do We Have To?” (Volume 37 Number 2, April 2023). With the definitions of these two terms in hand, each course builder meticulously reviewed their course objectives and converted them into course outcomes.

There were other aspects to the two course methods that we needed to make sure were the same. The newly created course outcomes formed the foundation for this task. The same set of course outcomes were used to revise the current in-seat courses and design and develop the online versions of each course. The following list is a sampling of the similarities that were determined between the in-seat and online versions of each course.

• Course outcomes
• Course topics
• The same textbook(s)
• Course rigor
• Course and department policies
• Opportunity for discussion

Based on our belief that instructors should have autonomy to a certain extent, course instructors in the in-seat program and subject matter experts (SMEs) who were hired to build the online courses were given said autonomy. For example, instructors and SMEs used the provided course outcomes in course design. However, the way the outcomes were met was at the course builders’ discretion. For the purposes of this article, the term “course builders” is used to encompass all individuals responsible for course development.

Box 2 shows a sampling of the areas in which autonomy was given and the resulting differences between this aspect of the two programs. It is important to note that the term “hybrid” is used to describe a model in which students complete a portion of the laboratory experiences online along with attending periodic on-campus immersion laboratory experiences.

Box 2. Difference between In-Seat and Online Instruction

Benefits of Conducting the Course Development Process

Four benefits emerged via conducting the course development process. First, in-seat faculty were provided the opportunity to revisit and reevaluate their assigned courses and make necessary adjustments. Second, the process allowed for better alignment of course outcomes with the National Accrediting Agency for Clinical Laboratory Science (NAACLS) standards. Third, the online course builders were given the autonomy to develop creative pedagogical strategies that included textbook-based active learning assignments, known as active learning guides. Self-assessment opportunities were created, known as learning objects (fillable flow charts, jeopardy games, drag and drop matching, etc.). Lastly, in-seat instructors were given permission to use these creative pedagogical strategies in their courses.

Part B – Immersion Laboratory Experiences: Need to Know vs. Nice to Know? – Just the Essential Hands-On

Students were expected to travel to campus during select weekends to get the hands-on experiences needed. We called these weekends “on-campus immersion laboratory experiences.” In order to minimize the travel time, we made the student laboratory experiences hybrid. That is, students were required to complete pre-lab assignments, readings, and simulations prior to coming to lab. We allotted eight hours each day (Saturday and Sunday) where the students performed just the essential hands-on activities (for example, using the microscope, pipetting, phlebotomy, reading differentials, streaking culture plates, etc.).

It is important to note that students were enrolled in both the theory and corresponding laboratory courses at the same time. One challenging component of designing immersion laboratory experiences was the logistics of scheduling. The schedule was organized in such a way that only two subject areas were covered each weekend. The weekends were arranged so that if there were multiple cohorts, their weekends never overlapped. This took a bit of logistical magic, but we were able to schedule out the weekends a few years in advance. See Box 3 for a partial sample schedule.

Box 3: Partial Immersion Lab Schedule

Students were expected to incorporate the knowledge gained from both the theory course and the online component of the laboratory course into the in-person activities. Each course builder determined what the “essential” hands-on skills were for their respective courses.

Adjunct faculty were hired to facilitate the immersion laboratory experiences. Detailed laboratory set up instructions, discussion topics, and lab worksheets were provided to guide the facilitators. All completed assignments were submitted by the student into the course management system (Canvas) for the instructor to grade and provide feedback.

Final Thoughts

Maintaining rigor and consistency between the in-seat and online programs, minimizing the need for student travel, and ensuring that students had the opportunity to practice essential hands-on skills were our priorities while developing the online courses and associated laboratory experiences. Despite our best efforts, we found that there was a disconnect between the student’s ability to apply concepts learned in the theory courses to the immersion laboratory experiences. This was compounded by the fact that the facilitator was a clinician with very little formal teaching experience. It appears that the theory was not reinforced during these sessions. Therefore, the student achieved basic competency with laboratory techniques while, at the same time, struggling in the theory courses.

We believe the model we created was sound but could have been more successful by hiring seasoned immersion laboratory facilitators. Likewise, incorporating a student-focused intervention designed to prevent struggling students from attending the immersion laboratory sessions should have been required.

Elizabeth A. Gockel-Blessing is Associate Professor, Medical Laboratory Science Associate Dean for Student and Academic Affairs at Doisy College of Health Sciences at St. Louis University in St. Louis, Missouri.

Amanda Reed is Assistant Professor/MLS Program Director at St. Louis University in St. Louis, Missouri.

Read additional articles in this series:

• Considering Starting an Online Medical Laboratory Science Education Program? Part One
• Starting an Online MLS Education Program: IT Infrastructure
• Starting an Online MLS Education Program: IT Infrastructure Part 2
• Curriculum Review: Do We Have To?
• Faculty Buy In: How Do We Get It?
• National Accrediting Agency for Clinical Laboratory Science (NAACLS) Considerations