Development and Validation of Scientific Practices Assessment Tasks for the General Chemistry Laboratory

Chemistry laboratory experiences provide students the opportunity to engage all three domains of learning: psychomotor, cognitive and affective. However, they are often stressful environments where students are expected to quickly learn new laboratory techniques, and collect data in a short amount of time. In principle, providing additional preparation activities should help students be better prepared to successfully complete the lab. These activities should lead to more meaningful interactions with the lab instructor and better performance on lab outcomes. In this study, we report the usefulness and effectiveness of online preparation activities for students that include video lectures demonstrating the labs that the students will participate in, and preparation questions that mimic data analysis for the lab. These online prelab activities were implemented in the second semester general chemistry laboratory at a large Hispanic serving institution in the southwestern United States. Over three semesters, students enrolled in this course were surveyed using the Meaningful Learning in the Laboratory Instrument (MLLI) to assess their lab expectations as well as author generated post-lab surveys to assess the usefulness of the prelab activities. Additionally, lab instructors were surveyed on their perception of the efficacy of the additional preparation activities. Findings suggest that both students and instructors agree that having access to these materials as a part of a portfolio of resources, including the lab manual, help them better prepare for the lab. Although students’ expectations on the cognitive domain decreased after a semester of instruction, questions related to comfort with lab equipment show improvements in the affective domain for students with access to the additional preparation activities. Lastly we found that both students and instructors see a lot of value and benefits in having these types of prelab activities available as a way to help prepare students for the upcoming laboratory sessions. In general, the potential benefits that prelab activities had on students outweigh the modest effort to create these materials.

Download Full-text

Using the laboratory to engage all students in science practices

Chemistry Education Research and Practice ◽

10.1039/c6rp00093b ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 17 (4) ◽

pp. 1098-1113 ◽

Cited By ~ 17

Author(s):

J. P. Walker ◽

V. Sampson ◽

S. Southerland ◽

P. J. Enderle

Keyword(s):

Academic Achievement ◽

Female Students ◽

Chemistry Laboratory ◽

Scientific Practices ◽

Science Practices ◽

General Chemistry Laboratory ◽

Representational Practices ◽

Significant Difference ◽

The Mean ◽

Practical Exam

This study examines the extent to which the type of instruction used during a general chemistry laboratory course affects students’ ability to use core ideas to engage in science practices. We use Ford’s (2008) description of the nature of scientific practices to categorize what student do in the laboratory as either empirical or representational. One approach to lab instruction, engages students in the empirical practices of science but in a traditional prescriptive manner designed to demonstrate and verify content. The second approach, Argument-Driven Inquiry (ADI), engages students in both the empirical and representational practices of science. A practical exam was used to compare student learning in each condition. The assessment targeted student ability to participate in specific scientific practices, including planning and conducting investigations, analyzing and interpreting data and arguing from evidence. Students who were taught with either ADI (N= 81) or Traditional (N= 76) had equivalent understanding of content based on the ACS-GCST exam, however the mean score on the practical exam was significantly higher for students in the ADI sections. Results also indicate that the mean scores on the practical exam were significantly higher in the ADI sections for all students including female students, under-represented minority (URM) students, and students with lower past academic achievement. In the traditional laboratory sections there was a significant difference in the mean scores on the practical exam for the URM student relative to the majority, which was not present in the ADI sections. However, the opposite was found for students with low past academic achievement; the mean score on the practical exam was significantly lower for the students in the ADI sections in comparison to the traditional sections.

Download Full-text