Nikita L.
Burrows
,
Montana K.
Nowak
and
Suazette R.
Mooring
*
Department of Chemistry, Georgia State University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA. E-mail: smooring@gsu.edu
First published on 5th July 2017
Students can perceive the laboratory environment in a variety of ways that can affect what they take away from the laboratory course. This qualitative study characterizes undergraduate students’ perspectives of a project-based Organic Chemistry laboratory using the theoretical framework of phenomenography. Eighteen participants were interviewed in a semi-structured format to collect their perspectives of the Organic Chemistry lab. Eight qualitatively different ways in which students perceived the lab were uncovered and an outcome space was derived. The findings of this work are intended to inform the design of the undergraduate laboratory curriculum in chemistry that facilitate better student learning. Implications and suggestions for design of laboratory courses based on the results of this work are also presented.
In response to the need for increased research on the laboratory, a few recent studies have examined students’ goals, perspectives, and experiences in the chemistry laboratory. How students experience and perceive the laboratory is an important factor towards understanding the laboratory environment and in making curriculum decisions. Nakhleh has noted that there is a need to more fully understand what is taking place in the laboratory and that quantitative measures may not be the most valuable when attempting to do so (Nakhleh et al., 2003). The majority of studies on the laboratory have been on students in traditional or expository laboratory settings. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to investigate students’ perspectives of a non-traditional, project-based Organic Chemistry laboratory using a qualitative, phenomenographical approach. Given the high cost of laboratory instruction, and the large amounts of time invested in laboratory education in chemistry, an examination of what kinds of laboratories produce desired student outcomes is of keen interest to the chemistry education community (Nakhleh et al., 2003; Singer et al., 2012).
Thus far, there are limited research studies on students’ perspectives and experiences in project-based labs or their effects on learning. In one study, phenomenology was used to examine students’ experiences in a cooperative project-based General Chemistry laboratory (Sandi-Urena et al., 2011; Sandi-Urena et al., 2012). This work found that students initially experienced confusion since this new laboratory environment was unfamiliar to them. However, through increased metacognitive awareness, students were able to better understand this laboratory environment. Another study examined students experiences in an open-ended, project-based Organic Chemistry course compared with students in a more conventional “cookbook” laboratory course (Cooper and Kerns, 2006). Students in this study viewed the laboratory as a place to make mistakes and to engage in experimentation, while those in the traditional section had a more passive view of what the lab was all about. Closely related to project-based labs are research-based labs such as described for the CASPiE (The Center or Authentic Science Practice in Education) curriculum. The CASPiE curriculum involved students in an authentic research experience that provided them the opportunity to engage in scientific process skills, such as designing experiments and using experimental evidence to draw conclusions. Students who participated in CASPiE were better able to explain what they did in the lab, had a greater sense of accomplishment, and understood the application of the laboratory to their lives compared to students who were enrolled in a traditional lab (Szteinberg and Weaver, 2013).
In the section below we summarize the results of more recent studies regarding students’ perspectives of the undergraduate chemistry laboratory in more traditional laboratory settings.
A series of quantitative studies by Galloway and Bretz used the Meaningful Learning in the Laboratory Instrument (MLLI), also based on a Novak's theory of meaningful learning, to examine students’ cognitive and affective perceptions of chemistry laboratory (2015a, 2015b). The major findings from these studies were that students had diverse affective expectations for the chemistry laboratory. In addition, many students had high cognitive expectations but their experiences in the laboratory left those expectations unfulfilled.
Galloway and Bretz also used additional qualitative research to further explore their findings in the quantitative studies (2015, 2016). Students were video recorded doing experiments and were later asked to describe what they were doing and why they were doing it. The students in this study primarily focused on the hands-on components of the lab experiments and fewer students discussed chemical concepts. Only a few students could explain the purpose of or the concepts behind the experiments. Also, it was discovered that students expressed many emotions regarding the lab, which included frustration, boredom, and enjoyment during their experiments. It is important to note that students who described similar affective experiences responded in different ways to those feelings.
A significant implication for this set of qualitative and quantitative studies is the need to better understand and incorporate the affective domain into the design of the laboratory curriculum and the need for laboratory curricula that focus on students’ decision making rather than just focus on the expected outcome of an experiment.
The first hour of each laboratory session is used as a pre-laboratory lecture to provide students with guidance on chemistry concepts and theory, reaction mechanisms, procedures, and safety considerations for laboratory experiments. The pre-lab is followed by four hours of practical laboratory time. During each four-hour session, there are no scheduled breaks; however, students can enter and exit the lab at any point.
All experimental procedures listed in the manual are provided with the same wording format as they were reported in peer-reviewed journals. Objectives for the course are described in the laboratory manual as follows: (1) handling and characterization of solids (including safety concerns and procedures), (2) isolation techniques of solids, planning, and execution of chemical reaction, (3) connecting lab with literature search and (4) technical report preparation. Also, stated in the lab manual is a rationale for the design of the laboratory which includes: (1) emphasize the connection between observation in the laboratory and scientific statements in literature, (2) problem-solving, (3) having a sense of accomplishment, (4) mastery of the subject and (5) enjoyment of the discovery process.
In this laboratory course, students synthesize a unique chalcone and its derivatives (Fig. 1). Each student has a unique combination of starting aldehydes and ketones, which create variations in the behavior of the synthesized compounds. Students do all of their work independently and at their own pace. They do not work in groups for any of their work. After synthesis of the chalcone, students are required to synthesize three additional derivatives – a dibromide, an epoxide, and an isoxazole (Stephens and Arafa, 2006) (Fig. 1). Additionally, students are required to synthesize two to three additional compounds of their choosing from any of the derivatives they have already made (Fig. 1). Students utilize Nuclear Magnetic Spectroscopy (NMR), Infrared (IR) Spectroscopy, and melting point data to fully characterize their compounds. They also perform their own melting point and IR spectroscopy. Literature searches using an online database (Reaxys) are also used (Tomaszewski, 2011).
At the end of the semester, students submit a comprehensive laboratory report describing the compounds they synthesized. The final report is graded on the required data collected for each compound, the quality of the writing, the quality of the discussion of the results, and how the data was used to draw conclusions about the structures of the synthesized compounds. The final exam has an essay and short answer format and assesses students’ proficiency in the following topics: reaction mechanisms, laboratory safety, general questions regarding laboratory procedures, yield calculations, proton NMR, Carbon NMR and knowledge of Hammett constants.
Participants (pseudonym) | Major | Classification | Research experience | |
---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Anthony | Biology (Pre-med) | Junior | No |
2 | Catina | Biology (Pre-med) | Sophomore | No |
3 | Claire | Biology (Pre-med) | Senior | No |
4 | Denika | Biology (Pre-med) | Senior | No |
5 | Dominique | Biology(Pre-med) | Senior | Yes |
6 | Primrose | Biology (Pre-med) | Junior | No |
7 | Princess | Biology(Pre-med) | Senior | No |
8 | Shaquille | Biology(Pre-med) | Junior | No |
9 | Valorie | Biology (Pre-med) | Senior | Yes |
10 | Brandon | Chemistry | Junior | Yes |
11 | Cynthia | Chemistry (Pre-med) | Senior | No |
12 | Dali | Chemistry (Pre-med) | Junior | No |
13 | Edward | Chemistry (Pre-Pharm) | Sophomore | No |
14 | Meyers | Chemistry | Junior | Yes |
15 | Sterling | Chemistry | Sophomore | No |
16 | Daria | Psychology (Pre-med) | Senior | No |
17 | Dusk | Psychology (Pre-med) | Senior | No |
18 | Futurama | Spanish (Pre-med) | Sophomore | No |
(1) Please tell me about what you did in Organic Chemistry II Lab this semester
(2) Can you tell me a little bit about your experience in lab this semester?
(3) What did you think about the project?
(4) How do you think the project contributed to your learning?
The full interview protocol is shown in Appendix 1.
Participants were audio recorded in a private room removed from the laboratory environment. The post-interviews ranged from 18–41 minutes with an average time of 30 minutes. Interviews were conducted until data saturation was reached. As with qualitative studies, the number of participants required to reach saturation will vary from study to study. When we determined that no new perspectives of the laboratory were being uncovered, interviewing was stopped (Trigwell, 1994; Sandberg, 2000).
The interviews were coded in several stages. First, interview transcripts were read and re-read and then coded by the first author via an open coding approach using the qualitative data software, NVivo 10. Codes were then revisited, revised, and elaborated as necessary using the constant comparison method (Glaser, 1965). The second author then examined the transcripts with the developed codes to validate the initial codes further. The percent agreement for these initial codes generated was 94% (Säljö, 1988; Sandbergh, 1997). Codes were then further collapsed to organize the data into themes. The organization of codes was also discussed to ensure reliability. This first approach in analyzing the data helped sort and organize the data, which ultimately provided a base for more insightful data analysis. The interviews were then analyzed for semantic themes. Semantic themes attempt to identify the explicit overall meanings of interviews. This analysis involved a summarized interpretation of the data which attempted to theorize the significance of the patterns and their broader meanings and implications (Bruck et al., 2008) compared to previous literature. We were able to describe distinct student perspectives in the lab through this data analysis method. These student perspectives are valuable products of phenomenography research because they describe the various ways students perceive labs. The final element of the analysis was compilation of a series of categories and description which were then fitted to an outcome space to reflect the increasing complexity of perspectives.
Student perspectives | Students’ focus |
---|---|
Explorer perspective | Exploring the unknown in science |
Independent researcher perspective | Cultivating independence |
Mastery perspective | Practical understanding of concepts |
Socialite perspective | Social interactions |
Skill developer perspective | Developing technical skills for future career |
Detail oriented perspective | Gathering details of lab and experiments |
Time saver perspective | Efficiency and saving time |
Apathetic perspective | Uninterested in the lab |
It was nice to know that there's – it's nice to know that I don't know as much as I thought I knew. So, there's more to learn. Learning is fun to me because then you can use that information and have fun in laboratories.
Sterling gained enjoyment through the application of knowledge to new situations. Many of his decisions in lab were based on interest and discovering the unfamiliar. As noted previously, towards the end of the lab students are given the freedom to select two synthesis procedures of their choice. Sterling, driven by exploring the unknown, expressed his reasoning for choosing a procedure when he said:
The structure looked interesting. Yeah, the structures looked interesting, and then the synthesis routes required me using some things I’d never done before, ever seen before . And then I discussed with Professor X before I did it and he said they may work or they may not work. So, I should just see if I can try my hands on them. I went for it .
Ambiguity in the lab was seen as a positive challenge to Sterling. To that extent, Sterling perceived working in the lab as a basis for exploration and questioning the science he was performing. In each experiment, Sterling was able to change the procedure and adjust chemicals based on his own decisions. This freedom in the lab not only allowed him to develop independence but it also allowed for him to assess the scientific knowledge that he had learned:
I got to learn that I can't just take science as it's – just accept science as it is. I have to look into it myself or look into it further than what is explained to me to see how it really is or if that's just a theory that hasn't been supported enough yet. Because so far, I think that most of science is just a theory.
I don’t know um they [the instructor] expect you [the student] to remember a lot of things from Orgo I lab and like how to run a reaction under reflux. Like they don’t teach you that again in the pre-lecture. So, it's like, ok, we are going to run a reaction under reflux, and it's like, oh, now I have to remember what that is. So, it's like a lot of independence stuff that you should know already. So, I just felt independent because you set up your own thing and you kind of know what you’re doing already. They’re not showing you.
Meyers discussed that she noticed how independent she was becoming in various activities inside and outside of the lab. When selecting a procedure, Meyers saw an opportunity to gain additional independence in the lab and further hone the lab skills taught to her over the years. This point was explicitly made when she discussed her views on the knowledge she gained from the lab by saying:
I mean it [lab] made you think. Like [Professor X] made it – us think. Most of the quizzes and stuff that we had to do of the reaction or the mechanism wasn’t necessarily taught. He just gave like a general path that it would go down, but we would have to like read about it, and kind of figure it out for ourselves. I think a lot of the independence came in there… the two [experiments] where you actually have to learn it yourself. So, it was challenging enough that you have to figure out what's happening in the reaction .
The unique reactant combinations each student received was perceived as one of the most valuable aspects in the lab. This difference was perceived as valuable because Meyers valued not having interference from other students in regards to her lab work. Meyers liked the separate nature of working on her own project. She explained this point when she said: I did… I liked that everybody had something different because everybody was focused on their own stuff and not peeking over at what you’re doing.
In summary, a student with an ‘independent researcher’ perspective develops understanding and finds enjoyment in the lab based on the ability to cultivate independence, unassisted by instructors.
One skill that was a central focus of the lab was NMR interpretation. NMR facilitated students’ ability to identify and characterize synthesized compounds, therefore Valorie focused on understanding the concept of NMR. This point was highlighted when she said:
In Orgo I lab and lecture, you know, they tell us about NMR and we have to learn it. But I didn’t really appreciate it or understand what – I mean, I understood why I was learning it and what it's used for. But I guess I didn’t understand how effective it could be until I got to the lab. So, to me, that kind of connected the dots, okay, like so NMR, especially the difference between H-NMR and C-NMR, like I know they’re different because you’re looking at the hydrogens, how many hydrogens and how many carbons you have. But in my mind, I kind of always kept them like kind of isolated from each other. So, it kind of put it together for me…
As a post-baccalaureate student, Valorie was adamant about the importance of knowledge and concept mastery in lab. Valorie's focus on understanding was also reflected in her perspective of lab work. This lab required a final report at the end of the course that assesses students’ ability to synthesize all the information they have gathered throughout the lab. Also, this report allows students to put their projects into perspective. Upon doing the final report, Valorie recognized her connection to the information beyond surface understanding. This point was brought to light when she said:
But I actually understood, like I didn’t – like with the other Organic classes, I understood the information, but I understood it just enough to do the final report. But with this class, it's like I understand it to do the report, and it was easy. I mean, I was shocked because normally it would take me days to do an orgo report just because I would have to gather all my notes and figure out, you know, this and this and figure out all this stuff. But it was just so much easier.
Students who expressed this ‘mastery’ perspective were concerned about applying previous knowledge to solve problems in the laboratory and enhance their overall learning experience.
Anthony also saw student-student interactions as a way to learn more. The impact of communicating with other students in the lab provided him with new perspectives on his experiments. As such, the ability to compare and contrast different compounds and observe other student's results provided insight into other possibilities for the same experiments. Anthony highlights this in his advice for incoming students by saying:
Make friends, like for sure, make friends [is my advice]. Don't be afraid to you know put yourself out there and compare yourself to other peoples. To find out, you know, more about other people's substituents. I feel the biggest thing about working in Orgo II is being able to not only make all of your compounds and understand them but to be able to see the wide variety of compounds that you can form and what they look like.
In his interview, Anthony frequently referred to opportunities available in the lab to socialize with other students. This ability to socialize also affected his viewpoint of the lab work. Even though students had individualized work, Anthony's perception of lab work was group based and perceived through the amount of social interaction that was involved in the activity. When asked to describe what reactions he found easiest he replied by saying:
But along with [this lab being easy], it was just fun reactions I guess , in general, almost all the reactions are fun to do. There wasn’t anything too tedious. I think I did do the alpha bromination under reflux for like an hour or something. But again, we did the melting point and stuff like that, and we had our group, so we all sat there watched our stuff together .
Most of Anthony's interview focused on what he did in the “group,” even though he was aware of the lab projects required independent work (students did not work in groups). However, he decided to pursue social interactions:
So, I think even if it is not necessarily group-based, maybe I still think that the lab sets up ample opportunities for you to be able to make groups and work with people that are friendly and stuff, so I think it was good in that regard.
Anthony and other students like him perceived the lab as a social environment for pursuing social interactions. Their decisions in the lab were influenced by the volume and quality of interactions with other students. Also, this type of student gained understanding in the lab by comparing and contrasting with the experiences of other students.
Shaquille: Well if you remembered we talked about the professor's part in the lab and giving out more practical aspects of the lab.
Interviewer: Such as field trips and stuff?
Shaquille: Right. I don’t know if you talked to him or not [the interviewer did not talk to the professor], but right after our interview he started talking about how we could use our, you know, understanding of this lab and the experience in our future careers. And he just introduced some kind of uses that would be useful that you know – and it's related to what you are doing now. So, it's not just a regular lab. You are actually going to use these techniques in the future. And it was exciting , yeah. And that's it.
Shaquille's focused on relating lab skills to future employment was also reflected in his perception of the lab. Shaquille was concerned about how the knowledge he was learning could be directly applied to future careers. His concern for skill development was geared towards skill sets that were easy to quantify (NMR interpretation, recrystallizing, using the rotary evaporator, etc.) and readily applicable to the workforce. Shaquille explicitly expressed how he paid attention to technical skills directly related to the workforce below:
Yeah exactly, because I knew that there are some careers by just names. But making a connection with what you’re doing and what is your potential to do in the future, that was exciting. It was really exciting for me, and actually after that, I tried to, you know, ask more questions and be more practical about what I’m doing, you know. Because maybe I may use this stuff, you know, that I’ve learned today.
He then later goes on to describe how these skills can be used to improve his resume:
If you are working in a chemistry lab, you have to be able to read NMRs, IRs. That's something that you’d probably have to do a lot [in a chemistry lab], and that's not what everyone can do because – just ask my classmates. But if you learnt that then that's a really big plus on your resume.
Even when questioned on what he learned in the lab, Shaquille directly mentions employment:
When I did the synthesis procedures I actually learned that, ok, even if you can’t connect those, you know the information that you have, that ok now that I have the [compounds] that can react with something like water. And… aldehyde don’t react for example or then if you add like water, solvent and the product it's going to be like separated from the other products or reactants. So, I could make that connection with what I learned in lecture. And the other thing, it was kind of basic, but it prepared you for your future career .
Shaquille's focus on the practicality of lab work for future employment also affected his perception of lab work in many aspects. Particularly, Shaquille saw lab as a place to develop skills for future employment and believed that assessment of these labs skills should be done in the lab course:
I prefer to be tested on those [lab skills] rather than the basic knowledge of what you know. Now, you definitely have to know your stuff from the lecture, but being tested basically on that – I don’t think that's going to help for evaluating the students for the lab portion. I’d prefer that we left it in the lecture course.
The ‘skill developer’ perceived lab work through the lens of practicality and applicability of technical skills. Conceptual connections were developed based on the teachable skills that are applied to future careers.
Interviewer: Did [your experiment] fail?
Primrose: It failed and then, that was also at the time that I was doing two reactions, the isoxazole and the isoxazoline… So, I had those on the same time and I just heated it just a little bit, but not boiling, and then added the KOH. And the instructor came over, and said that the reaction could fail and it did fail!
Interviewer: And how did you feel about that?
Primrose: I felt very sad, very mislead and just… kind of just frustrated that it [the lab manual] didn’t say to boil. It didn’t even have a note saying that this reaction could fail if you don’t heat it properly.
Interviewer: So what particularly you felt mislead you?
Primrose: The word heat. And even again she [the instructor] had printed out an extra – some extra instructions that she had come up with. And it still said just heat, it didn’t say boil , and I don’t recall anytime that she said boil in the lab.
Interviewer: So did that experience affect anything you did later on inside of the lab?
Primrose: That experience, yes, because that put me behind. Now I was two reactions behind, I had less chalcone to make, so I couldn’t just take the chalcone and just start all over again.
Primrose was slow in her lab work due to the uncertainty she experienced in the lab. From her experience in previous labs, Primrose found that focusing on details was a mechanism for avoiding mistakes. However, this current lab simulated a more research-like experience. As such, the ambiguity, uncertainty, and trial/error aspect of science hindered Primrose from using her detail-oriented approach to tackling labs to help avoid mistakes. She felt unable to rely on her abilities to interpret the correct way to carry out an experiment. Primrose spent time asking fellow students and the instructor about the procedures before she would carry out her experiments:
So, [the lab manual is] not really divided out into steps . So, for making the epoxide out of the chalcone, for example, it just says, add chalcone, add 20 ml of ethanol, add 12 ml of acetone, add 1.9 ml of NaOH, add 2.9 ml of hydrogen peroxide; but it doesn’t say that you need to dissolve the compounds right after you add each one individually. So…and I found that out through other students throughout the lab that are like, oh wait, and you guys need to add them and then shake it, and dissolve it, and just don’t pour it all in at one time . So, I was like okay.
Primrose's attention to detail was reflected in her perception of the lab manual. As mentioned previously in the lab design section above, the procedures in the lab manual were taken from experimental procedures in peer-reviewed journals. Therefore, the language used in the lab manual reflected the language chemists use to communicate experimental procedures to other chemist in the community. This means that the amount of detail was for that of a chemist and not a novice student. This presented another level of scientific ambiguity that Primrose did not like, which resulted in her having a negative perception of the lab manual. When asked about her opinion on the lab manual, Primrose responded by saying:
There was a need for more detail. It was necessary to know that your reaction could fail if you don’t boil it. It was necessary to know that if you don’t dissolve it you could have impurities. And it was necessary to know that if you just dump the bromine in it could overheat and your flask could crack and, you know, you could go back to your desk and your compound fall everywhere from your flask breaking. That was kind of important, because the instructor put emphasis on safety procedure but they didn’t really tell us things could fail . I mean that kind of looks to me if things fail and you have a job you could get fired or sued. That's really important.
This type of student perceived the project-based lab as a cornucopia of pitfalls due to its ambiguous nature. Also, this type of student's perspective seemed hindered by the lack of explicit detail.
Like in the beginning, I felt like I was really slow at like all the experiments, like especially with the chalcone experiment, creating your chalcone. And as the labs progressed, I actually like picked up speed and I was able to, you know, do my experiments on time.
Edward saw his progression in the lab through the lens of efficiency, which he expressed through his recollections of experiments. Many of his decisions in lab were based on saving time in lab. This was noted towards the end of the lab when students were given the freedom to select two synthetic procedures to carry out independently. Edward's decision on which procedure to select was driven by time-saving factors:
There were other [student selected additional] experiments, but I chose the 4-hydroxy because I had epoxide that I could use that was good for that experiment. And plus, it was really fast. Well, just the preparation for everything was fast .
His perception of lab work was also based on time spent performing experiments or procedures and on how much “involved” work he was required to do. Edward described the “involved” lab work as time-consuming and unfamiliar. This was viewed as his least enjoyed aspect of the lab. This point was brought to light in his description of his least favorite experiments described below:
[Epoxide was my least favorite experiment] because the epoxide experiment, that one was I think – yeah, that one was the one that took… for it you had to be really patient because you had to heat the experiment in a water bath for like 40 minutes, or 40 to 45 minutes for at about 40 degrees Celsius I think it was. And so, that took a while because you had to titrate… I forgot what solution into the compound…But you just had to keep continuously heat and watch the compound from overheating or being under – yeah. So, you had to like make sure that you kept it about 40 degrees Celsius. And yeah, if it went over, you had to put in an ice bath and put it back in. It just took a lot of time. And the other one [least favorite experiment], yeah , I think that was the one I didn’t like the most. Also, creating the chalcone, because mine did not dissolve properly in just one flask, so I had to put it several other flasks and it took a lot of time . But yeah. You know, the epoxide was the one I didn’t like the most .
Dominique: I don’t know . Like I said I think chemistry labs are like purposeless. So, I don’t know. I just kind of went and did it and left.
Interviewer: So, were there any purposes that the teacher emphasized?
Dominique: I can’t remember. Like I literally went to class, reviewed my notes so I could do well on the exam and quizzes and left. Like I’m not a chemistry person, so I kind of went in there like “oh gosh, got to get this over with” and then I left.
Dominique's perception of the lab work presented itself as something that had to be done and over with. This perception influenced multiple aspects of her lab experience.
Interviewer: Can you tell me your experience you had with the Orgo II lab this semester?
Dominique: It was cool. Like it was a lot of tedious work , but it was cool.
Interviewer: So, what about it was tedious to you?
Dominique: Just waiting for everything. Like I told you before, I don’t like to wait for labs. I don’t like it. But yeah.
Interviewer: So, is there any…When you decided to do a new lab, what type of things were you thinking about when you were making that choice?
Dominique: Just so that I don’t have to do it the next week . That's it…
Her avoidance of lab work and her need to get work done was also reflected in her perception of the lab work itself. When asked about how she felt about lab work she replied, “How do I feel about it? It was required, like I had to do it. That's about it”. Based on her explanations for her decisions above, it could appear that Dominique's motivation was simply a matter of saving time. However, when probed further, Dominique revealed that science was not a career she was interested in and that her major was simply a choice made by her parents. When asked about the purpose of labs she responded:
Dominique: I think I wasn’t trying to understand the lab. I just wanted to get it done, but I didn’t go in there like I wanted to learn something because I don’t think lab really benefits what I’m trying to do. So.
Interviewer: That's dental school, right?
Dominique: It was, but now I don’t know what I want to do. So, I don’t think it really benefits to anything that I want to do. So, I’m trying, I just want to get it done, like I graduate soon. So, I just want to get it done, so I can move on to that next step.
Interviewer: So, you have any direction you want to move in. Are you going to stay in science?
Dominique: I don’t know. I have no idea. I might get in my Masters. I was going to get it in public health but I was like why waste money if I’m not sure if that's what I want to do. Just like this biology degree it was just something my parents thought of. I’m not sure if I would have chosen biology, but then I’m not sure what I would have chosen at this point. So, I’m just going to think about, reevaluating my life, and figure out what I want to do.
Ultimately, Dominique had no critique for the lab or any explanation as to why she was trying to save time on experiments. Her focus, decisions, and perceptions of the lab all linked back to her lack of motivation for the lab and science in general. She also stated that the lab was not for her. She highlighted this point when she discussed improvements for the lab:
No [I do not have any improvements], because there's certain people who are actually genuinely interested in the stuff and it would be perfect for those people. So, I wouldn’t say there is anything to be improved on, because I think it's pretty ok for the chemistry majors and people interested in doing research for the rest of their lives or even if you are interested in going to dental or medical. So, it's great for those people, just not me.
In this study, we define the outcome space as a developmental progression. We examined the primary focus of each category of description and arranged them in levels based on how limited or expansive their perspective of the lab is (Fig. 2). Student perspectives that are on the higher levels have a more complex or broader view of the lab, while those on the lower levels are more limited do not have the same range. We also compared each of the eight perspectives to the objectives and goals of the lab noted in the description of the lab section above to arrive at the different levels. These goals included: development of certain lab skills and techniques, report preparation, connection between observation in the laboratory and scientific statements in literature, problem-solving, mastery of the subject and enjoyment of the discovery process.
Student perspective | Lab elements | Lab course design elements examples |
---|---|---|
Independent | Task | Balancing group versus individual tasks |
Socialite | ||
Explorer | Autonomy | Freedom of choice in laboratory tasks |
Mastery | Ambiguity | Incorporation of context and ‘real life’ examples |
Skill developer | ||
Detail oriented | Incorporation of authentic research elements | |
Scaffolding by instructor | ||
Timesaver | Logistics | Continuity, length of lab session |
For instance, the ‘independent researcher’ and ‘socialite’ perspectives, though on opposite sides of the spectrum, does emphasize the need to design a laboratory that balances both of these. The inclusion of individual and group tasks in the laboratory design is important since both elements are critical for student development regardless of their career path. Students need to be able to work on their own without much guidance, but they also need to know how to work together with and learn from others. The need for group interaction as exemplified by the ‘socialite’ perspective can also extend to the ‘explorer’ perspective. Although the ‘explorer’ enjoys the freedom to explore a variety of synthetic pathways, their desire to learn can be enhanced by opportunities to interact with other students through assigned group activities.
The ‘mastery’ and ‘skill developer’ perspectives suggest the incorporation of context and ‘real life’ aspects into the laboratory design. Whereas, the ‘detail oriented’ perspective indicates the need for scaffolding by instructors at the beginning of the lab course so that students can better deal with ambiguity in experimental procedures and tasks. Finally, the ‘timesaver’ perspective suggests the consideration of logistical aspects of laboratory design. Logistical design aspects include the length of lab session and providing continuity in laboratory activities that encourage students to think more about concepts and discourage a focus on leaving the lab as quickly as possible.
The student perspectives uncovered in this study also encourages future research on chemistry laboratories that employ direct observations of students in lab and assessment of their learning. A situated cognition theoretical framework may be ideal to explore these ideas. Another aspect for future research is to investigate various patterns for students who display more than one of the perspectives.
(1) Can you describe to me what you did inside of you past laboratory courses?
(2) What do you see as the purpose of your chemistry lab courses?
(3) What do you define as success in your laboratory courses?
(4) How successful were you in your past chemistry laboratory courses?
(a) Describe some of the most successful things that happened in the lab.
(b) Describe some of the most unsuccessful things that happened in the lab.
(5) Describe some of the things that made your past chemistry laboratory courses easy.
(6) Describe some of the things that made your past chemistry laboratory courses hard.
(7) Ask student to recall all pre-lab and lab experiences inside of Organic Chemistry I
(8) For Organic Chemistry I lab, you had a project that you had to complete, what did you think about the project?
(a) Can you describe the project you had in Organic Chemistry I Lab?
(b) What were some of the easy parts of the project?
(c) What were some of the hard parts of the project?
(d) How do you think the project contributed to your learning?
(9) If you could offer advice to a student taking either General Chemistry II Lab or Organic Chemistry I Lab, what you suggest they do to be successful in the courses? Follow up question: Why?
(10) If you could change anything about your past lab experiences, what would it be?
(11) The Organic Chemistry II Lab has a project that will last the entire semester. How do you think you will do in this lab?
(12) How do you think your experiences in General Chemistry II Lab and Organic Chemistry I Lab have prepared for the project this semester?
(1) Please tell me about what you did in Organic Chemistry II Lab this semester.
(2) Describe your project in Organic Chemistry II lab this semester?
(a) Probe: Can you tell me a little bit about your experience in lab this semester?
(3) What did you see as the purpose of your Organic Chemistry II Lab?
(4) How successful were you in Organic Chemistry II Lab?
(a) Describe some of the most successful things that happened in the lab.
(b) Describe some of the most unsuccessful things that happened in the lab.
(5) For Organic Chemistry II Lab, you had a project that you had to complete, what did you think about the project?
(a) What were some of the easy parts of the project?
(b) What were some of the hard parts of the project?
(c) How do you think the project contributed to your learning?
(d) How do you think your experiences in Organic Chemistry I Lab helped prepare you for Organic Chemistry II Lab?
(6) If you could offer advice to a student taking Organic Chemistry II Lab, what would you suggest they do to be successful in the course?
(7) If you could change anything about your Organic Chemistry II Lab experience, what would it be?
(8) Since your first interview, have you participated in any additional research projects outside of your coursework?
(a) If so, what did you do?
(b) What were some of the easy aspects of doing research?
(c) What were some of the hard aspects of doing research?
This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2017 |