View PDF VersionPrevious ArticleNext Article
 
DOI: 10.1039/D3RP00088E (Paper) Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 2023, 24, 1229-1242

Enabling general chemistry students to take part in experimental design activities

Jennifer Scoggin and K. Christopher Smith *
School of Integrative Biological and Chemical Sciences, University of Texas Rio Grande Valley, 1201 W. University Drive, Edinburg, TX 78539, USA. E-mail: kenneth.smith@utrgv.edu

Received 27th April 2023 , Accepted 21st July 2023

First published on 4th August 2023

Abstract

In this study, we analyzed how general chemistry students generated experimental designs corresponding to general chemistry questions such as the ones typically found in general chemistry textbooks. We found that students were very successful in including experimental design aspects that were explicitly mentioned in the general chemistry questions, but less successful in including other experimental design aspects. We also analyzed the outcomes of students engaging in the counterpart process – expressing general chemistry laboratory experiments as typical general chemistry questions. We found that that students were very successful in considering the various components associated with expressing the experiments when considering each of the various components one at a time, but less successful when considering the various components at the same time. Considerations and suggestions for implementing these types of activities to enable a wide variety of general chemistry students to take part in experimental design are discussed. Implications for research and teaching, including a consideration of ChatGPT, are also presented.

Introduction

Experimental design is an important focus in K-12 science education as evidenced by the emphasis on planning and carrying out investigations in the recent standards (NRC, 2012; NGSS, 2013). It continues to be an important focus in tertiary-level chemistry education, with the American Chemical Society's guidelines for undergraduate degree programs (2015) indicating that students should develop proficiency in designing and executing experiments. Undergraduate chemistry majors might typically have opportunities to engage in experimental design in a capstone research experience, but there are many courses throughout the typical undergraduate chemistry program in which such opportunities might be embedded. Various reports describing initiatives to introduce experimental design into courses in the undergraduate chemistry curriculum have appeared in the literature, including recent examples involving general chemistry (Farley et al., 2021; Smallwood et al., 2021; Thomson and Lamie, 2022), analytical chemistry (Doughan and Shahmuradyan, 2022), and biochemistry (Goodey and Talgar, 2016).

One of these recent examples incorporated designing and executing experiments within the context of project-based learning (Doughan and Shahmuradyan, 2022), with project-based learning activities requiring students to design their own procedures, analyze their own data, and propose claims, arguments, and explanations (Carmel et al., 2019). The other recent examples incorporated designing and executing experiments within the context of inquiry-based learning (Goodey and Talgar, 2016; Farley et al., 2021; Smallwood et al., 2021; Thomson and Lamie, 2022), with inquiry-based laboratory activities requiring students to provide some or all of the various laboratory components including the problem/question, theory/background, procedure/design, results analysis, results communication, and conclusions (Bruck et al., 2008).

Despite the potential benefit of inquiry-based laboratory experiences offering students opportunities to engage in experimental design, most undergraduate chemistry teaching laboratory experiences are not inquiry-based, but are of the cookbook variety (Fay et al., 2007; Bruck et al., 2008). Several reasons for the persistence of cookbook laboratory experiments have been noted, including lack of equipment (Smallwood et al., 2021), and the need to accommodate students’ various experimental designs, which could be burdensome for experienced instructors and unfeasible for less experienced teaching assistants, especially as course enrollment increases (Goodey and Talgar, 2016; Farley et al., 2021; Smallwood et al., 2021). If experimental design is an important activity in the undergraduate chemistry curriculum, and if experimental design is typically carried out within a project-based learning or inquiry-based learning context, but most undergraduate chemistry teaching laboratory experiences are not inquiry-based, then presumably most undergraduate chemistry students are not engaging in this important activity. How then, can more undergraduate chemistry students, particularly general chemistry students, who are the focus of this study, take part in experimental design activities? We aim to address this issue through this study.

General chemistry textbooks contain questions (also sometimes labeled as problems or exercises) which instructors can assign as homework or as practice for students. General chemistry questions in different textbooks often strongly resemble one another, and we contend that a good proportion of general chemistry questions can be used for experimental design activities. For instance, a typical general chemistry acid–base titration question might read:

25.00 mL of an unknown monoprotic acid required 27.25 mL of 0.1102 M NaOH(aq.) to titrate it to the endpoint. What is the concentration of the monoprotic acid?

It is possible to ask general chemistry students to calculate the answer to this question. It is also possible to ask general chemistry students to generate an experimental design corresponding to this question, and incorporating the specific values given in the question. The experimental design would correspond to a cookbook or confirmatory type of laboratory exercise, as it would confirm quantitative and qualitative aspects of acid–base theory students learn about in the lecture portion of the course, but it would require students to generate the experimental design and provide them experience in doing so.

We further contend that a good proportion of general chemistry cookbook laboratory experiments can be summarized and expressed as typical general chemistry questions. For instance, a typical general chemistry laboratory experiment might focus on students’ determination of the empirical formula of magnesium oxide and might include students obtaining the mass of a clean sample of magnesium metal, burning the sample in air to convert it to magnesium oxide, obtaining the mass of the magnesium oxide product, then using the data to determine the empirical formula of magnesium oxide. This procedure can be expressed as a typical general chemistry question, which might read as:

A 0.255 g sample of magnesium was burned in air to form magnesium oxide, which had a mass of 0.422 g. Use these values to determine the empirical formula of magnesium oxide.

Having students engage in this type of endeavor to express a general chemistry laboratory experiment as a typical general chemistry question would be a natural counterpart to having students generate an experimental design from a typical general chemistry question.

We were interested in exploring the outcomes of general chemistry students generating experimental designs corresponding to typical general chemistry questions. We were also interested in examining the outcomes of students engaging in the counterpart process – expressing general chemistry laboratory experiments as typical general chemistry questions. As such, our research questions were: (a) how do general chemistry students generate experimental designs corresponding to typical general chemistry questions? (b) How do general chemistry students express general chemistry laboratory experiments as typical general chemistry questions?

Guiding theoretical frameworks

There were two theoretical frameworks guiding this study, the first being Merrill's first principles of instruction (Merrill, 2002). In this framework, Merrill outlines five instructional design principles which are common to and distilled from various instructional design theories, and the five principles are presented as practices which promote learning. The five principles are as follows: (a) students should be engaged in solving real-world problems, and they should particularly be engaged at the problem or task level, and not only the operation or action level; (b) students’ relevant previous knowledge and experience should be activated as a foundation for new knowledge, and this activation can occur by directing students to think about their relevant previous knowledge and experience; (c) new knowledge should be demonstrated to students, and this can occur through various demonstrations, visualizations, and modeling; (d) new knowledge should be applied by students to solve problems, and one form of application is to have students do procedures, with appropriate feedback; (e) students should integrate or transfer their new knowledge into their everyday lives, and one mechanism is to have students reflect on their new knowledge. Merrill's first principles were important to this current study in guiding the structure of the methods and in addressing portions of the results.

The second theoretical framework guiding this study was cognitive load theory (Paas et al., 2003). This theory focuses on the information learners process and the extent to which the various elements of that information interact. Consideration is also given to learners’ working memory (where conscious cognitive processing happens), available cognitive schemas (single elements comprised of the integration of multiple elements of information), and long-term memory (where schemas are stored). Cognitive load theory defines three types of cognitive load: intrinsic, extraneous or ineffective, and germane or effective cognitive load. Intrinsic cognitive load depends on the degree of interactivity between the various elements of information learners engage with. High element interactivity means that the learner must process each element and their interactions simultaneously for understanding to occur, resulting in a high intrinsic cognitive load. High element interactivity also places high demands on working memory, although this demand can be reduced using schemas. Extraneous or ineffective cognitive load depends on how instructional information is presented to learners. A heavy extraneous cognitive load interferes with learning and results from instructional design which causes working memory resources to be used for activities which are not directly relevant to schema acquisition and automation. Germane or effective cognitive load also depends on instructional design. A heavy germane cognitive load enhances learning and results from instructional design which causes working memory resources to be used for schema acquisition and automation. One example of cognitive load theory applied to chemistry tasks is a series of articles by Grove and colleagues (Cranford et al., 2014; Tiettmeyer et al., 2017; Duffy et al., 2019), which focused on examining students’ cognitive loads while they drew Lewis structures of varying complexities and using various drawing tools. Cognitive load theory was important to this current study in framing portions of the data analysis and interpretation.

Evaluation of students’ experimental designs and general chemistry questions

The fourth principle of Merrill's first principles of instruction (2002) notes that new knowledge should be applied by students to solve problems, and one form of application is to have students do procedures, with appropriate feedback. To potentially provide feedback it is necessary to evaluate students’ procedures, and so within the context of this study we needed to evaluate the students’ experimental designs. Various reports in the literature note aspects which are or could be evaluated as students generate experimental designs. These aspects include students’ decisions on measurements, observations, sampling, procedures, tools, variables, repeated trials, chemicals, equipment, apparatus, techniques, glassware, and materials (Sirum and Humburg, 2011; Duschl and Bybee, 2014; Crujeiras-Pérez and Jiménez-Aleixandre, 2017; Farley et al., 2021; Smallwood et al., 2021; Doughan and Shahmuradyan, 2022). Taking these various aspects into consideration, we decided that our evaluation of the general chemistry students’ experimental designs would include evaluating students’ decisions on: (a) glassware, equipment, supplies, and chemicals needed, (b) experimental procedures involving glassware, equipment, supplies, and chemicals, and (c) measurements needed involving glassware, equipment, supplies, and chemicals. The students’ experimental designs were evaluated for the presence of the various steps with regard to the glassware, equipment, supplies, and chemicals used in the procedures and measurements.

On a related note, generative artificial intelligence chatbots such as ChatGPT (OpenAI, 2022) have recently become widely available, and considerations of ChatGPT have begun to appear in the chemistry education literature (Clark, 2023; Humphry and Fuller, 2023; Lawrie, 2023). Since ChatGPT is readily available for use, including by students, we also evaluated an experimental design generated by ChatGPT to examine its capabilities in this area.

Additionally, within the context of this study we needed to evaluate the general chemistry questions, corresponding to general chemistry laboratory activities, expressed by the general chemistry students. In a previous study, general chemistry questions have been categorized as definition, algorithmic, or conceptual questions (Smith et al., 2010). In this current study, it is anticipated that the general chemistry questions generated by general chemistry students will be algorithmic questions, which potentially contain various macroscopic level quantities (such as volumes or masses), microscopic level data (involving or referring to moles), and symbolic representations (including chemical formulas or equations) (Smith et al., 2010). We decided that our evaluation of the general chemistry students’ general chemistry questions would involve evaluating the students’ questions within the context of these potential macroscopic, microscopic, and symbolic representation components. The students’ questions were evaluated for the presence of the various components.

Methods

Context

This research took place at a large public university in the southwestern United States, with data collected during the Fall 2021 semester. During Fall 2021, our university had an undergraduate student enrollment of 26[thin space (1/6-em)]405 students, with 24[thin space (1/6-em)]723 students (93.6%) self-reporting as Hispanic/Latino (UTRGV, 2022).

Student participants

Thirty general chemistry students participated in the study, with an average age of 19.8 years. The distribution of student participants by gender, race/ethnicity, classification, and major are shown in Table 1; the classification of two students is unknown.
Table 1 Distribution of students by gender, ethnicity, classification, and major
Number of students % of students
Gender Female 21 70.0
Male 9 30.0
Race/ethnicity Hispanic 20 66.7
White/hispanic 7 23.3
Asian 3 10.0
Classification Freshman 7 23.3
Sophomore 10 33.3
Junior 9 30.0
Senior 2 6.7
Major Biology 12 40.0
Integrated health sciences 8 26.7
Communication sciences and disorders 4 13.3
Computer science 2 6.7
Nursing 1 3.3
Biomedical sciences 1 3.3
Psychology 1 3.3
Business 1 3.3

Overview of data collection and analysis

This research took place with human subjects research approval from the university's Institutional Review Board. The approved protocol was numbered IRB 21-0252. The participants in the study were students in the second author's first semester general chemistry lecture course, which was 1 of 13 sections of the course in Fall 2021 and had an enrollment of 97 students. As such, the second author did not participate in data collection; instead, the first author, who was not involved in the course in any way, engaged in data collection from the students.

The student participants were given individual semi-structured interviews via the Zoom video conferencing platform, in which they were asked to think aloud and voice their thoughts during the interview. The interviews were recorded and later transcribed; they ranged from 47 to 92 minutes in length, with an average length of 69 minutes. In addition, during the interviews, the student participants used the Whiteboard.chat online whiteboard platform to show their work through drawing or writing as they progressed through the interviews. The interview protocol can be found in Appendix 1.

The interviews consisted of five parts, with the first part of the interviews collecting demographic information. The second part of the interviews focused on students’ perceptions of how the general chemistry lecture and laboratory were connected or disconnected, which directed students to think about their relevant previous knowledge and experience. The third part of the interviews focused on expressing general chemistry laboratory activities as typical general chemistry questions and was modeled for the students. Students then expressed two general chemistry laboratory activities as typical general chemistry questions. The fourth part of the interviews focused on generating experimental designs corresponding to typical general chemistry questions and was also modeled for the students. Students then generated experimental designs corresponding to typical general chemistry questions. The fifth part of the interviews was a wrap-up section in which students were asked to revisit their perceptions of how the general chemistry lecture and laboratory were connected, which directed students to reflect on their potential new knowledge in this area.

The interview data on demographics were analyzed through frequency counts. The interview data on students’ perceptions of how the general chemistry lecture and laboratory were connected or disconnected, and on the wrap-up section, were analyzed through open coding (Strauss and Corbin, 1998), to identify and categorize concepts which emerged from the interview data, and axial coding (Strauss and Corbin, 1998), to connect those categories to make interpretations about the data. The interview data on students expressing general chemistry laboratory activities as typical general chemistry questions, and on students generating experimental designs corresponding to typical general chemistry questions, were analyzed within the context of the potential macroscopic, microscopic, and symbolic representation components, and the glassware, equipment, supplies, and chemicals used in the various procedures and measurements, as previously discussed.

At our institution, the first semester general chemistry lecture course and first semester general chemistry laboratory course are separate courses, so it is important to note that all the student participants were enrolled concurrently in both the first semester general chemistry lecture course and the first semester general chemistry laboratory course. Furthermore, the interviews took place in the second half of the semester, after students had already completed experiments focused on basic laboratory operations, empirical formula determination, exploring the chemistry of copper, chemical reactions, limiting reactants, volumetric analysis, and calorimetry. These criteria were observed to ensure that student participants had some current experience exploring various chemistry topics and using glassware, equipment, supplies, and chemicals in the laboratory.

Data collection and analysis – expressing general chemistry laboratory experiments as general chemistry questions

The third part of the interviews focused on students expressing general chemistry laboratory activities as typical general chemistry questions. We did realize that students were unlikely to be familiar with this type of activity, so in the interviews an example of the process was modeled so that students could understand the nature of the process before engaging in the process themselves.

In the interviews, an abbreviated laboratory experiment focused on the chemistry of copper was shared on the screen. The laboratory experiment was abbreviated in that the background information, data recording sheets, and post-lab questions were removed, so the components remaining were the objective and the procedure, with relevant data recording areas embedded in the procedure, along with an image and a figure showing various parts of the chemical processes. The condensed process of expressing the experiment as a general chemistry question is depicted in Fig. 1, with more details given in Appendix 2.


image file: d3rp00088e-f1.tif
Fig. 1 The process of expressing a laboratory experiment as a general chemistry question.

Students were then given two abbreviated laboratory experiments – one focused on calorimetry followed by one focused on volumetric analysis – to express as general chemistry questions. Additional details are provided in Appendix 2. It should be noted that the necessary components of the general chemistry questions (discussed in Tables 2 and 3) were determined by the authors of this manuscript and were written within the context of the potential macroscopic, microscopic, and symbolic representation components, as previously discussed. Furthermore, the student-generated general chemistry questions were evaluated with a focus on the components the students considered, as opposed to the values of the components the students considered.

Table 2 Numbers and percentages of students considering various components in their think aloud processes and in their final general chemistry questions in the calorimetry experiment
Component Think aloud process Final general chemistry question
Number of students % of students Number of students % of students
Mass of metal 30 100 25 83
Temperature of hot metal 30 100 23 77
Mass of water in the calorimeter 30 100 12 40
Temperature of water in the calorimeter 30 100 20 67
Highest temp. after metal placed in cal. 30 100 19 63

Table 3 Numbers and percentages of students considering various components in their think aloud processes and in their final general chemistry questions in the volumetric analysis experiment
Component Think aloud process Final general chemistry question
Number of students % of students Number of students % of students
Initial volume of NaOH(aq.) 29 97 22 73
Final volume of NaOH(aq.) 29 97 22 73
Total volume of NaOH(aq.) 1 3 4 13
Concentration of NaOH(aq.) 14 47
Volume of unknown acid 10 33
Monoprotic nature of unknown acid 7 23

Data collection and analysis – generating experimental designs corresponding to typical general chemistry questions

The fourth part of the interview focused on students generating experimental designs corresponding to typical general chemistry questions. Again, we realized that students were unlikely to be familiar with this type of activity, so in the interviews an example of the process was modeled so that students could understand the nature of the process before engaging in the process themselves.

In the interviews, a general chemistry question focused on the reaction of calcium carbonate with hydrochloric acid was shared on the screen. The condensed process of generating an experimental design corresponding to a general chemistry question is depicted in Fig. 2, with more details given in Appendix 2.


image file: d3rp00088e-f2.tif
Fig. 2 The process of generating an experimental design corresponding to a general chemistry question.

Students were then given two general chemistry questions – one focused on the reaction between magnesium and hydrochloric acid and the other focused on calorimetry – to generate the corresponding experimental designs. Additional details are provided in Appendix 2. It should be noted that the necessary steps of the experimental designs (discussed in Tables 4 and 5) were determined by the authors of this manuscript and were written within the context of the glassware, equipment, supplies, and chemicals used in the various procedures and measurements, as previously discussed. Furthermore, the student-generated experimental designs were evaluated with a focus on the components the students considered, as opposed to the level of detail of the components the students considered.

Table 4 Numbers and percentages of students including the various aspects of the experimental design in the magnesium/HCl(aq.) general chemistry question
Experimental design aspects Number of students % of students
Obtain the initial mass of the magnesium sample 17 57
Measure 25.00 mL of HCl(aq.) 8 27
Pour the HCl(aq.) into a container 18 60
Place the magnesium sample into the HCl(aq.) 29 97
Indicate how the reaction would be deemed complete 0 0
Separate the unreacted magnesium from the solution 3 10
Wash the unreacted magnesium 1 3
Dry the unreacted magnesium 1 3
Obtain the mass of the unreacted magnesium sample 13 43

Table 5 Numbers and percentages of students including the various aspects of the experimental design in the calorimetry general chemistry question
Experimental design aspects Number of students % of students
Obtain the mass or volume of the 57.5 g sample of water 13 43
Pour the 57.5 g sample of water into a container 5 17
Pour the unknown sample of water into a container 3 10
Heat the 57.5 g sample of water 4 13
Record the temp. of the 57.5 g sample of water 14 47
Heat the unknown sample of water 1 3
Record the temp. of the unknown sample of water 8 27
Mix the two samples of water 28 93
Record the temperature of the mixed water 17 57

Reliability

We conducted an inter-rater reliability study to establish the reliability of the analysis of the portions of the interviews in which students expressed general chemistry laboratory activities as typical general chemistry questions and generated experimental designs corresponding to typical general chemistry questions. Each author of this paper independently coded interview data from six randomly selected students, representing 20% of the interview data. The inter-rater reliability using the weighted Cohen's K statistic was 0.87, indicating almost perfect agreement (Landis and Koch, 1977).

Results and discussion

The results of the portions of the interviews in which students expressed general chemistry laboratory activities as typical general chemistry questions and generated experimental designs corresponding to typical general chemistry questions will be presented and discussed in this section.

Expressing general chemistry laboratory experiments as general chemistry questions

The first abbreviated laboratory experiment students were given to express as general chemistry questions focused on calorimetry. Students were asked to think aloud and voice their thoughts as they read through the experiment and decided on the values of the various pieces of data, they were asked to attempt to determine the specific heat of the metal after they selected values for the various pieces of data, as a mechanism to promote some reflection on the values they selected, and they were also asked to express their final answer in the form of a general chemistry question. We found that students did not always present all the components they considered in their think aloud processes in the final general chemistry questions, so the results presented in Table 2 include the components the students considered in their think aloud process and in their final general chemistry questions.

These results showed that all the students considered all the various components during the think aloud process, and the numbers of students expressing the various components were fewer when students expressed the final general chemistry question compared to when students were reading through the experiments and considering the various components. When students were reading through the experiments, we found that they considered each component that was required in the procedure, and there were relevant data recording areas embedded in the procedure, so students could consider the various components one at a time. When students were expressing their final general chemistry questions, however, they had to consider all the various components at the same time. The cognitive load associated with considering a single component alone is lower than that associated with considering multiple components together (Paas et al., 2003), which may explain why students did not attend to and did not express all the various components in their final general chemistry questions.

The second abbreviated laboratory experiment students were given to express as general chemistry questions focused on volumetric analysis. Once again students were asked to think aloud and voice their thoughts as they read through the experiment and decided on the values of the various pieces of data, they were asked to attempt to determine the molar concentration of the unknown monoprotic acid after they selected values for the various pieces of data, as a mechanism to promote some reflection on the values they selected, and they were also asked to express their final answer in the form of a general chemistry question. In expressing the previous calorimetry experiment as a general chemistry question, students needed to select values for all the pieces of data that were required for the final general chemistry question. In contrast, in expressing this volumetric analysis experiment as a general chemistry question, students only needed to select values for the initial and final buret volumes of NaOH(aq.), but the general chemistry question would have required additional data that were given in the laboratory experiment, including the volume of the unknown monoprotic acid (25.00 mL), the information that the unknown acid was monoprotic, and the concentration of the NaOH(aq.) (0.1012 M). The results presented in Table 3 include the components the students considered in their think aloud process and in their final general chemistry questions.

These results showed that all the students considered the volumes of NaOH(aq.) during the think aloud process, and the numbers of students expressing the various components (associated with the volume of NaOH(aq.)) were fewer when students expressed the final general chemistry question compared to when students were reading through the experiments and deciding on the values of the various components. These results may again be due to cognitive load factors, as previously discussed.

These results also showed that greater percentages of students attended to the volumes of NaOH(aq.) in their final general chemistry question, compared to the other components. The volumes of NaOH(aq.) were the components the students had to select values for, whereas the values for the other components were given in the laboratory experiment, so it was possible that students paid more attention to the volumes of NaOH(aq.) because they selected values for those components.

One example of a student's expression of a final general chemistry question, with interviewer (I) and student (P1) input, was:

“I: Yeah, it's okay. Go ahead and do the question.

P1: Given 0.1012 M NaOH solution. Determine the molar concentration of an unknown monoprotic acid if the initial volume of NaOH is 10 mL and the final volume is 15 mL. (written response)

I: Awesome, so that's your final question? Your final response?

P1: Oh, uh I think I forgot a number haha.

I: Oh okay, no problem.

P1: Given 0.1012 M NaOH solution. Determine the molar concentration of an unknown monoprotic acid if the initial volume of NaOH is 10 mL and the final volume is 15 mL. There is 25 mL of the unknown monoprotic acid. (written response)

P1: Okay I think that's my final answer.” (interview, 11/4/2021)

In this excerpt, the student did not initially include the volume of the acid in their general chemistry question but did realize that component was missing and subsequently included it. This excerpt is supported by the cognitive load framework as there were multiple components which had to be considered and expressed in the general chemistry questions, and one or more of these components could be forgotten or unaddressed.

In these activities to express the experiments as general chemistry questions, students were not given any feedback, as we were interested in what students would produce by themselves. The results showed that students were very successful in considering the various components associated with expressing experiments as general chemistry questions during the think aloud process, but less successful in considering the various components in their final general chemistry questions. One mechanism to enhance students’ success in considering the various components in their final general chemistry questions could be to provide the students with feedback, in line with the fourth principle of Merrill's first principles of instruction, which notes that appropriate feedback is useful to students as they apply new knowledge to solve problems (Merrill, 2002). If instructors use these types of activities with their students, that feedback could come from the instructor, or it could come from other students. Feedback could be given using an iterative process, in which students generate the general chemistry questions, then the instructor or other students attempt to solve the questions; if the questions can’t be solved then feedback can be given to address why the questions couldn’t be solved, and the students who initially generated the questions would update the questions appropriately, then once again the instructor or other students attempt to solve the questions. This process continues until the general chemistry questions can be solved.

Such an iterative approach is supported by the work of Chopra et al. (2017), who reported that cooperative student work was found to engender mindful engagement in students in a laboratory setting, so this approach could be beneficial to the various students involved. In addition, this type of iterative approach to these types of activities would lead to students considering the various components in the laboratory experiments at the same time, instead of considering each of the various components one at a time. As such, this approach might provide a mechanism for more student thinking associated with laboratory activities as opposed to less thinking and simply following laboratory procedures, which is an issue that has previously been identified in the literature (DeKorver and Towns, 2015; Galloway and Bretz, 2016; Galloway et al., 2016).

Generating experimental designs corresponding to typical general chemistry questions

The first general chemistry question students were given to generate the corresponding experimental designs was focused on magnesium metal reacting with HCl(aq.). Students were asked to think aloud and voice their thoughts as they read the general chemistry question and generated an experimental design, and they were also asked to attempt to determine the concentration of HCl(aq.) in the question after they generated their experimental design. The results presented in Table 4 include the aspects of the experimental design the students included during the interviews.

These results showed that the greatest percentage of students (97%) included the experimental step of placing the magnesium sample into the HCl(aq.), which may have been due to this step being explicitly mentioned in the general chemistry question. Interestingly, this step was also the only step in the question which included a passive verb in which students could possibly be the actor responsible for the action (Purdue, 2022), with the action being placing the magnesium sample into the HCl(aq.). Not all students included the experimental design aspects related to obtaining measurements for the initial and unreacted masses of magnesium and the HCl(aq.).

No students indicated how the reaction would be deemed complete, such as observing when no more bubbles were formed due to the evolution of hydrogen gas. Other experimental design aspects which were included by low percentages of students involved separating the unreacted magnesium from the solution, washing the unreacted magnesium with water, and drying the unreacted magnesium. None of these aspects were obvious from the general chemistry question, and it appeared that students generally did not consider these aspects.

The second general chemistry question students were given to generate the corresponding experimental designs was focused on calorimetry. Students were asked to think aloud and voice their thoughts as they read the general chemistry question and generated an experimental design, and they were also asked to attempt to determine the mass of the water at 27.8 °C in the question after they generated their experimental design. The results presented in Table 5 include the aspects of the experimental design the students included during the interviews.

These results showed that the greatest percentage of students (93%) included the experimental step of mixing the two samples of water, which again may have been due to this step being explicitly mentioned in the general chemistry question. Again, interestingly, this step was also the only step in the question which included an aforementioned passive verb. Less than half the students included most of the experimental design aspects related to heating and obtaining measurements for the samples of water.

In these activities to generate experimental designs from general chemistry questions, students were not given any feedback, as we were interested in what students would generate by themselves. The results showed that students were very successful in including experimental design aspects that were explicitly mentioned in the general chemistry questions, but less successful in including other experimental design aspects, although it should be noted that all but one of the experimental design aspects were included at least once by students. One mechanism to enhance students’ success in including the various experimental design aspects could be to provide the students with feedback (Merrill, 2002). This feedback could come from the instructor or from other students, as described previously, using an iterative process in which the instructor or other students attempt “dry runs” of the experimental designs and provide feedback until the experimental designs are complete.

Since the students were very successful in including experimental design aspects that were explicitly mentioned in the general chemistry questions, and which included the aforementioned passive verbs, another mechanism to enhance students’ success in including the various experimental design aspects could be to initially use general chemistry questions which include and mention more experimental design aspects which include such passive verbs. Over time, the general chemistry questions used could shift to the more typical general chemistry questions, which include less experimental design aspects and fewer such passive verbs. This type of scaffolding is also recommended in Merrill's first principles of instruction (2002). To illustrate this mechanism, we can examine one of the general chemistry questions used in this study, which focused on the reaction of magnesium metal and HCl(aq.). The question used in this study was:

A 0.452 g sample of magnesium metal is placed into a 25.00 mL sample of HCl(aq). After the reaction is complete, 0.397 g of magnesium metal is left. What was the concentration of HCl(aq)?

This question can be rewritten to include more experimental design aspects and such passive verbs:

In an experiment, 0.452 g of magnesium metal is measured out and 25.00 mL of HCl(aq.) is obtained. The magnesium metal is placed into the HCl(aq.) and the reaction is observed until the reaction is complete. After the reaction is complete, there is magnesium metal remaining and after being separated from the mixture, cleaned, and dried, its mass is found to be 0.397 g. What was the concentration of HCl(aq.)?

This rewritten question could be the type of question used initially with students who are beginning to generate experimental designs from general chemistry questions, while the original question could be the type of question used with students who have some experience with this type of activity.

Experimental design activities are important at both the secondary and tertiary levels (NRC, 2012; NGSS, 2013; American Chemical Society, 2015), and are components of various type of inquiry-based activities (Bruck et al., 2008), which have been shown to have a positive impact on student learning and understanding (Minner et al., 2010; Furtak et al., 2012). Still, most undergraduate chemistry teaching laboratory experiences are not inquiry-based, but are of the cookbook variety (Fay et al., 2007; Bruck et al., 2008). The activities to generate experimental designs from general chemistry questions presented here can be used to widely introduce experimental design and aspects of inquiry-based activities into general chemistry curricula.

Implications

The results of this study provided several implications for research and teaching. Regarding research, this study added to the literature on the considerations of language in the chemistry curriculum (Quílez, 2019) and cognitive load in the chemistry laboratory (Agustian and Seery, 2017; Paterson, 2019), and potentially identified avenues for future research in these areas.

Regarding teaching, this study provided considerations and suggestions for implementing the types of activities presented in the study. To evaluate the capabilities of ChatGPT in generating an experimental design, we used the first general chemistry question students were given in this study and ChatGPT the following prompt:

“I have a general chemistry question. I would like to generate an experimental procedure to conduct in the lab which corresponds to the general chemistry question. For the experimental procedure I would need details on how all the measurements are made. I can only use chemicals mentioned in the general chemistry question. The general chemistry question is: A 0.452 g sample of magnesium metal is placed into a 25.00 mL sample of HCl(aq). After the reaction is complete, 0.397 g of magnesium metal is left. What was the concentration of HCl(aq)?”

ChatGPT's response was:

“Experimental procedure:

1. Weigh 0.452 g of magnesium metal using an analytical balance and record the mass to the nearest 0.001 g.

2. Add the magnesium metal to a 250 mL Erlenmeyer flask.

3. Measure 25.00 mL of hydrochloric acid using a graduated cylinder and add it to the Erlenmeyer flask containing the magnesium metal.

4. Swirl the flask gently to ensure that the magnesium metal is completely covered by the HCl(aq) solution.

5. Wait for the reaction to complete. This can be determined when no more hydrogen gas is being evolved from the flask.

6. Carefully decant the solution into a clean, dry beaker.

7. Rinse the remaining magnesium metal in the flask with distilled water and add the rinse water to the beaker containing the HCl(aq.) solution.

8. Weigh the leftover magnesium metal using an analytical balance and record the mass to the nearest 0.001 g.

9. Calculate the mass of magnesium reacted by subtracting the mass of leftover magnesium from the initial mass of magnesium.

10. Calculate the concentration of HCl(aq) using the balanced chemical equation and stoichiometry: a. Write the balanced chemical equation: Mg(s) + 2HCl(aq) → MgCl2[sic](aq) + H2[sic](g) b. Calculate the number of moles of magnesium reacted by dividing the mass of magnesium reacted by its molar mass (24.31 g/mol). c. Use stoichiometry to determine the number of moles of HCl(aq.) reacted, which is equal to twice the number of moles of magnesium reacted (since the stoichiometric ratio of Mg to HCl is 1[thin space (1/6-em)]:[thin space (1/6-em)]2 in the balanced equation). d. Calculate the concentration of HCl(aq) by dividing the number of moles of HCl(aq) reacted by the volume of HCl(aq.) used (25.00 mL or 0.02500 L).” (written response, 4/25/2023)

Evaluation of ChatGPT's experimental design showed that ChatGPT successfully included nearly all aspects of the experimental design, and only did not include the aspect of drying the unreacted magnesium. In addition, ChatGPT provided proper steps for the determination of the concentration of HCl(aq.). We recommend that ChatGPT's capabilities be taken into consideration by instructors who plan to use the types of activities reported in this study, or instructors who use inquiry-based or problem-based activities featuring experimental designs generated by students (Domin, 1999; Bruck et al., 2008). Instructors should keep in mind that work submitted may have been partially or nearly wholly produced by ChatGPT or other artificial intelligence chatbots.

Limitations

Student participation in this study was voluntary, and it is possible that students who did not participate in the study would have presented different experimental designs and general chemistry questions. Various instructors taught the various first semester general chemistry lecture and laboratory courses and students experienced similar chemistry content in their first semester general chemistry lecture and laboratory courses, but with different instructors that content might be covered with different styles and at different paces and depths. The necessary components of the general chemistry questions expressed from laboratory experiments and the experimental designs generated from general chemistry questions were determined by the authors of this manuscript, and different instructors might deem fewer or more components to be necessary. Lastly, all the students in the study expressed general chemistry laboratory activities as typical general chemistry questions first, then generated experimental designs corresponding to typical general chemistry questions after; it is possible that different results may have been obtained in the study if the order of the student activities had been reversed.

Conclusions

The results of this study indicated that having students engage in the types of activities described herein can enable a wide variety of general chemistry students, even those not experiencing inquiry-based teaching laboratory experiences, to take part in experimental design activities. Experimental design is a feature of some inquiry-based activities (Domin, 1999; Bruck et al., 2008), so this study provided a mechanism for widely adopting aspects of inquiry into the general chemistry curriculum. This study also provided a potential mechanism for more student thinking associated with laboratory activities instead of less thinking and simply following laboratory procedures, which is an issue that has previously been identified in the literature (DeKorver and Towns, 2015; Galloway and Bretz, 2016; Galloway et al., 2016). Furthermore, in this study we provided considerations and suggestions for implementing the types of activities in the study, including considerations of cognitive load (Paas et al., 2003) and language in the chemistry curriculum (Quílez, 2019), and suggestions to use an iterative approach to feedback as well as scaffolding (Merrill, 2002). Finally, in this study we examined the implications of ChatGPT on experimental design activities and recommended that instructors take ChatGPT's capabilities into consideration as experimental designs may be partially or nearly wholly produced by ChatGPT.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest to declare.

Appendices

Appendix 1

Interview protocol

Interview Protocol for the project entitled: General Chemistry Students’ Ability to Make Connections Between General Chemistry Laboratory Experiments and General Chemistry Questions

This project will explore how general chemistry students make connections between the general chemistry laboratory and the general chemistry lecture.

SECTION 0: CONSENT – do you understand the information in the consent document?

SECTION I: Demographic Information

This section gathers demographic information about the student.

1. How old are you?

2. How long have you been enrolled in university?

3. What is your student classification?

4. What is your major?

5. How many years have you studied chemistry in university? Please list any chemistry courses you have taken or are taking.

6. What is your ethnicity/race?

SECTION II: Initial Thoughts

This section gathers information about any initial connections between lecture and laboratory.

1. Are you currently taking the general chemistry I lecture and general chemistry I laboratory together, or have you done so in the past?

2. If you are taking or have taken the lecture and lab courses together, please describe some ways in which you feel the lecture and lab were connected or related to one another. After the student gives initial examples, ask if there are any more examples.

3. If you are taking or have taken the lecture and lab courses together, please describe some ways in which you feel there was a disconnect between lecture and lab, or ways in which they were not related to one another. After the student gives initial examples, ask if there are any more examples.

4. If you could make changes to the way the lecture and lab are connected, what would you do?

SECTION III: Student Connections

Because many individuals have never had to reflect on their experiences and analyze their thought processes, some questions may be a little difficult to answer. This is why there will be a sample example for each section as to how to properly organize their thoughts to be able to respond to the questions.

Focus Question: How do students make connections between chemistry questions and chemistry laboratory experiments?

A. Laboratory to Question

This section helps identify the connections students make from a laboratory experiment to question. This will allow students to reflect and elaborate on their thought process and ideas about converting a laboratory experiment to a question.

Purpose: To identify the connections that a student makes from a laboratory experiment to a chemistry question.

“General chemistry laboratory experiments often involve determining the value of an unknown quantity. General chemistry questions often involve solving for an unknown variable. In this part of the interview, I would like for you to think about the laboratory experiments I present to you, and about how you can express the overall laboratory experiment in the form of a chemistry question. I would also like to know what you are thinking, so please voice your thoughts and say what you are thinking and use the Zoom annotation tool or Whiteboard.chat to write down your ideas for how you can convert the overall laboratory experiment to a question. I will show you an example first to help you understand.”

https://www.whiteboard.chat/join/210937c9-9ed1-471c-89ab-0d1739c595ce-pgNum-1

CLASS CODE: S0JHr7B

Given Example

Laboratory to Question Sample: Experiment on the Chemistry of Copper

Note: this experiment was from a commercial laboratory manual so it cannot be shown here.

Student Question

Laboratory to Question #1: Experiment on Calorimetry

Note: this experiment was from a commercial laboratory manual so it cannot be shown here.

Student Question

Laboratory to Question #2: Experiment on Volumetric Analysis

Note: this experiment was from a commercial laboratory manual so it cannot be shown here.

B. Question to Laboratory

This section helps identify the connections students can make from questions to laboratory experiments. This will allow students to reflect and elaborate on their thought process and ideas about converting a question to a laboratory experiment.

Purpose: To identify the connections that a student can make from a chemistry question to a laboratory experiment.

“General chemistry questions often involve solving for an unknown variable. General chemistry laboratory experiments often involve determining the value of an unknown quantity. In this part of the interview, I would like for you to think about the general chemistry questions I present to you, and about how you can express the chemistry question as steps in a procedure for a laboratory experiment to determine the unknown variable in the chemistry question. I would also like to know what you are thinking, so please voice your thoughts and say what you are thinking and use the Zoom annotation tool or Whiteboard.chat to write down your ideas for how you can express the chemistry question as steps in a procedure for a laboratory experiment. I will show you an example first to help you understand.”

https://www.whiteboard.chat/join/210937c9-9ed1-471c-89ab-0d1739c595ce-pgNum-1

CLASS CODE: S0JHr7B

Given Example

Question to Laboratory Sample

A 2.512 g tablet containing some calcium carbonate was placed into excess 0.142 M HCl(aq.). If 0.275 L of CO2(g) is given off at 25.0 °C and 1.02 atm, what was the percent by mass of calcium carbonate in the tablet?

SPACE FOR WORK

Student Question

Question to Laboratory #1

Explain to me how you would convert the following questions to a laboratory experiment. Then please solve the question.

A 0.452 g sample of magnesium metal is placed into a 25.00 mL sample of HCl(aq.). After the reaction is complete, 0.397 g of magnesium metal is left. What was the concentration of HCl(aq.)?

SPACE FOR WORK

Student Question

Question to Laboratory #2

Explain to me how you would convert the following questions to a laboratory experiment. Then please solve the question.

A 57.5 g sample of water at 75.3 °C was mixed with some water at 27.8 °C, and the final temperature at the end was 40.9 °C. What was the mass of the water at 27.8 °C?

SPACE FOR WORK

SECTION IV: Wrap-Up

This section wraps up the interview.

1. How has this interview changed your opinion on how lab and lecture are connected or related to one another?

2. Do you have any questions for me?

3. This is the end of the interview, thank you very much.

Appendix 2

Methods

Data Collection and Analysis – Expressing General Chemistry Laboratory Experiments as General Chemistry Questions

The third part of the interviews focused on students expressing general chemistry laboratory activities as typical general chemistry questions. We did realize that students were unlikely to be familiar with this type of activity, so in the interviews, an example of the process was modeled so that students could understand the nature of the process before engaging in the process themselves.

In the interviews, an abbreviated laboratory experiment focused on the chemistry of copper was shared on the screen to model the process. The laboratory experiment was abbreviated in that the background information, data recording sheets, and post-lab questions were removed, so the components remaining were the objective and the procedure, with relevant data recording areas embedded in the procedure, along with an image and a figure showing various parts of the chemical processes. This particular experiment focused on obtaining a test tube (with the mass of the test tube being recorded), placing a sample of copper of less than 0.02 g into the test tube (with the combined mass of the sample of copper and test tube being recorded), taking the copper through a series of five reactions in the test tube with the last reaction yielding elemental copper, obtaining the mass of the recovered copper (with the mass of the recovered copper being recorded), then determining the percent recovery of the copper.

The modeled process of expressing the laboratory experiment as a general chemistry question involved selecting the mass of the test tube (the value of 20.000 g was selected), selecting the combined mass of the sample of copper and test tube (the value of 20.019 g was selected, so that the mass of the copper sample was less than 0.02 g), selecting the mass of the recovered copper (the value of 0.015 g was selected, so that the mass of the recovered copper was less than the initial mass of the sample of copper), showing the calculation to determine the percent recovery of the copper (79%), and finally, expressing the general chemistry question:

A 0.019 g sample of copper went through 5 cycles of chemical reactions. After the cycles were completed, the mass of recovered copper is 0.015 g. What is the percent recovery of the copper?

This process of expressing the laboratory experiment as a general chemistry question was modeled by the first author.

Students were then given two abbreviated laboratory experiments – one focused on calorimetry followed by one focused on volumetric analysis – to express as general chemistry questions. The abbreviated calorimetry experiment was abbreviated in that it consisted only of the objective and the procedure, with relevant data recording areas embedded in the procedure, along with three images and a figure showing various parts of the experimental setup; the experiment was shared on the screen with the students. This experiment focused on obtaining a 10–30 g sample of an unknown dry metal and measuring its mass (with the mass of the metal being recorded), placing the metal into a test tube then placing the test tube into a beaker of boiling water to heat the metal (with the temperature of the boiling water, representing the temperature of the metal, being recorded), constructing a styrofoam cup calorimeter (with the mass of the calorimeter being recorded), adding approximately 20 mL of water at room temperature to the calorimeter (with the combined mass of the calorimeter and water being recorded, and the temperature of the water being recorded), transferring the hot metal to the calorimeter and monitoring the temperature of the water inside the calorimeter (with the highest temperature observed being recorded), then determining the specific heat of the metal.

To express this laboratory experiment as a general chemistry question, the question would have to contain: (a) the mass of the sample of metal (between 10–30 g); (b) the temperature of the hot metal (which would be its initial temperature and would correspond to the temperature of boiling water, 100 °C); (c) the mass of the water in the calorimeter (approximately 20 g); (d) the temperature of the water at room temperature (which would be the initial temperature of the water, between 15–25 °C); and (e) the highest temperature observed after the hot metal is placed into the water at room temperature (which would be the final temperature of the sample of metal and the water in the calorimeter, and would fall somewhere between the temperature of the water at room temperature and the sample of metal at 100 °C). These necessary components of the general chemistry question were determined by the authors of this manuscript and were written within the context of the potential macroscopic, microscopic, and symbolic representation components, as previously discussed. The student-generated general chemistry questions were evaluated for the presence of the beginning portion of each of the above components (the portion not in brackets) to focus on the components the students considered, as opposed to the values of the components the students considered.

Students were also given an abbreviated laboratory experiment focused on volumetric analysis to express as a general chemistry question. The abbreviated volumetric analysis experiment was abbreviated in that it consisted only of the objective and the procedure, with relevant data recording areas embedded in the procedure, along with two images and a figure showing various parts of the experimental setup; the experiment was shared on the screen with the students. This experiment focused on obtaining 25.00 mL of an unknown monoprotic acid, adding two drops of phenolphthalein indicator, titrating the acid with 0.1012 M NaOH(aq.) (with the initial and final buret volumes of NaOH(aq.) being recorded), then determining the molar concentration of the unknown monoprotic acid.

To express this laboratory experiment as a general chemistry question, the question would have to contain: (a) the volume of the unknown monoprotic acid (25.00 mL); (b) the information that the unknown acid was monoprotic; (c) the concentration of the NaOH(aq.) (0.1012 M); and (d) the initial and final volumes of NaOH(aq.) in the buret, or the total volume of NaOH(aq.) delivered from the buret. These necessary components of the general chemistry question were determined by the authors of this manuscript and were written within the context of the potential macroscopic, microscopic, and symbolic representation components, as previously discussed. Once again, the student-generated general chemistry questions were evaluated for the presence of the beginning portion of each of the above components (the portion not in brackets) to focus on the components the students considered, as opposed to the values of the components the students considered.

Data Collection and Analysis – Generating Experimental Designs Corresponding to Typical General Chemistry Questions

The fourth part of the interview focused on students generating experimental designs corresponding to typical general chemistry questions. Again, we realized that students were unlikely to be familiar with this type of activity, so in the interviews, an example of the process was modeled so that students could understand the nature of the process before engaging in the process themselves.

In the interviews, the following general chemistry question was shared on the screen to model the process:

A 2.512 g tablet containing some calcium carbonate was placed into excess 0.142 M HCl(aq.). If 0.275 L of CO2(g) is given off at 25.0 °C and 1.02 atm, what was the percent by mass of calcium carbonate in the tablet?

The process of generating an experimental design corresponding to this general chemistry question involved analyzing the question to determine the glassware, equipment, supplies, and chemicals needed, the experimental procedures involving glassware, equipment, supplies, and chemicals, and the measurements needed involving glassware, equipment, supplies, and chemicals. The steps in the experimental design were: (a) obtain the mass of the tablet on a balance; (b) determine the volume of 0.142 M HCl(aq.) that would be required for excess HCl(aq.) by calculating the volume of HCl(aq.) required if the entire tablet were composed of calcium carbonate. This volume of HCl(aq.) required was 354 mL, so for the experimental design, pour 400 mL of 0.142 M HCl(aq.) into a 600 mL beaker; (c) construct a CO2(g) collector by covering the beaker with a rubber stopper with an opening for a tube leading to a bottle to collect the CO2(g) generated; (d) place the tablet into the beaker containing HCl(aq.), cover the beaker and collect the CO2(g); (e) measure the temperature of the CO2(g) using a thermometer; (f) measure the pressure of the CO2(g) using a pressure gauge. Finally, the calculation to determine the percent by mass of calcium carbonate in the tablet (45.7%) was shown. This process of generating an experimental design corresponding to the general chemistry question was modeled by the first author.

Students were then given two general chemistry questions to generate the corresponding experimental designs. The first question was:

A 0.452 g sample of magnesium metal is placed into a 25.00 mL sample of HCl(aq.). After the reaction is complete, 0.397 g of magnesium metal is left. What was the concentration of HCl(aq.)?

To generate an experimental design corresponding to this general chemistry question, the experimental design would likely minimally contain steps similar to: (a) obtain the initial mass of the magnesium sample (on a balance); (b) measure 25.00 mL of HCl(aq.) (using a piece of glassware); (c) pour the HCl(aq.) into a container; (d) place the magnesium sample into the HCl(aq.); (e) indicate how the reaction would be deemed complete; (f) separate the unreacted magnesium from the solution (using a filter); (g) wash the unreacted magnesium (with water); (h) dry the unreacted magnesium (with paper towel); (i) obtain the mass of the unreacted magnesium sample (on a balance). These necessary steps of the experimental design were determined by the authors of this manuscript and were written within the context of the glassware, equipment, supplies, and chemicals used in the various procedures and measurements, as previously discussed. The student-generated experimental designs were evaluated for the presence of the beginning portion of each of the above components (the portion not in brackets) to focus on the components the students considered, as opposed to the level of detail of the components the students considered.

Students were also given a second general chemistry question, focused on calorimetry, to generate the corresponding experimental design. The second question was:

A 57.5 g sample of water at 75.3 °C was mixed with some water at 27.8 °C, and the final temperature at the end was 40.9 °C. What was the mass of the water at 27.8 °C?

To generate an experimental design corresponding to this general chemistry question, the experimental design would likely minimally contain steps similar to: (a) obtain the mass of the 57.5 g sample of water (in a container on a balance) or obtain the volume of the 57.5 g sample of water (in a graduated cylinder); (b) place the 57.5 g sample of water in a container (if the volume was measured in a graduated cylinder); (c) heat the 57.5 g sample of water in a container to 75.3 °C (using a heat source); (d) record the temperature of the 57.5 g sample of water (using a thermometer); (e) place a second sample of water in a container; (f) heat the second sample of water in a container to 27.8 °C (using a heat source); (g) record the temperature of the second sample of water (using a thermometer); (h) mix the two samples of water; (i) record the highest temperature reached by the mixed samples of water (using a thermometer). These necessary steps of the experimental design were determined by the authors of this manuscript and were written within the context of the glassware, equipment, supplies, and chemicals used in the various procedures and measurements, as previously discussed. Once again, the student-generated experimental designs were evaluated for the presence of the beginning portion of each of the above components (the portion not in brackets) to focus on the components the students considered, as opposed to the level of detail of the components the students considered.

Acknowledgements

We would like to acknowledge the students for taking part in the study. This work was supported by the Welch Foundation under Grant BG-0017.

References

  1. Agustian H. Y. and Seery M. K., (2017), Reasserting the role of pre-laboratory activities in chemistry education: a proposed framework for their design, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 18(4), 518–532.
  2. American Chemical Society, (2015), Undergraduate professional education in chemistry: ACS guidelines and evaluation procedures for bachelor's degree programs, Washington, DC: American Chemical Society.
  3. Bruck L. B., Bretz S. L. and Towns M. H., (2008), Characterizing the level of inquiry in the undergraduate laboratory, J. Coll. Sci. Teach., 38(1), 52–58.
  4. Carmel J. H., Herrington, D. G., Posey L. A., Ward J. S., Pollock A. M. and Cooper M. M., (2019), Helping students to “do science”: Characterizing scientific practices in general chemistry laboratory curricula, J. Chem. Educ., 96(3), 423–434.
  5. Chopra I., O’Connor J., Pancho R., Chrzanowski M. and Sandi-Urena S., (2017), Reform in a general chemistry laboratory: How do students experience change in the instructional approach? Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 18(1), 113–126.
  6. Clark T. M., (2023), Investigating the use of an artificial intelligence chatbot with general chemistry exam questions, J. Chem. Educ., 100(5), 1905–1916.
  7. Cranford K. N., Tiettmeyer J. M., Chuprinko B. C., Jordan S. and Grove N. P., (2014), Measuring load on working memory: the use of heart rate as a means of measuring chemistry students’ cognitive load, J. Chem. Educ., 91(5), 641–647.
  8. Crujeiras-Pérez B. and Jiménez-Aleixandre M. P., (2017), High school students’ engagement in planning investigations: findings from a longitudinal study in Spain, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 18(1), 99–112.
  9. DeKorver B. K. and Towns M. H., (2015), General chemistry students’ goals for chemistry laboratory coursework, J. Chem. Educ., 92(12), 2031–2037.
  10. Domin D. S., (1999), A review of laboratory instruction styles, J. Chem. Educ., 76(4), 543–547.
  11. Doughan S. and Shahmuradyan A., (2022), Introducing second year analytical chemistry students to research through experimental design in the undergraduate teaching laboratory, J. Chem. Educ., 99(12), 4001–4007.
  12. Duffy P. L., Enneking K. M., Gampp T. W., Hakim K. A., Coleman A. F., Laforest K. V., Paulson D. M., Paulson E. T., Shepard J. D., Tiettmeyer J. M., Mazzarone K. M. and Grove N. P., (2019), Form versus function: a comparison of Lewis structure drawing tools and the extraneous cognitive load they induce, J. Chem. Educ., 96(2), 238–247.
  13. Duschl R. A. and Bybee R. W., (2014), Planning and carrying out investigations: an entry to learning and to teacher professional development around NGSS science and engineering practices, Int. J. STEM Educ., 1, 12.
  14. Farley E. R., Fringer V. and Wainman J. W., (2021), Simple approach to incorporating experimental design into a general chemistry lab, J. Chem. Educ., 98(2), 350–356.
  15. Fay M. E., Grove N. P., Towns M. H. and Bretz S. L., (2007), A rubric to characterize inquiry in the undergraduate chemistry laboratory, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 8(2), 212–219.
  16. Furtak E. M., Seidel T., Iverson H. and Briggs D. C., (2012), Experimental and quasi-experimental studies of inquiry-based science teaching: a meta-analysis, Rev. Educ. Res., 82(3), 300–329.
  17. Galloway K. R. and Bretz S. L., (2016), Video episodes and action cameras in the undergraduate chemistry laboratory: eliciting student perceptions of meaningful learning, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 17(1), 139–155.
  18. Galloway K. R., Malakpa Z. and Bretz S. L., (2016), Investigating affective experiences in the undergraduate chemistry laboratory: Students’ perceptions of control and responsibility, J. Chem. Educ., 93(2), 227–238.
  19. Goodey N. M. and Talgar C. P., (2016), Guided inquiry in a biochemistry laboratory course improves experimental design ability, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 17(4), 1127–1144.
  20. Humphry T. and Fuller A. L., (2023), Potential ChatGPT use in undergraduate chemistry laboratories, J. Chem. Educ., 100(4), 1434–1436.
  21. Landis J. R. and Koch G. G., (1977), The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data, Biometrics, 33(1), 159–174.
  22. Lawrie G., (2023), Establishing a delicate balance in the relationship between artificial intelligence and authentic assessment in student learning, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 24(2), 392–393.
  23. Merrill M. D., (2002), First principles of instruction, Educ. Technol. Res. Dev., 50(3), 43–59.
  24. Minner D. D., Levy A. J. and Century J., (2010), Inquiry-based science instruction – What is it and does it matter? Results from a research synthesis years 1984 to 2002, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 47(4), 474–496.
  25. National Research Council, (2012), A framework for k-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas, Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
  26. NGSS Lead States, (2013), Next Generation Science Standards: For states, by states, Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
  27. OpenAI, (2022), Introducing ChatGPT. Available at: https://openai.com/blog/chatgpt [Accessed April 2023].
  28. Paas F., Renkl A. and Sweller J., (2003), Cognitive load theory and instructional design: Recent developments, Educ. Psychol., 38(1), 1–4.
  29. Paterson D. J., (2019), Design and evaluation of integrated instructions in secondary-level chemistry practical work, J. Chem. Educ., 96(11), 2510–2517.
  30. Purdue University, (2022), Purdue Online Writing Lab: Passive verbs. Available at: https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/general_writing/grammar/verb_tenses/passive_verbs.html [Accessed April 2023].
  31. Quílez J., (2019), A categorisation of the terminological sources of student difficulties when learning chemistry, Stud. Sci. Educ., 55(2), 121–167.
  32. Sirum K. and Humburg J., (2011), The experimental design ability test (EDAT), Bioscene: J. Coll. Biol. Teach, 37(1), 8–16.
  33. Smallwood Z. M., Campbell C. D., Worrall A. F., Cahill S. T. and Stewart M. I., (2021), Synthesis and evaluation of ammonia borane: a modular, multifaceted approach introducing experimental design through guided inquiry, J. Chem. Educ., 98(11), 3514–3523.
  34. Smith K. C., Nakhleh M. B. and Bretz S. L., (2010), An expanded framework for analyzing general chemistry exams, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 11(3), 147–153.
  35. Strauss A. L. and Corbin J., (1998), Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory, 2nd edn, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
  36. Thomson P. I. T. and Lamie P., (2022), Introducing elements of inquiry and experimental design in the first year of an undergraduate laboratory program, J. Chem. Educ., 99(12), 4118–4123.
  37. Tiettmeyer J. M., Coleman A. F., Balok R. S., Gampp T. W., Duffy P. L., Mazzarone K. M. and Grove N. P., (2017), Unraveling the complexities: An investigation of the factors that induce load in chemistry students constructing Lewis structures, J. Chem. Educ., 94(3), 282–288.
  38. University of Texas Rio Grande Valley, (2022), UTRGV common data set 2021–2022. Available at: https://www.utrgv.edu/sair/_files/documents/cds_2021-2022.pdf [Accessed February 2023].
This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2023